are we to be free?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

with all the talk of socialism in america and the growing governmental control over our relatively free marketplace, i feel the need to ask those of you on these boards a rather basic question. is the individual an important component of american political philosophy or is the will of the people of paramount concern?

this country has always led the world in its pursuit of the rights of the individual, understanding that the price we pay for those rights is a tumultuous life at best. as the rest of the world has leaned more and more toward regulating the rights of their citizens, the u.s. has only slowly moved in that direction. individual liberty has created a booming economy (for the most part) and a platform from which most of the modern worlds greatest advances have come. we see that embracing idea that the individual should be allowed such freedom has given us not only great wealth, but also an increasingly large gap between the richest and the poorest. now, with the call for government to do something about the poverty of this country, is it time for the end of individual liberty?

nikita krushchev, the architect of the post-stalin soviet union, once said, â??Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for allâ?�. this blustering cold war icon also claimed, "we will bury you" and that it would be our working class that would be responsible for our downfall. he, of course, failed to mention that it was not the working class but the political elite and their military might that managed to keep socialism alive in his own country. are we to follow in the path of those failed relics or are we willing to allow a free marketplace to determine at what rate our morality overshadows our innate avarice? our politicians make the choice seem simple, equality for the masses or rampant greed. if we keep an eye to the future, the choice is not quite so simple.

the poll above is a rather stark black and white, with no middle ground. this is because there is no middle ground. either we are all allowed to freely live our lives or we must fall in line with what is best for society. to believe we can partially legislate such things is the ultimate in naivete.

delusionsofNORMALity Reviewed by delusionsofNORMALity on 04-02-2009. are we to be free? with all the talk of socialism in america and the growing governmental control over our relatively free marketplace, i feel the need to ask those of you on these boards a rather basic question. is the individual an important component of american political philosophy or is the will of the people of paramount concern? this country has always led the world in its pursuit of the rights of the individual, understanding that the price we pay for those rights is a tumultuous life at best. as Rating: 5

[JaggedEdge]

Great post and poll.

I think it is obvious I believe individual liberties are the most important. It's is the foundation on which our nation was built.

The problem with socialism is that it doesn't truly solve any problems. When individual freedom's are a priority, people have an active role in the quality of their lives and their general happiness.

Socialism is basically the promotion of mediocrity. Intelligence, hard work, individual liberties, the pursuit of happiness, and the monetary motivation to progress an individuals creations and inventions takes a back seat to the society as a whole.

The argument from the other view will be that these are "selfish" ideals, and to an extent they are. My question however, is why are they not justified ideals? Socialism forces the population to support each other rather than the individual supporting his/herself. In a free society, it is up to the individual to provide for themselves, and typically, those who have made fortunes, donate to charities freely.

Why should we want a society of mediocrity?

I don't understand how anyone who as studied the American Revolution, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and read some of their writings can support socialism.

Socialism is the antithesis of the American Dream. It is the antithesis of the framework our Founders laid out for this nation. It is a direct insult to everything our forefathers believed in. An insult the the ideals they risked their lives and fortunes for.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

everyone claims that freedom is of paramount importance, but few seem willing to acknowledge the true price we must pay for it. flag-wavers may applaud our servicemen and bible-thumpers may give thanks for the ability to worship as they please and the price we pay for those freedoms may appear evident. but the real price we pay and will always pay is the risk of failure and few seem willing to take that risk these days.

socialism removes that risk, but it also removes the possibility of great reward. socialism is a form of slavery, slavery to the will of those with the power to shape society. that's all fine and dandy if you are willing to endure those chains, but let's not be taken in by the idea that a government in control of our lives is a better idea than a marketplace in control of them. the fables of democratic socialism or socialism kept in check are as foolish as the idea that all men will always behave ethically.

[JaggedEdge]

I agree, I'm anxious to see the outcome of your poll. And yes, with freedom comes great risk, that is the essence of freedom. You are free to make both positive and negative decisions, free to succeed or fail. At the same time, you have to be willing to accept failure and the fortitude to rebound.

I also agree we now live in a society where failure is viewed as something that should be prevented, as well as a society that views actual success as negative. We live in a society where, simply by succeeding you are labeled as an evil corporate villain.

I don't understand how starting a company, employing fellow citizens, and providing a service or product to the community is so easily attacked. People don't even look at corporations on an individual basis anymore, they simply label them all as evil.

I also find it funny how people feel socialism will alleviate this corruption. The big corporations will be better able to adapt to socialistic policies, regardless of if they remain in the private sector or are seized by the government.

The actual victims of socialism will be the small business owners, small farmers, and young entrepreneurs. I'm not saying the big corporations will be unharmed, but they will be much more likely to adapt.

People feel they are entitled to success, or at least a level of success in which they have what their neighbor has. Nobody has a right to anything other than what they have directly earned.

[killerweed420]

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody elses rights as spelled out in the constitution.

[JaggedEdge]

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody elses rights as spelled out in the constitution.

I agree, unfortunately most people have never even read the constitution and don't realize what our rights are.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody else's rights as spelled out in the constitution.

but, as the constitution evolves, where do your rights spill over onto another's. we can all see that if you shoot your gun into a crowded room and kill someone, you have infringed on one of their basic rights. but if your accumulation of wealth is seen as having too much and another is starving, is the government justified in taking what is yours to feed those who failed to succeed? our rights seem fluid. do we have the right to abundance in the face of need?

[psychocat]

but, as the constitution evolves, where do your rights spill over onto another's. we can all see that if you shoot your gun into a crowded room and kill someone, you have infringed on one of their basic rights. but if your accumulation of wealth is seen as having too much and another is starving, is the government justified in taking what is yours to feed those who failed to succeed? our rights seem fluid. do we have the right to abundance in the face of need?

Many would define that as greed .

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?

Those most likely to succeed are born into a life of privelige and the old boy network ensures that those at the top stay there.

The comparison you use is faulty in that one is a deliberate act and the other a lack of action.
By that logic anyone who does not attempt to stop a murder is as guilty as the killer.

[JaggedEdge]

Many would define that as greed .

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?

Schools offer scholarships to many students with good high school GPA's and/or ACT/SAT scores. Not to mention student loans aren't hard to receive. We again come back to personal responsibility and risks. You can choose to take out loans in order to fund your education if you choose to take the risk. It is an investment, not an obligation of the state to provide higher education to all people.

I fail to see what is wrong with that. If you do well and land a decent job, it's a good investment, if you drop out, it was a bad one.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Many would define that as greed.

others would define it as looking toward the future. the question is not whether it is right to ignore the plight of others, but whether government should force us to care for others as those in power see fit.

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?

excellence is not always rewarded, but with a bit of luck even the poorest can find the education they deserve. who is to determine what is fair or if fair even exists?

Those most likely to succeed are born into a life of privilege and the old boy network ensures that those at the top stay there.

is it a sin to want to provide for your children? of course those born to privilege will have an easier time than those raised in poverty, that is a major reason for the accumulation of wealth for many. once again i ask, is it government's place to penalize those who have succeeded so that others can thrive or should we depend on the private charity of the people themselves to aid those in need? the difference is choice, the essence of the individual.

The comparison you use is faulty in that one is a deliberate act and the other a lack of action.
By that logic anyone who does not attempt to stop a murder is as guilty as the killer.

there was no comparison. merely a pair of examples, one obvious and the other not so obvious. with the inception of the international bill of human rights we have determined that all people are entitled to such things as housing and education. the question is if it is government's duty to assure everyone these basic rights and, if so, how they propose to pay for these things without penalizing the successful.

governments produce nothing and create nothing of value, so their wealth must be taken from the people. if so much is to be provided for so many, whose wealth must be appropriated and where exactly do we draw the line? are we to allow our liberal establishment's globalist ambitions to attempt to level the playing field across the world? our poor would seem rich in other corners of the earth, should their wealth be stolen to provide the basic necessities for those even poorer than themselves?