Do you value individual liberty or do you embrace collectivism?

@sarabee1995
This seems to be a more insidious shot against the Union movement.

I understand that all aren’t for the Unions but I think that a question should be plain about what it is taking a shot at.

@Pfuzylogic I'm not sure why you are associating this question with the union movement. Certainly "collective bargaining" is a term used to describe union activity, but "individual liberty versus collectivism" implies an entirely different subject matter. 🤔

@sarabee1995 When I hear "liberty" and "freedom" versus "collectivism" I tend to think more about "rights" versus "responsibilities". If we peg our social consciousness fully to rights or fully to responsibilities-- we fail.

@sarabee1995
With Libertarians they are frequently used as code words. Nancy MacLean names and shames the billionaires that intentionally debilitate our democracy.
If you want a specific reference I will be happy to provide it.

@CopperCicada Social responsibility and social consciousness are entirely different subjects from the question here. I am about as committed to individual liberty as any good libertarian, but I also am deeply committed to the concept of noblesse oblige. My commitment to individual liberty does not in any way lesson (in my opinion) our responsibility to our fellow man.

@Pfuzylogic I don't use code words. I speak in clear and understandable English. Collectivism has a definition and a meaning. I do not support it. That has nothing to do with the union movement.

@sarabee1995
The Post used code words not you.
I am not assigning you personally with using code words if you misunderstood that as a personal attack

There are current attacks on Public Education and Social Security that would fall under this attack. It isn’t Unions alone that are under attack.
Edit: when I assign this to Libertarians, I am talking about the filthy rich subversives.

@Pfuzylogic The post used the same words I used. I think you are seeing a code where none exists. 🤷‍♀️

@sarabee1995 For me, if I take up "responsibility" then I lose "freedom". If I gain "freedom", then I give up "responsibility". Others may not see it that way, but I've never found a way around the trade-off.

We're a very freedom-liberty driven society. Which is a great blessing and as it should be. But we have those freedoms on the foundation of a whole series of responsibilities which generally get glossed as they're seen as impediments to freedom.

@sarabee1995
It is the Poster.

I’ll refer you to “Democracy in Chains”.

@sarabee1995 To be honest, it's not even clear that everyone means the same thing when they mean "collectivism". For me, it would strictly mean something like living on a kibbutz in Israel, or anarcho-syndicalism, or some such.

Most people don't use the term in that sense. They use the "collectivism" to mean any solution to a problem beyond individual self-determinism. The city plows the road-- collectivism. The public schools teach-- collectivism.

Which is why I look at this as a continuum of freedom-collectivism re rights-responsibilities.

@CopperCicada Well, yes, collectivism can mean many different things, but the OP gives us context by placing it in contrast to individual liberty. In this context, it is exactly what you conclude with: A continuum from freedom and liberty and libertarianism on one end to collectivism and socialism and fascism on the other end.

But I disagree with you that liberty absolves us from responsibilities or that responsibilities somehow negate our freedoms. There is an obligation of every free person in a just society to those less fortunate. That obligation does not need to be codified in law or met collectively in order to exist. It exists in any moral society and is descended from the concept of noblesse oblige.

@Pfuzylogic Okay, so you are not actually responding to me, but rather to him and have just chosen to do it here in my thread rather than posting to him directly? Is that what I understand?? ;)

@sarabee1995 You say (my emphasis added):

[quote]But I disagree with you that liberty [i]absolves[/i] us from responsibilities or that responsibilities somehow [i]negate[/i] our freedoms. There is an [i]obligation[/i] of every free person in a just society to those less fortunate.[/quote]

I never said freedom absolves us from responsibility or that freedoms are negated. Rather that freedoms are given up to assume responsibilities, and the reverse, that responsibilities are given up to enjoy freedoms.

You use the term obligation. That right there is a sign of giving up freedom and liberty.

@sarabee1995
I have made my own response.
He chose the words and semantics.
It is a game on his part.
I see no game on your part.

@CopperCicada I think you are assuming that the obligation I speak of is put upon the free person by the government. In that case, your observations would be valid. But that is not my meaning at all.

If I, as a free person, choose to meet my moral obligation to those less fortunate than I, then this obligation becomes an expression of my freedom, not a limitation of it.

I have volunteered at women's shelters so some greater or lessor degree since I was 16 years old. This is not an infringement of my liberty at all. Rather it is the fulfillment of my free will choice to help those less fortunate. Noblesse oblige. Not collectivism.

@sarabee1995 All responsibility comes at a loss of freedom. That is the whole implication of responsibility. It is duty, accountability, reciprocal relationships.

@sarabee1995 @CopperCicada I gotta be honest. I read both of what you are writing and I agree with both of you.

It seems you are disagreeing with one another, but when I read what you both write, it says to be the same thing.

This is how I interpret what both of you are saying:

Pursuing individual liberty is hollow without considering the needs of the community. Pursuing a purely collectivist approach takes the shine off of what it means to be human.

@JoeyFoxx I actually agree with what @sarabee1995 is saying-- [i]with the exception that responsibility need not involve a sacrifice of freedom.
[/i]
It is the sacrifice of freedom involved in assuming responsibility that causes people to avoid responsibility.

@CopperCicada Ahhhh... this is a bit of a Kant-styled discussion. Kant concluded that even when someone acted selflessly, that there is always an inward facing motivation.

I believe that @sarabee1995 is suggesting that if I [i][b]choose[/b][/i] to sacrifice a freedom on my own, then I am not sacrificing my liberty.

@CopperCicada I think in practice we are saying the same thing; but in theory (which is where I often find myself) I struggle with the concept that my exercising my free will to help those in need in anyway lessons my freedom.

@JoeyFoxx Yes, Joey, that is exactly what I am saying. Which differs from a collective telling me I MUST give some share of my labor to those less fortunate.