U
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
Solidarity. Community. These are the things Catholics need. Not the culture of “I’ll do whatever I want,” which seeks nothing but pleasure and the satisfaction of individual desires. Which destroys the unity of families, communities and large portions of society.
Radical individualism is an old idea. It is “my tribe” versus your tribe, because, in the end, whoever you associate with that wants what you want becomes your tribe. This creates a highly fragmented social order, with some cutting the chord on the ‘prevailing winds’ of the media to seek authentic truth and authentic morality, not “Who Cares? Whatever. Leave me alone, I’ll do what I want.” ‘What is truth?’
biblehub.com/john/18-38.htm
Then your legacy of this life is what?
Ed
Radical individualism is an old idea. It is “my tribe” versus your tribe, because, in the end, whoever you associate with that wants what you want becomes your tribe. This creates a highly fragmented social order, with some cutting the chord on the ‘prevailing winds’ of the media to seek authentic truth and authentic morality, not “Who Cares? Whatever. Leave me alone, I’ll do what I want.” ‘What is truth?’
biblehub.com/john/18-38.htm
Then your legacy of this life is what?
Ed
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Not really. The Constitution requires the Executive to work in tandem with the Courts and Congress. An Executive who caters to neither the Courts nor Congress but acts on his own without consulting either in any significant way is guilty of excessive individualism … and ego to boot.
L
Latias
Guest
Lol, so Satan loves hope? I thought Satan would usually be associated with despair, not necessarily the political slogans of Barack Obama (unless one regards him as a (Black) LS: Envoy of Satan).
If you want to associate Satan with something, it is the colors of Black and (“Red - MTG Wiki”) in Magic: the Gathering. These colors are correctly portrayed as amoral, not necessarily evil, and also, White, is not necessarily good.
Is that so? So politicians haven’t been corrupted, self-interest, or deceitful in prior times? I would be interested in a credible and fairly neutral historiography that defends the thesis that politicians and political institutions exhibited more probity in prior times. But ultimately, this seems to be apologia for conservative traditionalism and monarch, where, for whatever theoretical reason, a monarchy would not have see many of the maladies that apparently afflict liberal democracy.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Since you are just being argumentative, I will leave you alone.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Technically speaking…there is no such thing as “Excessive” Individualism. In fact…there really cannot be enough Individualism.
Individuals are an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to our own life, a right derived from our Creator, as well as our nature as a rational being.
**Individualism **holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, (Tribe, collective or state) has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.
Individuals are an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to our own life, a right derived from our Creator, as well as our nature as a rational being.
**Individualism **holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, (Tribe, collective or state) has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
So long as those individual rights are protected by just laws.
Some individuals assume rights they ought not to assume, and so they are subject to prosecution by the law. One does not, for example, have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded auditorium. Also, if the majority in a society or a city or even a small club pass a law or by-law, the individual may work to change the law, but he may not work to subvert the law by saying he is excused from it. In wartime, an individual may refuse to be drafted and serve, but he may not refuse to do any alternate service required by law in lieu of armed service. An individual may believe he is exempt from paying taxes because he believes his taxes are unworthily spent, but he has no right to do so without jeopardizing the rights of the community who public services are paid for at least in part by his taxes.
L
Latias
Guest
My original point stands: it is fatuous to associate Satan with a contemporary political movement (especially with “hope and change”), but it is reasonable to associate him with hedonistic (and in extreme cases, psychotic and depraved) self-indulgence perhaps at the expense of others, uninhibited self-fulfillment, rebellion against authority, prioritizing self-interest, and the amoral pursuit of power and resources, which are not necessarily “evil”. Yes, Satan does appeal to one’s concern for one’s self, and, of course, that is why Satan is seen as an inspirational myth for non-theistic Satanists (those who appropriate the name of Satan to embody commendable qualities, excluding depraved and impulse forms of self-indulgence, that supposedly encourage human flourishing over submission to a capricious deity or any arbitrary form of authority). The words “hope and change” do not capture this facet of Satanism. And yes, I should belabor that I characterize “Satanism” and the aforementioned values as morally neutral.Since you are just being argumentative, I will leave you alone.
An aspect of Satan embodied in psychotic self-indulgence and penchant for chaos (as opposed to emphasizing the pursuit of power, which is better associated with Wilson Fisk) can be found the character of Cletus Kassidy, both the host and his symbiote forms. (I just found some Spiderman: the Animated Series episodes online.)
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Like I said: “…a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men,”
… if the majority in a society or a city or even a small club pass a law or by-law that violates an individual’s rights…that is an unjust law and a perfect example of mob rule. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).
One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” **Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? **
Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.
As to taxation…In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.
L
Latias
Guest
How are “rights” different from “power”. I ask this in light of Ben Parker’s Kantian aphorism: With great power comes great responsibility (implying that there is a moral duty for those with power to be an instrument of justice and serve the common interest). But why should rights be independent of obligations? But if rights or power are uncoupled from obligations, then this would justify a moral perspective (more likely amoral) where the pursuit of power for one’s self is seen as a reasonable and irreproachable motivation. Control over oneself, others, and physical resources is seen as the ultimate good without any obligations or accountability commensurable to the degree of control (which essentially is what possession of currency does as you can control others by buying their services or acquiring their resources). Well, a nice embodiment of someone possessing great power while abjuring responsibility or obligation would be a comic book supervillian.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Rights are inalienable. No one is born with power.
Makes sense!
A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission or perceived obligation.
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society or satisfy an obligation—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not.
Don’t confuse economic power with government power.
Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value.
Government power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction.
The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear.
O
openmind77
Guest
I am not sure why government scares you - punishment is mainly for criminals, how does the government injure or destroy you? Can you give some examples?
As for businesses are concerned, maybe you need to read this salon.com/2014/02/23/worse_than_wal_mart_amazons_sick_brutality_and_secret_history_of_ruthlessly_intimidating_workers/ and nytimes.com/2003/01/08/us/at-a-texas-foundry-an-indifference-to-life.html
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Government does not scare me. I like government. We need a proper government.
The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
There is no other reason for a government to exist.
As to examples of how a government can injure or destroy…Hmmmm…before we go down that road in detail…maybe **you should **read the history of the American Revolution. Then we could move on to Nazi Germany…need I go on?
These would be good examples of whatever point you are trying to make IF people were forced at gunpoint to work for these companies. Since that is not the case…what is your point?
O
openmind77
Guest
So you have zero examples of government causing you injury or harm and I have already given you two examples of private corporations causing injury and harm. And you want me to read some stuff?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Yes, I do. I would suggest that you start by re-reading my post. I suggested two examples of how the government can injure or destroy you. Perhaps you didn’t understand or you have a limited concept of history. Allow me to elaborate.
The American Revolution was caused by a tyrannical government that heavily taxed people without representation. Remember, government power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. If colonists did not pay the tax they were imprisoned, injured or had their lives destroyed. I am sure you will agree that is a perfect example of government causing injury and harm.
My other example was Nazi Germany. I would hope I need not go into detail about the imprisonment, injury and destruction that government brought upon its own citizens. For an in depth understanding I suggest reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer, and Ron Rosenbaum. Or, *Killing Patton *by Bill O’ Reilly.
Your examples of two corporations are good examples of economic power. Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value. In both cases employees were paid. (A value) Both corporations offered a reward or an incentive for their employee’s time. The working conditions were harsh…but the corporations did not force employees to work at gunpoint. Guards were not posted at exits to prevent employees from leaving.
In a free country with a free market the Individual is supreme. Every man is free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him.
O
openmind77
Guest
Of course dictatorships and fascist regimes are bad - who disputed that? I thought you said democratic governments caused harm and injury - apparently you did not mean that at all? Or do you have any examples of the US government causng you harm? Those examples I gave were US corporations.
Actually in many factories in south america and China, guards are posted at the gates so workers cannot leave unless their quota is met (this can mean several days). Luckily our government has passed some laws in the US so that it is illegal here.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
True, I was speaking of government in general, but democratic governments can be the worst offenders. By “democratic” government, I mean majority rule…or mob rule. The minority never has a chance in a democratic government.
Our country is a Constitutional Republic. Our representatives are democratically elected but they are constrained by the Constitution. However when our government oversteps its Constitutional limitations then it causes harm and injury.
For instance…when our government collects taxes…by force from some and gives to others…that is theft and that causes injury and harm. When laws are not enforced equally, that results in harm and injury. When our government favors certain groups over others for political gain…that is harm and injury.
It is terrible what some countries allow to happen…And yes lucky for us slavery was abolished over a century ago.
E
edwest2
Guest
Getting back to the topic, communities cannot exist if its individual members are going in a hundred different directions.
Pope Benedict:
Commentary by the Practical Catholic:
“How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.”
Pope Benedict:
Commentary by the Practical Catholic:
“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”
We can do what we want but there are limits. There is too much talk about getting rid of limits.
Ed
Pope Benedict:
Code:
"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."“How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.”
Pope Benedict:
Code:
"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]"“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”
We can do what we want but there are limits. There is too much talk about getting rid of limits.
Ed
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
The mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence.
The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each individual alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No individual can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
An Individualist says: "I will not violate another’s God given rights. Nor will I have my God given rights violated by anyone.
E
edwest2
Guest
Those statements are unclear. Without shared values - which I actually lived through - we cannot have communities. What we have today is tribalism. Radical individualism creates separation. I’m against it. A society is made up of individuals with shared values. If we can’t have that, so be it.
Privacy has been abandoned by too many.
Catholics, at least, need strong communities based on shared values. We must share and not be silent.
Ed
- Status