This discussion started in the sprawl thread.  I took the initiative of splitting it off. 

 

Preferences toward choices that reinforce individualism become dangerous when they lead to isolation and alienation. I do not believe it is a good thing to remove social interaction from daily life. Using the technology and structure of modern life may seem more "convenient" or may present more "options", but it is important to be aware of the costs. Costs are more than time and money. There are environmental, social and civic considerations for daily life as well.

 

I understand that face to face interaction and close spaces can be uncomfortable. Sharing time and space with others, especially when there are alternative (perhaps more expedient) ways to get things done, can seem like a chore. However, I am saying that it is probably healthy for the community's sake if more time and space was shared. It is all about people getting along better.

 

I am not against "the individual", but think there need to be counter balance. That counter balance is "civil society", which I define as social associations and public space. There needs to be a balance, but both are essential to democracy. The same goes for "government" and the "free market" when it comes to delivering goods and services. In democracy we need both of these things, but there needs to be a balance.

 

Government, Free Market, Civil Society and the Individual are essential four agents of control or change. Political ideology mapping is actually two dimensional with a horizontal and vertical axis.

 

1. Liberal (The Left) prefer government as an agent of policy control/change

2. Conservative (The Right) prefer the free market as an angent of policy control/change

3. Libertarians (The Bottom) prefer the individual as an agent of policy control/change

4. Communitarians (The Top) prefer civil society as an agent of policy control/change

 

*A true moderate would be at the center and intersection of both these axis'

 

 

The point I tried to make earlier is that there is a gaping flaw in communitarian logic.  "Civil society" has no actual power to compel compliance, especially in the modern world.  When "society" or "the community" has the power of compulsion, it has a name:  "government"

 

That would equate to communitarianism being liberalism.  In reality, it's not.  Traditional liberalism has a tradition of respecting the rights of the individual in social and cultural matters.  Communitarianism does not.  Likewise, traditional conservatives may believe in the power of the free market...until the free market places "coarse" culture at the top of the popularity heap.  Then cultural conservatives are as enamored with the power of government as the most hard core "liberals" imaginable.

 

If you pass those "communitarian" laws, the religious right will use them too.  Count on it.  Indeed, it's a good rule of thumb to never support the imposition of a law you don't want your adversaries enforcing.  That's why a lot of conservatives (inculding myself) opposed the Patriot Act.

 

Getting back to the original point, I would say that the decrease in "forced interaction" caused by technology and other factors has made us a more tolerant society.  Consider the stereotypical "small town".  It's a very communitarian place, where everyone minds everyone else's business.  It's not a comfortable place to be "different" in any way.  The pressure to conform can be very oppressive.

 

Technology has placed us beyond that, but the logic remains.  Today it's called "communitarianism".  But it really needs the power of compulsion to make it happen, since many (probably most) of us do not consider it a worthwhile goal.

Vulpster took the words right out of my mouth.  I think staunch individualism is extremely dangerous.  It leads to mistrust and antisocial behavior.

 

I for one love forced interaction.  Once in a while it may be unpleasant, but it also can be rewarding and at the end of the day gives you a better view of how other people are and think.  Without it, we may not be at risk for any unpleasant scenarios, but I also feel we'd be missing out on a big part of life.  I equate it to people who move South to escape the cold weather, and then years later, miss the four seasons, snow at Christmas, and the excitement of the warm weather in Spring.  Many decisions nowadays are made with instant gratification in mind.

Vulpster took the words right out of my mouth.  I think staunch individualism is extremely dangerous.  It leads to mistrust and antisocial behavior.

 

I for one love forced interaction.  Once in a while it may be unpleasant, but it also can be rewarding and at the end of the day gives you a better view of how other people are and think.  Without it, we may not be at risk for any unpleasant scenarios, but I also feel we'd be missing out on a big part of life.  I equate it to people who move South to escape the cold weather, and then years later, miss the four seasons, snow at Christmas, and the excitement of the warm weather in Spring.  Many decisions nowadays are made with instant gratification in mind.

 

Mistrust is often justified.  And who defines "antisocial"?  I would say that some antisocial behaviors are averted by allowing people to deal with others largely on their own terms.

 

I despise "forced interaction" probably more than most people.  But it's certainly the majority's preference to avoid it much of the time.  That's why the technologies that allow us to do so have been so successful. 

 

The keyword here is "forced".  Very few people avoid interaction all the time.  But having the option to do so is IMO healthy.

The point I tried to make earlier is that there is a gaping flaw in communitarian logic.  "Civil society" has no actual power to compel compliance, especially in the modern world.  When "society" or "the community" has the power of compulsion, it has a name:  "government".

 

I consider civil society to be a real force of control or change in America that has value. It is often unnoticed or taken for granted because of its informal nature. Families, neighborhoods, book clubs, churches, bowling leagues, public transit routes, vetrans groups, etc. are socializing forces that help shape citizenry. They can have a positive influence on people by providing support and instill a sense of belonging to the community.

 

Civil Society, government, free market and the individual are seperate forces, but each one has power and can make change.

 

I understand that a system soley based on civil society, would not be the right thing in the extreme (for reasons you stated). However, I think we need to figure a way to balance out the overarching sense of individualism with increased civil society to solve todays problems. 

 

Getting back to the original point, I would say that the decrease in "forced interaction" caused by technology and other factors has made us a more tolerant society.   Consider the stereotypical "small town".  It's a very communitarian place, where everyone minds everyone else's business.   It's not a comfortable place to be "different" in any way.  The pressure to conform can be very oppressive.

 

Indeed, communitarians believe that "it takes a village to raise a child," and I realize that the "village" or "small town" may not be all its cracked up to be. However, you have to admire the way civil society in a small town (not government, the free market or the individual) can actually get things done and keep the community together. You have neighbors looking out for one another, watching each others children, offering assistance in time of need. It is a very egalitarian society because peoples lives are interdependent and they are constantly reminded of their interdependency.

 

I agree that the "village" is too narrow-minded and not realistic to accomodate the type of economy and population growth for today. However, I'd like to see civil society reinvorgated at the metropolitan level. Rather than be a means of oppression, it could be a valuable means of inclusion and support in age where disconnect is rampant.

 

Low voter turnout, terrorism, school shootings, gang violence, teenage pregnancy, drug use and environmental destruction are symptoms of a societal disconnect. Somewhere, people fell through the cracks and felt like they didn't belong to the community.

The point I tried to make earlier is that there is a gaping flaw in communitarian logic.  "Civil society" has no actual power to compel compliance, especially in the modern world.  When "society" or "the community" has the power of compulsion, it has a name:  "government".

 

I consider civil society to be a real force of control or change in America that has value. It is often unnoticed or taken for granted because of its informal nature. Families, neighborhoods, book clubs, churches, bowling leagues, public transit routes, vetrans groups, etc. are socializing forces that help shape citizenry. They can have a positive influence on people by providing support and instill a sense of belonging to the community.

 

Civil Society, government, free market and the individual are seperate forces, but each one has power and can make change.

 

I understand that a system soley based on civil society, would not be the right thing in the extreme (for reasons you stated). However, I think we need to figure a way to balance out the overarching sense of individualism with increased civil society to solve todays problems. 

 

Getting back to the original point, I would say that the decrease in "forced interaction" caused by technology and other factors has made us a more tolerant society.  Consider the stereotypical "small town".  It's a very communitarian place, where everyone minds everyone else's business.  It's not a comfortable place to be "different" in any way.  The pressure to conform can be very oppressive.

 

Indeed, communitarians believe that "it takes a village to raise a child," and I realize that the "village" or "small town" may not be all its cracked up to be. However, you have to admire the way civil society in a small town (not government, the free market or the individual) can actually get things done and keep the community together. You have neighbors looking out for one another, watching each others children, offering assistance in time of need. It is a very egalitarian society because peoples lives are interdependent and they are constantly reminded of their interdependency.

 

I agree that the "village" is too narrow-minded and not realistic to accomodate the type of economy and population growth for today. However, I'd like to see civil society reinvorgated at the metropolitan level. Rather than be a means of oppression, it could be a valuable means of inclusion and support in age where disconnect is rampant.

 

Low voter turnout, terrorism, school shootings, gang violence, teenage pregnancy, drug use and environmental destruction are symptoms of a societal disconnect. Somewhere, people fell through the cracks and felt like they didn't belong to the community.

 

I would hardly group "low voter turnout" with those other problems.  But I would say that many of those problems come from a decline in individual responsibility.  The "identity politics" of the left all too often provides excuses for bad behavior.  Collective punishment, of course, is not an option.

 

P. J. O'Rourke once made a sarcastic review of Hillary's book.  "It takes a village to raise a child.  The village is Washington, D.C.  You are the child".  There's some truth to that.

 

But most of the things you mentioned as "socializing forces" are voluntary.  They're not really "forced interaction".  The things you mentioned earlier are very different.  They involve forcing people to make choices they would not otherwise make.  There's that "f word", and it is indeed the difference between "society" and government.

 

I have some further comments, but I don't want to create a strawman here.  So let me ask you this:

 

Do you believe that it is the government's job to micromanage our personal lives?

 

If the answer is no, what decisions should the government be making for us?

Low voter turnout is attributed to a decline in the individual's commitment to the community, along with many other issues.

 

Political institutions should absolutely not micromanage our lives. I prefer to see a stronger Civil Society make decisions and the Free Market to deliver goods/services. Please know that I am a Republican.

 

I have different opinions for different levels of government, but in general I would say that the government's role is to provide security, infrastructure and education.

 

Civil Society is simply anything that brings people together in time and space where impressions can be made. Of course, many groups in the Civil Society category are voluntary but many are not. Civil society does not force interaction, but its nature implies interaction. It is a natural give and take between two or more people. In this give and take, many decisions can be made without "government".

 

For instance, we do not need a government agency to ensure that infants will be able to speak a language. Civil Society will do that. We do not need a law that says people must be in lines when boarding a bus. Civil Society will do that. We do not need a mandate for people to drop off meals with their neighbor in times of need or tragedy. Civil Society will do that.   

 

 

While certainly there are examples of how civil society makes certain things happen, they are restricted to things where the overwhelming majority really believes there is no better way.  The example of lines is actually a good one….for my point.  How much technology and innovation has been devoted over the years to eliminating the need to physically stand in lines?  Why is that?  Because it’s something most people absolutely hate to do.  Everything from fast food drive thrus and 24 hour supermarkets to internet sales to ATMs and direct check deposits has line reduction/elimination as a primary objective.

 

Making people live in more communal surroundings with a higher degree of sharing and involuntary interaction is something that runs entirely contrary to the trend of American society over the last several decades at least, as was quite accurately pointed out in Vulpster’s sprawl-thread post.  What that means is the key word would be “making”.  Persuading wouldn’t work.  Not in this country, not where even a significant minority, let alone the majority, feels differently.

 

Perhaps the best example would be the temperance/Prohibition movement.  There was a strong movement during the 19th century to attempt to persuade Americans to abstain from drinking alcohol.  Even though a majority probably supported this, it failed miserably.  The next step was to involve the compulsive force of government, bringing in Prohibition.  This not only failed, it did far more harm than good.    There was resistance.  Active, strong, determined resistance. 

 

Could a more oppressive, proactive government have made it happen?  Of course.  But that would have done more harm still.  Inevitably, that sort of power concentrated in the hands of government is used for dangerous purposes. 

 

Now keep in mind that all this happened in an America that was much more community minded than we are today.  For one thing, dissenters were far more deferential to the perceived majority and much more likely to keep a low profile.  Indeed, this failed experiment caused a big increase in the willingness of dissenters and minorities to stand up for themselves.  The government, and the majority, were wrong.

 

Today, individuals and minority-viewpoint groups are way more likely to stand up for themselves.  Carrie Nation would have been shot by a bar owner or tasered by the cops as soon as she started swinging her axe handle.  Any attempts to impose religion in public schools are addressed swiftly and convincingly….and often resisted.  The cops used to regularly raid and roust gay bars….the Stonewall riots put a stop to that.  The smoking ban in Ohio bars led to a plethora of outdoor decks and a certain degree of outright resistance.  In general, we’re less likely to accept being told what to do.  When we don’t like a law we find a way around it.  If there’s no way around, sometimes we’re quite willing to ignore it.

 

Indeed, the last watershed election, 1980, was all about that.  Jimmy Carter said we had to restrain our lifestyles, learn to live with less, and accept more government regulation of our lifestyles. .  Ronald Reagan begged to differ and won, winning an even bigger victory in 1984 mostly by meaning what he said.

 

What does all this mean to this discussion?  It means that Americans in general are not very willing to defer to the collective will where individual preferences are concerned.  We’re not without regard for the community, not in the least.  But we tend to place the individual first, and that tendency is increasing.  Also, we dislike involuntary interaction and have a preference for keeping our interactions with others on our terms.  This doesn’t mean we’re not socializing.  We’re not spending less time at churches, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, or doing the activities you described.  But we’re spending less times at the bank, at the grocery store, or at the BMV.  Oh, and voting just became something one can do by mail as well.

 

The evidence strongly indicates that America cannot be remade on communitarian principles without employing a great deal of compulsion and therefore a large amount of government control of the details of our lives.

 

That sort of collectivism, even of a truly majoritarian variety, cannot lead anywhere good.  At best it results in living in a never ending “Barney the Dinosaur” show.  At worst it leads to the bending of the majority’s will by unscrupulous government, and the inevitable gulags.

 

The flaw in communitarian logic is that it will be embraced voluntarily in preference to libertarian logic, particularly at what could be called the microsociological level.

 

I don’t see that working in America.  We are firm believers in personal space and privacy, and at least pay lip service to the idea of minding our own business.  In many ways, I think that makes us a better place....especially for those who do not conform to what would otherwise be considered "the norm".

Mistrust is often justified.  And who defines "antisocial"?  I would say that some antisocial behaviors are averted by allowing people to deal with others largely on their own terms.

 

I despise "forced interaction" probably more than most people.  But it's certainly the majority's preference to avoid it much of the time.  That's why the technologies that allow us to do so have been so successful. 

 

The keyword here is "forced".  Very few people avoid interaction all the time.  But having the option to do so is IMO healthy.

 

I would bet that a fairly common characteristic of the school shooters/domestic terrorists is staunch individualism and antisocial (as defined by Merriam-Webster) behavior.

 

And I am not so sure that your assertion as fact that the majority of people do not like forced interaction is true.  That's fine if it's true for you but that doesn't mean it "certainly" is for everyone else.  Even if it is true, it doesn't mean it's worth destroying the planet for.  Sometimes there are things people want that just aren't realistic.  We don't let people dump their waste wherever they want just because it may be easier for them.  We don't let people steal money just because they'd like to have more.  Why should we let (and help fund) others' desires when they have adverse affects on us all?

Mistrust is often justified.  And who defines "antisocial"?  I would say that some antisocial behaviors are averted by allowing people to deal with others largely on their own terms.

 

I despise "forced interaction" probably more than most people.  But it's certainly the majority's preference to avoid it much of the time.  That's why the technologies that allow us to do so have been so successful. 

 

The keyword here is "forced".  Very few people avoid interaction all the time.  But having the option to do so is IMO healthy.

 

I would bet that a fairly common characteristic of the school shooters/domestic terrorists is staunch individualism and antisocial (as defined by Merriam-Webster) behavior.

 

Really?  I'd bet most terrorists/guerillas are Muslims, leftists, or environmentalists.  WTF does that have to do with anything?

 

And I am not so sure that your assertion as fact that the majority of people do not like forced interaction is true.  That's fine if it's true for you but that doesn't mean it "certainly" is for everyone else.  Even if it is true, it doesn't mean it's worth destroying the planet for.  Sometimes there are things people want that just aren't realistic.  We don't let people dump their waste wherever they want just because it may be easier for them.  We don't let people steal money just because they'd like to have more.  Why should we let (and help fund) others' desires when they have adverse affects on us all?

 

The fact that so many innovations have succeeded in helping people avoid it is what suggests (strongly) that people do avoid it.  The idea that we are somehow "destroying the planet" has far less proof...enough less that there's a good deal of suspicion that the "cure" is actually the cause.

Most terrorists are leftists?  You mean like abortion clinic bombers?

 

Anyways, what it has to do with anything is that I believe that extreme individualism can lead to isolation and delusion about your fellow man.  With limited interaction with people that aren't just like you, you are more likely to see them as not being fully human.  Think of the difference between peoples' reaction to reading about deaths in some strange foreign land.  It doesn't really seem to register that it's a loss of human life.  Do we really want people to feel that way about nearly everyone?

 

And what do you mean about the cure being the cause?  Using less energy is somehow worse for the planet than using more?  It sounds like the typical right-wing justification for doing whatever the hell you want without ever looking at the ramifications of your actions.  I also have a feeling that no one could convince you that something was actually destroying the planet until it was fully destroyed.

 

I am also not so sure that many inventions have the intention of reducing forced interaction as much as attempting to make life more convenient.  For example, the attached garage, automobile, and office parking lot weren't created so people could get to work without seeing anyone else (there's still forced interaction on the roadway, just much more impersonal), those things were created so that people could get to work faster and on their own time schedule.  Online shopping was created so people could browse anything they want and buy instantly without having to raise their lazy butts from a chair, not so they didn't have to see other people.  Suburban style strip malls were created so that there was ample parking for people that now all had cars for their convenience, not so they couldn't walk to them and possibly have to meet other people on the street.  Maybe I just have different inventions in mind then you did when you made the comment, but I really can't tell since you haven't given any examples.

Most terrorists are leftists?  You mean like abortion clinic bombers?

 

Anyways, what it has to do with anything is that I believe that extreme individualism can lead to isolation and delusion about your fellow man. 

 

What's interesting is that while isolation prevents interaction in the community, if you take people from many different cultures, languages, etc and have them all in the same neighborhood, they become very indifferent towards each other. Unfortunately, there is solidarity in homogeneity. Integration/assimiation, all that, takes a lot of time and it has to be a slow permutation for it to work. People underestimate the role time plays. This doesn't directly correlate to everything you're talking about, but it is a typical argument from people on this forum that the perfect society has a mixture of everyone living together as one, blah blah etc.

 

As for technology and it's ability to promote isolation; I think there are good and bad aspects of it. It all depends how an individual uses technology. You have facebook which is the epitome of superficial interaction, but you might find a long lost friend on there, who you were able to contact and can meet up with. You have sites like meetup.com which efficiently allows people with similar interests to meet in person. Text messages causes people to say things they wouldn't normally say in real-time; could be a bad or good thing.

 

I don't think there's any bigger mystery to social scientists than school shootings. Not so much the school shooting itself, but why is it that race/class/gender plays such a role in specific deviant behavior? The kids that shoot up schools tend to be middle class white kids. Men commit suicide like 3x as much as women. If you ask me, white culture, in regards to the social pecking order (especially in high school) is very partitioned, so it's easy to have a very limited in-group and a very large out-group during such a critical time in your development.

Most terrorists are leftists?  You mean like abortion clinic bombers?

 

Anyways, what it has to do with anything is that I believe that extreme individualism can lead to isolation and delusion about your fellow man.  With limited interaction with people that aren't just like you, you are more likely to see them as not being fully human.  Think of the difference between peoples' reaction to reading about deaths in some strange foreign land.  It doesn't really seem to register that it's a loss of human life.  Do we really want people to feel that way about nearly everyone?

 

And what do you mean about the cure being the cause?  Using less energy is somehow worse for the planet than using more?  It sounds like the typical right-wing justification for doing whatever the hell you want without ever looking at the ramifications of your actions.  I also have a feeling that no one could convince you that something was actually destroying the planet until it was fully destroyed.

 

I am also not so sure that many inventions have the intention of reducing forced interaction as much as attempting to make life more convenient.  For example, the attached garage, automobile, and office parking lot weren't created so people could get to work without seeing anyone else (there's still forced interaction on the roadway, just much more impersonal), those things were created so that people could get to work faster and on their own time schedule.  Online shopping was created so people could browse anything they want and buy instantly without having to raise their lazy butts from a chair, not so they didn't have to see other people.  Suburban style strip malls were created so that there was ample parking for people that now all had cars for their convenience, not so they couldn't walk to them and possibly have to meet other people on the street.  Maybe I just have different inventions in mind then you did when you made the comment, but I really can't tell since you haven't given any examples.

 

Well there's Earth First, various anarchist groups, left wing terrorists worldwide....but let's widen the net and say "collectivists".  Pretty much each and every terrorist is trying to force others to act in a way they otherwise would not.  That includes Islamists, anti-abortion zealots, communists, etc.  Even the Unabomber, though a hermit, had an agenda of that sort.  It's not individualism if you are trying to force others to follow your will.  That's one big difference between individualism and pure selfish egotism.

 

Actually, there's a parallel between convenience and forced interaction, though much of the time saved is saved parking, in lines, etc.  The ATM, drive thrus, 24 hour supermarkets, and the internet are examples where much of the convenience results from time saved by not waiting for others.

 

The cure being the cause refers to the "cure" for both global warming and global cooling being increased government control over the economy.  Some don't think it's a coincidence that environmentalism became popular just as socialism abroad and the welfare state at home began to lose credibility.

My responses in bold navy blue...

 

Most terrorists are leftists?  You mean like abortion clinic bombers?

 

Anyways, what it has to do with anything is that I believe that extreme individualism can lead to isolation and delusion about your fellow man. 

 

What's interesting is that while isolation prevents interaction in the community, if you take people from many different cultures, languages, etc and have them all in the same neighborhood, they become very indifferent towards each other. Unfortunately, there is solidarity in homogeneity. Integration/assimiation, all that, takes a lot of time and it has to be a slow permutation for it to work. People underestimate the role time plays. This doesn't directly correlate to everything you're talking about, but it is a typical argument from people on this forum that the perfect society has a mixture of everyone living together as one, blah blah etc.

 

I'm originally from Maple Heights.  A few years ago, the PD had a story criticizing the city government for not spending money on "diversity training", despite the fact that the city was getting more diverse. 

 

Now leaving aside my opinion that "diversity training" is nothing more than a method for those graduating college with obscure majors to create jobs for themselves, we were talking about a city that billed for garbage collection and had severely cut back basics like the building department.  But the capping irony was their cover, which showed a black woman and a white woman sitting together playing bingo.  Similarly, when I was in high school black and white athletes got along far better than their non-athletic counterparts.  It never occurred to the PD writers that it's similarities, not differences, that bring people together.   Of course, the letter I wrote pointing this out went unpublished.

 

As for technology and it's ability to promote isolation; I think there are good and bad aspects of it. It all depends how an individual uses technology. You have facebook which is the epitome of superficial interaction, but you might find a long lost friend on there, who you were able to contact and can meet up with. You have sites like meetup.com which efficiently allows people with similar interests to meet in person. Text messages causes people to say things they wouldn't normally say in real-time; could be a bad or good thing.

 

Exactly.  If people are averse to "forced interaction", they have no aversion whatsoever to voluntary interaction.  To a large degree, technology facilitates the latter at least as much as it alleviates the former.  I've re-encountered numerous old friends on Myspace, and gotten closer to some IRL ones as well.

 

I don't think there's any bigger mystery to social scientists than school shootings. Not so much the school shooting itself, but why is it that race/class/gender plays such a role in specific deviant behavior? The kids that shoot up schools tend to be middle class white kids. Men commit suicide like 3x as much as women. If you ask me, white culture, in regards to the social pecking order (especially in high school) is very partitioned, so it's easy to have a very limited in-group and a very large out-group during such a critical time in your development.

 

I don't think it's a mystery....but I do think the main causes are facts many social scientists consider politically incorrect and don't wish to face.  School shooting began "in earnest" during the 1990s.  There was one in the late 70s, but the perpetrator was a woman and it wasn't her school (the "I don't like Monday's" case).  But the real beginning coincided with two trends:

 

1)  The teaching of "victimization" and the deemphasis on individual responsibility.

 

2)  The increasing medication for AD/HD, particularly of boys, and the increasing efforts to discourage traditional male behavior.  In particular, encouraging the release of emotion.   An increasingly feminist-minded educational establishment thought that if men learned to emote like women, society would change....but they have learned the reason why emotional control has been so heavily stressed as part of male "growing up" by virtually every culture for thousands of years.  Men tend to externalize anger and disappointment more than women do. 

 

As for suicides, a lot of it may come from this frustration.  But if you look at male vs. female suicides, women are more prone to do it with pills.   I suspect a lot of de facto female suicides are officially considered "accidental overdoses", just as men may do reckless things with vehicles or commit "suicide by cop, albeit with less frequency.

Even the Unabomber, though a hermit, had an agenda of that sort.  It's not individualism if you are trying to force others to follow your will.  That's one big difference between individualism and pure selfish egotism.

 

 

Forcing your beliefs on others is a form of narcissism and arrogance, because you lack empathy and assume your belief overrides someone elses. It's one thing to try and persuade people, it's another to destroy cultures that have existed for thousands of years, in the process of asserting your belief. This is a light example, but look at how western culture views the "oppression" of Muslim women. People point at how they dress. If you asked a Muslim women (well, most) they would say that their clothes protect their modesty, that it makes them feel like they're more than just physical beauty, what they believe is a good feminine quality. It actually makes them feel liberated.

 

 

Even the Unabomber, though a hermit, had an agenda of that sort.  It's not individualism if you are trying to force others to follow your will.  That's one big difference between individualism and pure selfish egotism.

 

 

Forcing your beliefs on others is a form of narcissism and arrogance, because you lack empathy and assume your belief overrides someone elses. It's one thing to try and persuade people, it's another to destroy cultures that have existed for thousands of years, in the process of asserting your belief. This is a light example, but look at how western culture views the "oppression" of Muslim women. People point at how they dress. If you asked a Muslim women (well, most) they would say that their clothes protect their modesty, that it makes them feel like they're more than just physical beauty, what they believe is a good feminine quality. It actually makes them feel liberated.

With very exceptions (see below), no one in the USA is forcing Muslim women in the US to dress "American".  In "Islamist" nations, the converse is very much not the case.

 

In point of fact, when an Oklahoma school tried to forbid an Muslim girl from wearing the hijab, it was the conservative Christian Rutherford Institute that successfully stuck up for her.

 

Likewise, by no means are all individualists selfish egotists.

My guess would be that if you ask a Muslim woman about her dress, she is going to tell you what she thinks she had better tell you.  She doesn't really have any right to free speech or freedom of choice on how she dresses, and can be severely punished for any or no reason.

Making people live in more communal surroundings with a higher degree of sharing and involuntary interaction is something that runs entirely contrary to the trend of American society over the last several decades at least, as was quite accurately pointed out in Vulpsters sprawl-thread post.  What that means is the key word would be making.  Persuading wouldnt work.   Not in this country, not where even a significant minority, let alone the majority, feels differently.

 

Perhaps the best example would be the temperance/Prohibition movement.  There was a strong movement during the 19th century to attempt to persuade Americans to abstain from drinking alcohol.  Even though a majority probably supported this, it failed miserably.  The next step was to involve the compulsive force of government, bringing in Prohibition.  This not only failed, it did far more harm than good.    There was resistance.  Active, strong, determined resistance. 

[/b][/color]

 

There are ways we can develop communities that foster natural social interaction, without force.

1. Create a financial and urban planning/zoning system that curbs suburban sprawl. It may not eliminate the option to sprawl into the suburbs, but there are things that can be done to slow it and reverse the trend from a public administration standpoint.

2. Drastically reform state and local governments to make way for the creation of metropolitan government in order to reflect the reality of where community exists today. Giving people power over the geography of their daily lives will only be good for citizenship and democracy from a political theory standpoint. Many people live, shop, work and play in multiple municipalities but can only vote in one.

3. Invest in engaging public/civic spaces; public squares, parks and greenspace, townhalls, community meeting places, public art, etc.

4. Strengthen civics and classical education in public schools, which emphasizes that true freedom is not the freedom to be a part from others as an autonomos agent, but the freedom to be a part of the community as an active citizen.

 

So these are some of my suggestions how one would go about creating a more inclusive, tolerant and vibrant society based on communitarian ideology. This allows for plenty of input, encourages input, and none of it is really "forced" like your Prohibition example. Also note that the federal government would have very little involvement.

 

Entrenched individualism, indentity politics, and majority rule and intimately linked. The idea that only you can relate to yourself and no one else, leads people to vote according to their strongest principle identity (religion, geography, race, gender, sexuality, socio-economic status, etc.).  The majority identity - or coalition of identities - will ultimately win in this system, and this sends the minority the message that they don't matter (because they're wrapped up in the identity politics game).

 

The linkage of entrenched individualism, indentity politics and majority rule is a downward spiral that creates too much tension. Eventually tension will become so great, that things will snap.

 

The way to avoid conflict is to encourage daily life and voting as an expression of citizenship, not an expression of identity. This is not to say that that your religion, geography, race, gender, sexuality, socio-economic status should be diminished, but you should view everything within the context of citizenship.

 

Civil Society plays an important role, when when you have voluntary organized groups, informal assocations and a pattern of interaction available to create cross-cutting social cleavages. Identities overlap and there is a community of community.

 

The very problem with places of great turmoil, is that they have no civil society. Their identities become entrenched along social lines and there are no cross-cutting cleavages. The more you align yourself to your identities - the more hostile envirnoment that creates.

 

It is one thing to have Catholics and Protestants in Northern Island, but when you entrench those identities with geography and socio-economic status it causes problems. It is one thing to have blacks and whites in a metropolitan area, but when you entrench that with geography and socio-economic status it causes problems. It is one thing to have Christians and Muslims, but when you entrench that with race, geography and availabilty of resources it causes problems.

There are ways we can develop communities that foster natural social interaction, without force.

1. Create a financial and urban planning/zoning system that curbs suburban sprawl. It may not eliminate the option to sprawl into the suburbs, but there are things that can be done to slow it and reverse the trend from a public administration standpoint.

 

People will still find a way to gain themselves "breathing room", if that's what they desire.  Americans prefer said space, and are also good at finding ways around laws they don't like.  For example, the growth in pickup truck and SUV sales is a direct result of CAFE limiting the availability of larger cars.  If they can't find a way around the law, many will break it.  Note alcohol Prohibition during the 20s, and drug prohibition today.  This is more true, not less, when it's policies and guidelines being evaded, and not actual laws.  Finally, keep in mind that policies which go against the aggregate will of individuals often result in politicians getting de-elected.

 

2. Drastically reform state and local governments to make way for the creation of metropolitan government in order to reflect the reality of where community exists today. Giving people power over the geography of their daily lives will only be good for citizenship and democracy from a political theory standpoint. Many people live, shop, work and play in multiple municipalities but can only vote in one.

 

Again, even though there's a certain amount of governments sharing resources, the trend is in the other direction.  People are simply more comfortable with smaller governments.  (by the way, I do agree with your logic to a point, regarding the uniformity of laws which do exist).

3. Invest in engaging public/civic spaces; public squares, parks and greenspace, townhalls, community meeting places, public art, etc.

 

Fair enough....we do a decent job of that in this area.  Though I'm one to believe that "public art" inevitably reflects the preferences of a self appointed cultural elite and private art, which they often consider tacky and pedestrian, more reflects the popular preferences.

 

4. Strengthen civics and classical education in public schools, which emphasizes that true freedom is not the freedom to be a part from others as an autonomos agent, but the freedom to be a part of the community as an active citizen.

 

I don't have a problem with tightening up the educational system, far from it.  I have a real problem with the public schools being used to teach students how to think.  That can't lead anywhere good.

 

So these are some of my suggestions how one would go about creating a more inclusive, tolerant and vibrant society based on communitarian ideology. This allows for plenty of input, encourages input, and none of it is really "forced" like your Prohibition example. Also note that the federal government would have very little involvement.

 

But what will you do when significant chunks of the population "opt out" to the point that they attract others to do likewise?

 

Entrenched individualism, indentity politics, and majority rule and intimately linked. The idea that only you can relate to yourself and no one else, leads people to vote according to their strongest principle identity (religion, geography, race, gender, sexuality, socio-economic status, etc.).  The majority identity - or coalition of identities - will ultimately win in this system, and this sends the minority the message that they don't matter (because they're wrapped up in the identity politics game).

 

The linkage of entrenched individualism, indentity politics and majority rule is a downward spiral that creates too much tension. Eventually tension will become so great, that things will snap.

 

The way to avoid conflict is to encourage daily life and voting as an expression of citizenship, not an expression of identity. This is not to say that that your religion, geography, race, gender, sexuality, socio-economic status should be diminished, but you should view everything within the context of citizenship.

 

Civil Society plays an important role, when when you have voluntary organized groups, informal assocations and a pattern of interaction available to create cross-cutting social cleavages. Identities overlap and there is a community of community.

 

The very problem with places of great turmoil, is that they have no civil society. Their identities become entrenched along social lines and there are no cross-cutting cleavages. The more you align yourself to your identities - the more hostile envirnoment that creates.

 

It is one thing to have Catholics and Protestants in Northern Island, but when you entrench those identities with geography and socio-economic status it causes problems. It is one thing to have blacks and whites in a metropolitan area, but when you entrench that with geography and socio-economic status it causes problems. It is one thing to have Christians and Muslims, but when you entrench that with race, geography and availabilty of resources it causes problems.

 

I agree that "identity politics" is a cancer, but I would say that it's a tool of collectivism, not individuality.  Identity politics on a national scale?  Well we call that "patriotism" and it can be taken too far as well. 

 

Your example of religions is a good one....for the individualism side.  We don't allow any one religion to gain government preference and even civil pressure is severely frowned upon.  Therefore, we're the safest and freest place in the world to practice any religion...or none at all. 

 

I would say that the principle of MYOB, provided one allows it to others as much as one demands it oneself,  leads to a safer and more comfortable society, and communitarianism diminishes it.

I just wanna know where the UrbanOhio administration office is so that I can pick up my Ph.D after successfully reading this entire thread. :-o

I just wanna know where the UrbanOhio administration office is so that I can pick up my Ph.D after successfully reading this entire thread. :-o

 

Does the "P" stand for "piled"?     :evil:

As a character disorder, narcissism is the very opposite of strong self-love. Self-absorption does not produce gratification, it produces injury to the self; erasing the line between self and other means that nothing new, nothing other, ever enters the self; it is devoured and transformed until one thinks one can see oneself in the other and then it becomes meaningless. This is why the clinical profile of narcissism is not of a state of activity, but of a state of being. There are erased the demarcations, limits, and forms of time as well as relationship. The narcissist is not hungry for experiences, he is hungry for Experience. Looking for an expression or reflection of himself in Experience, he devalues each particular interaction or scene, because it is never enough to encompass who he is. The myth of Narcissus neatly captures this: one drowns in the self it is an entropic state.

 

Richard Sennett (b. 1943), U.S. social historian. The Actor Deprived of His Art, The Fall of the Public Man, Cambridge University Press (1977).

A narcissist is not an individualist.  A narcissist expects other individuals, and society as a whole, to cater to them.  An individualist expects and respects individualistic behavior by others.

There's a huge juxtaposition between your second and third sentence. A narcissist could not expect other individuals in society to cater to him/her while still expecting individualistic behavior from others. Being a self absorbed individual, you can't be empathetic towards other individuals in society because you automatically think "how does this events and interactions apply to me", "how do these people adhere to my standards". It's corrosive and that is the problem with psychoanalysis.

I have some further comments, but I don't want to create a strawman here.  So let me ask you this:

 

Do you believe that it is the government's job to micromanage our personal lives?

[/b][/color]

 

Funniest. E Rocc Quote. EVAR.

I have some further comments, but I don't want to create a strawman here.  So let me ask you this:

 

Do you believe that it is the government's job to micromanage our personal lives?

[/b][/color]

 

Funniest. E Rocc Quote. EVAR.

 

How so?

I don't think the government should "micromanage" our lives. They're not our employer. They're not our life coach. But they should be responsible for helping to alleviate 21st century problems. Not so much by forcing people to change their lives, but it seems like they increasingly have problems dealing with members of society on an individual basis. I don't believe this is just a problem with government institutions, but also corporations which are increasingly bureacratic. Increasing the ends and reducing the means is efficiency, which requires strict policy. The problem with strict policy as it applies to everyone, is that your own problems are complicated. Your situation as a member of society, is complex. In order for a bureacracy to work, it requires apathy and emotional distance between the bureacratic worker and the people it effects. In government institutions, it's particularly bad because there's no market that allows for competition. In other words, if you're not satisfied with the long line at the BMV and its indifferent (and often slow working) employees who don't value your time, you can't go to Private Corporation X across the street. When I go to National City, I know the teller. She knows my face and name and doesn't care whether or not I have a valid ID with me. She tells me she'll be with me shortly, and apologises for the long wait. Of course, corporations themselves have strict policies that are problematic but at least they realize that it's in their favor to make clients happy; so they provide some flexibility. I like to use banks and BMVs as examples because they're used so frequently by everyone.

 

The most inhumane, yet extremely efficient form of bureacracy made possible by emotional distance, was the holocaust in Europe. Can't bludgeon someone? Stab them. Still too close for comfort? Shoot them. Bullets are too expensive/still too close? Gas chambers.

I don't think the government should "micromanage" our lives. They're not our employer. They're not our life coach. But they should be responsible for helping to alleviate 21st century problems. Not so much by forcing people to change their lives, but it seems like they increasingly have problems dealing with members of society on an individual basis. I don't believe this is just a problem with government institutions, but also corporations which are increasingly bureacratic. Increasing the ends and reducing the means is efficiency, which requires strict policy. The problem with strict policy as it applies to everyone, is that your own problems are complicated. Your situation as a member of society, is complex. In order for a bureacracy to work, it requires apathy and emotional distance between the bureacratic worker and the people it effects. In government institutions, it's particularly bad because there's no market that allows for competition. In other words, if you're not satisfied with the long line at the BMV and its indifferent (and often slow working) employees who don't value your time, you can't go to Private Corporation X across the street. When I go to National City, I know the teller. She knows my face and name and doesn't care whether or not I have a valid ID with me. She tells me she'll be with me shortly, and apologises for the long wait. Of course, corporations themselves have strict policies that are problematic but at least they realize that it's in their favor to make clients happy; so they provide some flexibility. I like to use banks and BMVs as examples because they're used so frequently by everyone.

 

The most inhumane, yet extremely efficient form of bureacracy made possible by emotional distance, was the holocaust in Europe. Can't bludgeon someone? Stab them. Still too close for comfort? Shoot them. Bullets are too expensive/still too close? Gas chambers.

 

Actually, if I'm not mistaken the BMVs in Ohio are now private contractors.  There's more of them, and lines are minimal unless you go at the wrong time.

 

But your point is very good.  Still, the public sector seems worse.  In the Cleveland area, the gas, electric, and phone utilities are private companies, and they are customer responsive.  The water and sewer is government, and grossly inefficient (there's no way to pay online and they want you to write two checks and mail them two places.....unless you are paying late  :-) ).  If you pay too late and have to pay in person, I understand they want you to see two different people, a "collector" and a cashier.  Even though all have monopolies, the private companies are still more customer responsive....or at least they try. 

 

But still, large corporations try to force customers into niches in a wierd variation of "identity politics".  I'm convinced that the routing of customer service calls to third world call centers staffed with poor English speakers isn't just about cost, its an effort to discourage such calls.

 

Perhaps ironically in light of this discussion, some of the efforts by larger companies to cater to their customers as individuals are being classed as "alienating".  You can't please everyone I guess.

I have some further comments, but I don't want to create a strawman here.  So let me ask you this:

 

Do you believe that it is the government's job to micromanage our personal lives?

[/b][/color]

 

Funniest. E Rocc Quote. EVAR.

 

How so?

 

"Do you believe that it is the government's job to micromanage our personal lives?" = Gross oversimplification of opposing argument = Strawman.

I have some further comments, but I don't want to create a strawman here.  So let me ask you this:

 

Do you believe that it is the government's job to micromanage our personal lives?

[/b][/color]

 

Funniest. E Rocc Quote. EVAR.

 

How so?

 

"Do you believe that it is the government's job to micromanage our personal lives?" = Gross oversimplification of opposing argument = Strawman.

 

LOL why do you think I asked the question?  It was the impression I was getting.  He didn't seem to have a problem with it, he said no, fair enough.

 

Never assume you know where someone is coming from.

Sorry. Came across as clumsy to me.

I have always enjoyed Penn Jillette's political commentary, as I think he has a lot of well thought out opinions and ideas that don't fall neatly into America's liberal/conservative divide. Not that I agree with all of them, but I do find them well thought out and fact/evidence-based rather than politically motivated. (The series Penn & Teller: Bulls**t! is really interesting and a good intro to some of these ideas.) However I've always been a little grossed out that he referred to himself as a "Libertarian".

 

Yesterday, I came across this article where Penn explains why he stopped calling himself a Libertarian during the pandemic:

 

I completely have not used the word Libertarian in describing myself since I got an email during lockdown where a person from a Libertarian organization wrote to me and said, “We’re doing an anti-mask demonstration in Vegas, and obviously we’d like you to head it.” I looked at that email and I went, “The fact they sent me this email is something I need to be very ashamed of, and I need to change.” Now, you can make the argument that maybe you don’t need to mandate masks — you can make the argument that maybe that shouldn’t be the government's job — but you cannot make the argument that you shouldn’t wear masks. It is the exact reciprocal of seatbelts because if I don’t wear a seatbelt, my chances of f***ing myself up increase — if I don’t wear a mask, the chance of f***ing someone else up increase. 

 

Many times when I identified as Libertarian, people said to me, “It’s just rich white guys that don’t want to be told what to do,” and I had a zillion answers to that — and now that seems 100 percent accurate.

^ We rely on labels way too much. It accelerates the shallow "dumb everything down" culture we live in.  It's a safe bet that every single person on this forum has viewpoints that are conservative, libertarian, liberal etc. etc. 

most to least federally dependent states — as expected ohio is well on the bottom half, so very good to see —

 

 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

1 hour ago, mrnyc said:

most to least federally dependent states — as expected ohio is well on the bottom half, so very good to see —

 

 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

It'd be interesting to have a similar list but by major cities, and which ones are more federally dependent.

Edited February 23, 20241 yr by Gnoraa

Since libertarians have been in the news lately....

^

All of the "isms" are stupid in a blanket sense. Best to take the virtues from each school of thought and proceed from there.