AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
I don't think it's fair to say that the left values collectivism the same way the right values individualism. The left simply have a slightly broader definition of liberty than the right. The libertarian right values individual freedom over coercion as a kind of axiomatic moral value from which all policy should derive. The left also values individual freedom but also sees things like equality of opportunity, and alleviation of unnecessary deprivation/suffering as additional elements of liberty (which applies to individuals, not just "collectives"). Contrary to what the right will say, progressives do not value social collectivism as an end in-and-of-itself. We only look to collective solutions when it is clear that non-collective measures will not address a problem.
I wasn't talking about liberty dude. The left is for social responsibility while the right is for personal responsibility. The left aims to guarantee an equal opportunity and an equal outcome while the right only aims to guarantee an equal opportunity. And keep the bias outta this thread, we can talk about "alleviation of unnecessary deprivation/suffering" in another thread.
You can't claim to be unbiased when you miss-represent what progressives believe. We don't believe in equal outcome. We also aren't "collectivists". That's people on the right putting a pejorative on the left.
I didn't say whether collectivism is a good or bad thing, so don't assume I mean it as an insult just cuz others might. That's for the OP to decide, not for me to impose. And no the left doesn't value collectivism per se, but it's congruent with social responsibility and an external locus of control.
I guess I just don't like the term collectivist. Most liberals/progressives don't apply it to themselves, conservatives apply it to them. It gives the impression that all liberals care about are groups and statisics, not real people.
Quote:
And yes a lot of left wing policies aim to not only give equal opportunity, but ensure an equal outcome. Affirmative action is an example of this. No child left behind is another example. Although that's a policy implemented by Bush, neocons are more relaxed about a welfare state than other types of conservatives and it is a socially liberal policy.
I think Orwell explained this well. A lot of liberals see systemic disparities in outcomes as a symptom of unequal opportunity. Personally I'm not a big fan of race-based affirmative action, but liberals who do support it see it as a way to address unequal opportunity.
Quote:
I don't purposely misrepresent things, so keep in mind it's not "Either you're individualist or collectivist". It's that you lean more towards collectivism if you're on the left and you lean more towards individualism if you're on the right. Frankly I dunno what the hell Fascism is supposed to be since it seems to be the worst of both worlds, but anarchism is far right for sure.
Then I don't know what the hell I am as I don't see myself as "leaning" collectivist. When I think of collectivism I think of things like nationalism and cultural identity movements (of which there are elements of in the Tea Party). Personally I couldn't care less about any of that stuff. I value compassion and individual liberty. That's all. I also feel for the underdog in most situations. I also don't like it when people and/or institutions abuse power and rationalize injustice by blaming/judging victims. These issues which stir strong emotions in me are all issues that affect individuals.
07 Feb 2011, 9:44 pm
