rumitoid

This is article does not directly tie "social darwinism" (also known as "Randism") into its discussion on Individualism. The piece demands a good amount of thought and attention but I think it is worth it. In effect it is asking: how best do we find a proper level of freedom within the state and community?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/fareforward/2013/09/the-real-paradox-of-individualism/

Loki Loc: Georgia

Mr. Mcginley, the author of this article, needs a course in "Occam's Razor." I thought I was the "Potentate of Prolix." After finally getting to the point, (his statement that the best way to preserve individual autonomy is a diversification of authority), he finally starts to make sense. The statement that the only soution to overbearing force, is a rival force, is true. The argument boils down to how do you strike a balance between state authority and individual autonomy, and the answer is, you don't. Decentralization of power is the only viable way to maintain individual freedom. This argument presupposes a benevolent state, possessed of only altruistic motives, and there ain't no such critter. Never has been. The author is building castles in the air, and attempting to make facts fit theory, instead of the other way around, to suggest anything else. This is why so-called "conservatives," (who are actually Libertarians), are so concerned with returning power to the individual states, and with stripping power from the Federal Government. Individual autonomy rests on several things: An informed e*****rate, possessing not only information, but a sense of ethics. Enough power vested in said e*****rate to oppose state tyranny. Decentralization of governmental authority. The irony here is that so-called Liberals, (who are not) tend to support, rather than limited (decentralized) government, a monolithic, all powerful, (but somehow always benevolent, in their constructs) leviathan administered by an unwieldy bureaucracy, which is the antithesis of individual autonomy. The answer to your question is a decentralized governmental structure, coupled with an ethical, educated citizenry. More later.

lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

Man rumitoid, this is a walk down memory lane. I read Mark S Weiner's "The Rule of the Clan" in my Human Relations class for a project on the relativity of individualism within collectivism. I am going to pull out my research notes and paper on this to refresh my memory. I will get back to you on this one. Quality post.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Yes it is. Funny how big words and little pictures tend to act as troll repellant, so grown ups can have a conversation, isn't it? Look forward to your post. I will finish mine as time permits. It's just like Rumitoid to do a post like this when I'm busy.

lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

In looking through my files the project was actually a debate between my team members as to the merits and flaws of Weiner's ideology. I was on the flaws side. (how surprising is that, right?)

The fundamental flaw that I found was within the idea that individuals require a state in order for them to have functional individuality. Weiner has the view that "clan" societies or those that operate without the guidance of a state are by nature dystopian.
It was written like this:

"The fundamental error underlying Weiner’s ideology is the unthinking belief that groups rooted in familial ties are by nature primitive and hostile to, well, pretty much all good things. We are, on this view, naturally driven to be narrow minded and exclusionary, so our nature must be hemmed in and altered by the state. The dystopian vision on which Weiner draws is one of more natural family ties mixing with religious dogma and personal power to bring brutal tyranny down upon anyone who is “different,” meaning, of course, both minority populations of various sorts and, of course, those individuals who choose lifestyles violating religious precepts and traditional conceptions of virtue."

In simple terms, without state rule we are little more than savages, relying on that (evil) belief in religion, family heritage, and historical precepts that are inherently antigovernment.

In Weiner's view individualism is a right and should be pursued within a state by all but only as long as it does not interfere with the states collectivism agenda. In other words the state will establish what those levels of individualism will be.

As long as a state operates under the collectivism philosophy the ones governed are prevented from pursuing true individualism (self-reliance) by the very edicts that liberalism establishes. The true paradox is that liberalism claims enlightenment and individuality for those governed while at the same time coercing collectivism through totalitarian enactments.

There is much more, but I will leave it here for now, and see where the conversation goes.