RE: (ABSTRACT) POLITICS - healthy collectivism

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of haecklers

>

> Weston A. Price in the book " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration "

> talks about how well-nourished people in well-nourished

> societies are more collectivist - they base their actions on

> the well-being of the whole community, while in the more

> malnourished areas people are more individualistic - base

> their actions on their own well-being.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. Could you elaborate?

> He said the key issue is to

> discern the difference between collectivism and

> individualism. But his views were opposite - it is the

> collectivism of our current government that is evil - they

> feel it is justified to sacrifice us and citizens of other

> countries for the greater good, and we should persue

> individualism, or the importance of the individual and their

> freedoms and right to health and life.

The distinction is that an individualist prioritizes the rights and liberty

of the individual, whereas a collectivist believes that these can and should

be sacrificed for the collective good.

> I thought it odd that the two views of the same words were so

> disparate, but then realized in the primitive societies, the

> individuals were the ones who made the choice to be

> sacrificed, for their own ideals, where in G.

> 's view, collectivism means the government is

> sacrificing some of us without our knowledge or consent, for

> goals we don't understand, and often not for the greater good

> of society as much as the good of those in power.

Correct. From a naive perspective, collectivism doesn't sound so bad. Who

could be against the collective good? The subtle flaw in this idea is that

" collective good " is a very nebulous concept with no clear-cut definition.

And even if we can agree on a definition of collective good, the policy

changes necessary to achieve that goal are nonobvious and often

counterintuitive. Consequently, collectivist impulses can easily be

manipulated to serve the private ends of those at the top, and even those

with the best of intentions often do great evil unintentionally. Consider,

for example, the dozens of failed experiments in communism and fascism.

Ironically, individualism often serves the collective good much more

effectively than most conscious attempts to maximize it.

[Guest guest]

-

> From a naive perspective, collectivism doesn't sound so bad. Who

>could be against the collective good? The subtle flaw in this idea is that

> " collective good " is a very nebulous concept with no clear-cut definition.

>And even if we can agree on a definition of collective good, the policy

>changes necessary to achieve that goal are nonobvious and often

>counterintuitive. Consequently, collectivist impulses can easily be

>manipulated to serve the private ends of those at the top, and even those

>with the best of intentions often do great evil unintentionally. Consider,

>for example, the dozens of failed experiments in communism and fascism.

>Ironically, individualism often serves the collective good much more

>effectively than most conscious attempts to maximize it.

How ironic that you first say collectivism is flawed because it's

it's impossible to settle on a clear definition of the collective

good, and then that individualism often serves the collective good

most effectively.

It's also absurd to characterize most if not all of history's

attempts at communism and fascism as either legitimately collectivist

or genuinely motivated by altruism.

-

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Idol

> How ironic that you first say collectivism is flawed because

> it's it's impossible to settle on a clear definition of the

> collective good, and then that individualism often serves the

> collective good most effectively.

I'll grant that it sounds ironic on the surface, but there's no

contradiction. For example, we can disagree on whether the " collective good "

is better served by, say, a high median income with a wide distribution or a

somewhat lower median income with a tighter distribution (i.e., more income

equality). There are arguments to be made for both sides. But by any

reasonable definition of " collective good, " American individualism has

served our collective good much better than Soviet collectivism served the

collective good of Soviet citizens.

You might point out Europe as a counterexample, but Europe is still at least

moderately individualistic.

> It's also absurd to characterize most if not all of history's

> attempts at communism and fascism as either legitimately

> collectivist or genuinely motivated by altruism.

Yes, it is, which is why I avoided making such a characterization. What I

said was that those at the top, whatever their personal motives may be, can

manipulate the collectivist impulses of the masses to gain support and

justify their policies. Remember that the Soviet Union had the enthusiastic

support of much of the Western left for decades.

[Guest guest]

On 1/22/06, Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

> I'll grant that it sounds ironic on the surface, but there's no

> contradiction. For example, we can disagree on whether the " collective good "

> is better served by, say, a high median income with a wide distribution or a

> somewhat lower median income with a tighter distribution (i.e., more income

> equality). There are arguments to be made for both sides. But by any

> reasonable definition of " collective good, " American individualism has

> served our collective good much better than Soviet collectivism served the

> collective good of Soviet citizens.

I thought you would make this point, but apparently you are making a

somewhat different one: if one assumes methodological individualism,

and that the collective good is merely the collection of individual

goods, then each individual good is maximized in voluntary exchanges

because perceived benefit is a prerequisite to voluntary exchanges on

all sides, and therefore maximizing voluntarism and individual choice

maximizes the fullfillment of the collection of individual goods, and

therefore the collective good.

Many will not accept the methodological individualist assumption, but

unless we use it, we are left arguing about what the true collective

good is. Individualism and voluntarism maximize the total good

perceived by each individual.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Chris

> Masterjohn

>

> I thought you would make this point, but apparently you are

> making a somewhat different one: if one assumes

> methodological individualism, and that the collective good is

> merely the collection of individual goods, then each

> individual good is maximized in voluntary exchanges because

> perceived benefit is a prerequisite to voluntary exchanges on

> all sides, and therefore maximizing voluntarism and

> individual choice maximizes the fullfillment of the

> collection of individual goods, and therefore the collective good.

I don't really think this is true in any meaningful sense. What voluntarism

does, if we disregard transaction costs, is bring about Pareto optimality.

That is, it gets us to a place where it's not possible to make any more

mutally beneficial exchanges. But that's not necessarily a great measure of

collective good. If I have everything and you have nothing (not even skills

for which I might be willing to pay), that's Pareto optimal, but it's not

great.

A better measure might be the sum of each person's utility. Or maybe the sum

of the square root of each person's utility, so that a very happy person

doesn't cancel out an absolutely miserable one. Using one of these measures,

you may have to engage in some sort of redistribution to optimize

" collective good " in the short term (because taking from the rich to give to

the poor helps the poor more than it hurts the rich). Of course, when we

take into account the long term effects, there are very good reasons not to

do this, and voluntarism does generally give us the best results we can

realistically hope for. But the fact that it leads to Pareto optimality

isn't sufficient to prove this.