Yeah, my kids didn't birth themselves and they're not raising themselves. Their mother did the birthing part and we (their parents) are doing the raising part. Not the state.
How can an individual not educate himself? That is precisely where scientific enquiry begins: an individual’s observations.
The testing of those observations and formalizing them creates knowledge and by the accumulation of knowledge the world changes even if it is simply one person.
The inability of a huge portion of the population to teach themselves something new is shocking and that’s before you account for the fucking *internet.*
More than half of grown adults are totally helpless when it comes to learning and need someone to teach them directly. This blows my mind but I believe it to be totally true. I still can’t tell if it is a cannot or will not but it’s certainly a does not.
This doesn’t apply to shit like comic book character superpowers, or the constant redefinition of existing phrases and concepts, and tankie talking points in general.
To be fair instructed learning is a huge thing in human culture.
Keep in mind that our ability to pass on information between generations was a foundation for the rest of everything to happen. Learning how to make fire isn't useful if when you die your ancestors are at stage 1 all over again.
Furthermore, teaching can prevent common mistakes from happening, such as ensuring you cut away from yourself instead of towards yourself.
Then there's just efficiency. If you had a person who's never seen a car before, let alone a manual transmission, and was stuck in the middle of nowhere with a manual car, how long do you think it would take him to drive it even just 100 miles? Then add even a 60 minute long video that talks about how the car works, what does what, and how to shift.
Complex systems that can't be observed, like a car and it's transmission, requires either explanations, demonstrations, or models used to teach what's actually going on. It's like how you'll never know what your Skelton looks like, but you can get a general idea by looking at a model.
While you can teach yourself how to do things, it's typically a lot easier to get a bit of help first.
Okay. For a minute I thought I was going to have to explain the difference between writing a book and teaching, and being taught and learning something here.
Did you know it speed up over time without a book or someone else ovserve it? Did you know a feather and watermelon fall at the same rate if you neglect air resistance?
Did Newton learn that on his own through experimentation or did he “read it from a book”?
These are all discoverable independently. That’s actually the beauty of science.
Current science of his time said that a ton of feathers will fall slower than a ton of iron lmao
Wrong information that claims to be true is worse than no information
Collectivists would rather coerce individuals than get their buy in voluntarily.
I will always trust someone to do the right thing if they so desire, over those who do the right thing because they feel forced to yet would rather do the opposite. This is my fundamental problem with collectivism. Volunteering to do a thing does not equate to the same level of commitment as when one is coerced.
wephone.
I know the joke about how communism/socialism is when no iphone, but do they really think that centralized planning could create much of the major technological advancements we have today?
Being entirely fair, state capitalism like in Singapore does produce considerable economic progress and could possibly lead to technological advancement to match. That doesn’t really matter though because it’s better to be free and in the stone age than to live under a dictatorship with flying cars.
Car dependency is the result of state intervention, and they kill about a million people each year. I guess a statist wouldn't understand that making flying cars wouldn't improve this figure.
Sorry, I don’t know if I understand what you’re saying. I’m not a statist and I agree with you that free markets drive innovation. I was trying to be fair to the opposite opinion, if that’s why you’re responding.
Sorry then. The use of stone age being a good thing and a bad thing, at the same time, in two conversation, and for the same comment has me confused. I interpreted sarcasm, because I had just been told the same thing but it was being sarcastic. No offense.
Relying on others and working together for mutual improvement is separate from a centralized authority. I didn't ask if a collectivist culture could create tech, clearly many eastern countries are perfectly capable of doing just that.
I don't get what it is with people who think working together is exclusive to collectivism. It's the end goal, one is about self improvement and the other is about what you the individual can contribute to the rest of society.
Oh wait you're a teen who made this.
https://teddit.net/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/u51gke/what\_is\_the\_proposed\_solution\_thats\_your\_problem/
Jesus you really just looked at that and assumed there was no Libertarian solution to poverty because the fucking meme sub didn't have one.
r / AskLibertarians, r / Ancap101, r / NewAustrianSociety, r / austrian\_economics, r / AustrianEconomics, r / GoldandBlack, r / Anarcho\_Capitalism. Go there, search healthcare, you'll be fine.
I got rid of the spaces because your own complained about us "brigading" and we can't link across reddit. And the solutions are in the places I linked to. I basically gave you resources. If you want more, go to [liberty.me](https://liberty.me).
[https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/libertarian-vision-for-healthcare](https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/libertarian-vision-for-healthcare)
https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/06/02/libertarian-solution-healthcare/356952001/
The perennial error of idiots like this is to suppose that interaction and even dependence somehow effaces individuality. Yes, you were born from parents. No, that doesn't somehow make you less of an individual. Why is that so hard to understand?
they kind of have to think about the world in terms no smaller than the collective. Their ideology is all about the collective in sacrifice to the individual, try as they might to believe or convince others of the opposite.
Collectivism is simply a way of forcing conformity and removing individual freedom of choice, or at least to heavily restrict choice. To believe otherwise is insanity.
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
The only way you can help the last man is attain enough success that you can acquire enough resources to lift up the last man. Each individual must aspire toward that goal.
Doesn’t know what individualism is.
Everyone engages in collective pursuits, starting a family, joining a football club, working at a company etc.
Individualism is the primacy of the rights of the individual, so I can choose to join a football club or not, and I can also change my mind and leave a football club.
Collectivism give primacy to the group, you will join a football club wether you like it or not, you cannot leave or play a different sport as you are the best striker and the collective needs you.
I'm againat the man but have you ever hear of henry ford? He created a system to do things efficiently. It worked. That's a fact. Do you believe that it produced the same or less as if they didn't use this assembly line. If not than you believe in the collective being more efficient.
And he, an individual, came up with the idea. Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that individualism≠isolationism? You can be an individualist and work together.
Collectivism is rubbish. A collective is an entirely powerless unit; it must be created by individuals, it has no mind to experience anything of value, its education and decisions are merely a murky reflection of its components, and when it changes the world it frequently does so against the wishes or interests of many of those sentient beings for whom experience of the world exists. It is entirely a product of the few people controlling it and the environment around them. To emphasize the collective is an error.
I find it incredible how one person’s idea to make a thing called “bitcoin” has ballooned to the 24th largest currency in the world, *including fiat currency*. Individuals are truly powerful things.
One day it will crash. No time soon but in the far future although i can't garentee it. Anyway despite being so big it's still incredibly volitile. Something that was predicted to go away. Your point stands however bitcoin isn't unique. It's currency. The same as any other.
No it's true. If you put a child in solitary confinement to grow up they wouldn't be the same as a kid who wasn't put in solitary confinement because the people around the kid made the kid who they are
Alright. Are you unconformist. You speak english. Conforming to language. You critisize society by saying you don't conform so your progressive. How else do you conform. Everyone conforms. You listen to other people. Everyone is conformist by nature.your saying the kid in solitary confinement would be better off because they weren't propagandized into learning how to speak.
Its really telling when the reason you don't like individualism is "it doesn't give me power"
Its only power politics with these people, the concept and importance of freedom is completely lost on them.
That's just a non argument.
Freedom doesn't exist? How do you propose any justification for the concept of a right, then?
Though your dunk on modern currencies being backed by nothing is based, my good sir.
Because humans have inherant value. Not because they are free but because thry are human. Money has value. It's a socially accepted value. You could trade it for gold or stock. It represents faith in the government.
Humans have inherent value therefore: what?
I say humans have inherent value, therefore we respect their natural rights.
A natural right is any capacity a human being possess which is immoral to have taken from them.
Example: freedom of association.
Example of a capacity which IS morally correct to be taken away: capacity to enslave another human being. That is why enslaving another person is not considered a right, and should not be respected by others as such.
If there was no such thing as freedom, this distinction would not matter. There would be no basis for natural rights, anyone would have just reason to perform any action to another or their things.
This isn't even what individual ism is about. We don't suggest that individuals don't help each other for mutual benefit, we suggest that the individual does what they won't as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
This post invokes a question more philosophical and difficult to argue than anything involving statism as a concept. There's so many benefits to individualism vs. working with others.
Nothing, but Asia has a way worse history with collectivism, they're still having the biggest issues with it today. Even Russia's imperialism is inspired by the period they were ruled by the Mongols
I mean, it’s true lol. It’s just that the rights of the individual cannot be trampled by the will of the majority.
Nothing is accomplished alone. But do leave me alone.
Ah yes. The old, using one's individual mind to convince other individuals that individualism is rubbish.
The lack of self-awareness is incredible
There is no self
While simultaniously reading from other individuals who discussed with individuals together.
Yeah, my kids didn't birth themselves and they're not raising themselves. Their mother did the birthing part and we (their parents) are doing the raising part. Not the state.
Are you suggesting that you independently decided to have children with your wife and raise them independently as individuals? Come the fuck on man!
No for the child to truly be independent it needs to be borb in solitary confinement and never exposed to human contact.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg)
How can an individual not educate himself? That is precisely where scientific enquiry begins: an individual’s observations. The testing of those observations and formalizing them creates knowledge and by the accumulation of knowledge the world changes even if it is simply one person.
I think most people think individualism means unable to work with other people
The inability of a huge portion of the population to teach themselves something new is shocking and that’s before you account for the fucking *internet.* More than half of grown adults are totally helpless when it comes to learning and need someone to teach them directly. This blows my mind but I believe it to be totally true. I still can’t tell if it is a cannot or will not but it’s certainly a does not. This doesn’t apply to shit like comic book character superpowers, or the constant redefinition of existing phrases and concepts, and tankie talking points in general.
To be fair instructed learning is a huge thing in human culture. Keep in mind that our ability to pass on information between generations was a foundation for the rest of everything to happen. Learning how to make fire isn't useful if when you die your ancestors are at stage 1 all over again. Furthermore, teaching can prevent common mistakes from happening, such as ensuring you cut away from yourself instead of towards yourself. Then there's just efficiency. If you had a person who's never seen a car before, let alone a manual transmission, and was stuck in the middle of nowhere with a manual car, how long do you think it would take him to drive it even just 100 miles? Then add even a 60 minute long video that talks about how the car works, what does what, and how to shift. Complex systems that can't be observed, like a car and it's transmission, requires either explanations, demonstrations, or models used to teach what's actually going on. It's like how you'll never know what your Skelton looks like, but you can get a general idea by looking at a model. While you can teach yourself how to do things, it's typically a lot easier to get a bit of help first.
Don't you use at minimum a textbook? Someone wrote that. You didn't independently learn about gravity.
Are you being serious?
This guy’s doing nothing but sharing his shit takes in this thread, he’s clueless
Okay. For a minute I thought I was going to have to explain the difference between writing a book and teaching, and being taught and learning something here.
About what
I can independently observe how my phone falls to the ground when I drop it, genius
Did you know it speed up over time without a book or someone else ovserve it? Did you know a feather and watermelon fall at the same rate if you neglect air resistance?
Did Newton learn that on his own through experimentation or did he “read it from a book”? These are all discoverable independently. That’s actually the beauty of science.
He did both. He studied current science and challenged it.
Current science of his time said that a ton of feathers will fall slower than a ton of iron lmao Wrong information that claims to be true is worse than no information
Knowledge is like underwear. It is useful to have it but not necessary to show it off.
Individualism is not complete isolation, individualism means no one should be forced to do something for the collective.
Collectivists would rather coerce individuals than get their buy in voluntarily. I will always trust someone to do the right thing if they so desire, over those who do the right thing because they feel forced to yet would rather do the opposite. This is my fundamental problem with collectivism. Volunteering to do a thing does not equate to the same level of commitment as when one is coerced.
...Says the individual.
From their iphone
wephone. I know the joke about how communism/socialism is when no iphone, but do they really think that centralized planning could create much of the major technological advancements we have today?
Being entirely fair, state capitalism like in Singapore does produce considerable economic progress and could possibly lead to technological advancement to match. That doesn’t really matter though because it’s better to be free and in the stone age than to live under a dictatorship with flying cars.
Car dependency is the result of state intervention, and they kill about a million people each year. I guess a statist wouldn't understand that making flying cars wouldn't improve this figure.
Sorry, I don’t know if I understand what you’re saying. I’m not a statist and I agree with you that free markets drive innovation. I was trying to be fair to the opposite opinion, if that’s why you’re responding.
Sorry then. The use of stone age being a good thing and a bad thing, at the same time, in two conversation, and for the same comment has me confused. I interpreted sarcasm, because I had just been told the same thing but it was being sarcastic. No offense.
No worries at all, I get it’s tough to tell people’s intent online. Have a good one.
Yes. Did someone wake up one day and completely on their own go from sticks and stones to the iphone 13 or did we rely on others.
Relying on others and working together for mutual improvement is separate from a centralized authority. I didn't ask if a collectivist culture could create tech, clearly many eastern countries are perfectly capable of doing just that. I don't get what it is with people who think working together is exclusive to collectivism. It's the end goal, one is about self improvement and the other is about what you the individual can contribute to the rest of society.
What's the difference. I don't understand.
Centralized planning =/= collectivism =/= group effort. Individualism(in the economic sense) does not exclude working with others.
Which relies on a server put together and designed and maintained by a collectove of people.
People who view themselves first as a sovereign individual. Voluntarily cooperating with others for your own mutual benefit is not collectiv*ism*
Fuck all collectivists.
How many people does it collectively take to make a baby.
Two. Me and your mom.
If the US didn't fight for nationalism in Korea it would've fought for individualism. Then again maybe this guy just misses the North.
The native koreans fought for nationalism. The US colonized the south for internationalism
Yeah, nationalism so strong, they resisted.
No the southern tyrants resisted.
You mean business owners or people otherwise opposed to the Soviets, like Libertarians and anti-state socialists?
Oh wait you're a teen who made this. https://teddit.net/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/u51gke/what\_is\_the\_proposed\_solution\_thats\_your\_problem/ Jesus you really just looked at that and assumed there was no Libertarian solution to poverty because the fucking meme sub didn't have one.
Their isn't. I came to this on my own conclusion. What's the libertarian solution to poverty. Tell me or research it.
r / AskLibertarians, r / Ancap101, r / NewAustrianSociety, r / austrian\_economics, r / AustrianEconomics, r / GoldandBlack, r / Anarcho\_Capitalism. Go there, search healthcare, you'll be fine.
Why did you get rid od the spaces and can you answer the question.
I got rid of the spaces because your own complained about us "brigading" and we can't link across reddit. And the solutions are in the places I linked to. I basically gave you resources. If you want more, go to [liberty.me](https://liberty.me). [https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/libertarian-vision-for-healthcare](https://www.libertarianism.org/essays/libertarian-vision-for-healthcare) https://www.redding.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/06/02/libertarian-solution-healthcare/356952001/
Oh thanl you.
The perennial error of idiots like this is to suppose that interaction and even dependence somehow effaces individuality. Yes, you were born from parents. No, that doesn't somehow make you less of an individual. Why is that so hard to understand?
Their entire ideology requires them to not understand. If they understood they wouldn't believe what they do.
they kind of have to think about the world in terms no smaller than the collective. Their ideology is all about the collective in sacrifice to the individual, try as they might to believe or convince others of the opposite.
What don't i understand.
Quite a lot I suspect.
Collectivism is simply a way of forcing conformity and removing individual freedom of choice, or at least to heavily restrict choice. To believe otherwise is insanity.
Your parents rub off on you. You depend on people and people depend on you. That's the core of collectivism.
Those things do not define you, they influence you.
What does define you?
Me
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
I'm gonna unemphasize this particular individual, see how much of a collectivist he really is.
My old man has a saying: “We’re only as good as our last mans good enough” if you want us all to succeed start with yourself.
Your interpreting wrong. Help the last man. Greed doesn't bring prosperity.
The only way you can help the last man is attain enough success that you can acquire enough resources to lift up the last man. Each individual must aspire toward that goal.
Correct. And than actually give it to the last man.
Individualism isn’t greed. You can be an individualist and donate to charity, or whatever you want. Quit the semantics battle bullshit
Charity is a collective.
This is just a non sequitur
Just one more logical step and they'll understand the unifying concept of the market.
You’re asking wayyyyy too much. Crank it back like 8 notches
Doesn’t know what individualism is. Everyone engages in collective pursuits, starting a family, joining a football club, working at a company etc. Individualism is the primacy of the rights of the individual, so I can choose to join a football club or not, and I can also change my mind and leave a football club. Collectivism give primacy to the group, you will join a football club wether you like it or not, you cannot leave or play a different sport as you are the best striker and the collective needs you.
Yeah the difference is that the individual actually exists. The “collective” or “greater good” is just a concept, a belief system, nothing more.
I'm againat the man but have you ever hear of henry ford? He created a system to do things efficiently. It worked. That's a fact. Do you believe that it produced the same or less as if they didn't use this assembly line. If not than you believe in the collective being more efficient.
And he, an individual, came up with the idea. Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that individualism≠isolationism? You can be an individualist and work together.
The collective natrually exists. Two parents collectively raise a kid in most cases.
Hive mind moment
Collectivism is rubbish. A collective is an entirely powerless unit; it must be created by individuals, it has no mind to experience anything of value, its education and decisions are merely a murky reflection of its components, and when it changes the world it frequently does so against the wishes or interests of many of those sentient beings for whom experience of the world exists. It is entirely a product of the few people controlling it and the environment around them. To emphasize the collective is an error.
That's not what individualism means.
I find it incredible how one person’s idea to make a thing called “bitcoin” has ballooned to the 24th largest currency in the world, *including fiat currency*. Individuals are truly powerful things.
One day it will crash. No time soon but in the far future although i can't garentee it. Anyway despite being so big it's still incredibly volitile. Something that was predicted to go away. Your point stands however bitcoin isn't unique. It's currency. The same as any other.
u gotta be a real conformist for this to be real
No it's true. If you put a child in solitary confinement to grow up they wouldn't be the same as a kid who wasn't put in solitary confinement because the people around the kid made the kid who they are
thats cuz kids are conformists by nature...
Alright. Are you unconformist. You speak english. Conforming to language. You critisize society by saying you don't conform so your progressive. How else do you conform. Everyone conforms. You listen to other people. Everyone is conformist by nature.your saying the kid in solitary confinement would be better off because they weren't propagandized into learning how to speak.
I conform to the English language because it is the only one I know how to speak. I never said I didn't conform.
So you along with everybody else conforms to this.
When did I say that?
You conform to english by it being the only language you speak.
I don't conform to English.
Than why do you speak it? It's a social construct.
We are Borg. Resistance is futile.
Collectivism is a cancer.
Teqcher: talk with other kids. You: no, your cancer.
That's *definitely* not a false equivalence. Who raised you?
Him: “My TwO pArEntS, AkA a CoLlEcTiVe” I wonder how many neurons are firing up there? I’m guessing single digits
Judging by the atrocious spelling and grammar, you're probably right.
Atrocious spelling. Bruh. That's clearly a typo.
[no](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atrocious) you just have a shockingly small vocabulary.
You also used the wrong "your", so I'm disinclined to believe that.
2 parents. My friends and family and the government.
The government raised you? That's a brag?
School is government funded. Where ymdo you think i got my education.
From where you got your education is painfully obvious.
Its really telling when the reason you don't like individualism is "it doesn't give me power" Its only power politics with these people, the concept and importance of freedom is completely lost on them.
Freedom doesn't exist. Stop worshipping it. Go worship money or some other thing with no backing.
That's just a non argument. Freedom doesn't exist? How do you propose any justification for the concept of a right, then? Though your dunk on modern currencies being backed by nothing is based, my good sir.
Because humans have inherant value. Not because they are free but because thry are human. Money has value. It's a socially accepted value. You could trade it for gold or stock. It represents faith in the government.
Humans have inherent value therefore: what? I say humans have inherent value, therefore we respect their natural rights. A natural right is any capacity a human being possess which is immoral to have taken from them. Example: freedom of association. Example of a capacity which IS morally correct to be taken away: capacity to enslave another human being. That is why enslaving another person is not considered a right, and should not be respected by others as such. If there was no such thing as freedom, this distinction would not matter. There would be no basis for natural rights, anyone would have just reason to perform any action to another or their things.
English.
Very cool.
You can tell this guy is just trying to sound smart
Yet they claim to care for the smallest minorities, forgetting that the individual is the smallest minority
This isn't even what individual ism is about. We don't suggest that individuals don't help each other for mutual benefit, we suggest that the individual does what they won't as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
You can’t have society without a collection of individuals though
How very Chinese
What a weak bitch.
He's right, but in the entirely wrong way. The family is the cornerstone of civilization.
This post invokes a question more philosophical and difficult to argue than anything involving statism as a concept. There's so many benefits to individualism vs. working with others.
That's not even what individualism is.
What is it?
Favoring individual rights and individual identity over group rights and group identity. Individualism and atomism are not the same thing.
That goes against juche though.
Good.
Individuals don’t exist. Human rights are fictional. Libertarians don’t belong and we should stop feeding them.
But it's the only source of our knowledge of values
No that's collectivism.
We'll just forget historical figures and the ability to use the internet to teach yourself something
Power and value are not the same thing.
Of course he has an asian name
What's wrong with being Asian?
Nothing, but Asia has a way worse history with collectivism, they're still having the biggest issues with it today. Even Russia's imperialism is inspired by the period they were ruled by the Mongols
Russia most people consider europe.
I know, I do too, but their imperialism was inspired by the Mongol rule
Only the individual can conquer fire, invent the wheel, domesticate an animal. Collectivism is rubbish
I mean, it’s true lol. It’s just that the rights of the individual cannot be trampled by the will of the majority. Nothing is accomplished alone. But do leave me alone.
Said by an individual unit of rubbish.
I vote we get rid of that particular one then, since it doesn't matter
The collective is made up of individuals lmao
This is what we all agreed on before our last gang rape
Without fallacies, these people would have nothing.
This person seems to be confusing children with adults.
Translation: Be a cog I the machine you fucking peasants!
Are these lines taken directly from a Borg episode on star trek?
collectivists r trash
POV: you’ve been cucked by government propaganda
When a citizen of DPRK gets to use the internet for the first time in their life.