Here come the UK SWAF teams!

[pErvinalia]

You, I and JimC are also true ideologues. In fact, I can't think of anyone with political, social and other opinions who is not an ideologue.

I think that is misusing the true meaning of the word "ideologue". I know that you mean to say that everybody has some form of political framework from which they perceive society, but an ideologue is someone who works from a single, well developed political ideology, and does not go beyond those particular boundaries. It implies a rigidity of political thought, and it usually eschews a pragmatic, case-by-case decision making process, instead insisting on applying some form of party line, or economic theory.

[Hermit]

I think that is misusing the true meaning of the word "ideologue". I know that you mean to say that everybody has some form of political framework from which they perceive society, but an ideologue is someone who works from a single, well developed political ideology, and does not go beyond those particular boundaries. It implies a rigidity of political thought, and it usually eschews a pragmatic, case-by-case decision making process, instead insisting on applying some form of party line, or economic theory.

Yes, that is the meaning of ideologue as it is popularly perceived today. I think it is a distortion of the meaning with which it was used about 170 years ago when Marx wrote about it extensively. Somewhat ironically he excluded communism from being an ideology, but then he put a special spin of the word himself.

Going by the opening sentences of the Wikipedia, the actual meaning of ideology is somewhat broader than you suggest.

An ideology is a set of conscious and/or unconscious ideas which constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive normative vision, a way of looking at things, as argued in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), and/or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization), as suggested in some Marxist and Critical theory accounts.

That would make you and me as much of an ideologue as Seth, Sandanista and Redunderthebed, although Red seems to have found God now.

[JimC]

To me, it's a matter of pointlessly broadening a definition until it is so all-inclusive that it says nothing except that everybody has some sort of political framework, if only an unconscious one. To me, it makes much more sense to consider an ideology as a deliberate and consciously chosen view of human political and economic issues (typically one shared by members of a political movement), with a proviso that those who profess no ideology will still have a political framework of some kind operating, even if they don't deliberately articulate it.

An ideologue is then someone whose view of the universe is dominated by a clearly chosen ideology, and whose political opinions and choices are totally driven by that ideology.

[piscator]

When, as Rush Limbaugh recommends, a person falls back on his ideology or dogma as a substitute for thinking through a new question, then he's crossed a line.

[JimC]

When, as Rush Limbaugh recommends, a person falls back on his ideology or dogma as a substitute for thinking through a new question, then he's crossed a line.

I suspect that Hermit would say that we all do to an extent, but in the case of someone saying they have no ideology, some form of unconscious ideology is at work. I can see what he means, but I still prefer to restrict the term ideology to a consciously articulated, and rigidly adhered to set of political principles.

[MrJonno]

Sounds like you would be a perfect fit as a worker in an ant colony, Jonno.

I didnt say freedoms doesn't have their uses in enabling human happiness, but they are not something that is good in itself.

An ant colony is probably at a lot closer to what humanity is than many other animal analogies. In a decent society human beings do have a lot choices in what role they have in the machine that is civilization compared to an ant but they are still part of that machine. A human/ant alone is completely useless and will die.

In the end its about worship, I don't worship god but I also don't worship freedom or any ism. A better way to judge on civilization is happiness not freedom. It's not a perfect method as its obviously highly subjective but its a bit hard to say someone isn't happy if they say they are

[Seth]

Pragmatist...socialist...communist...Marxist. All describe the same mindset, which is that the individual is less important than the collective and therefore the collective rules the individual. That's diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.

No middle path at all?

Either you believe that the individual is sovereign or you believe the collective is sovereign. There is no middle ground there.

What this means is that either you believe that the individual has sovereign, inherent and unalienable rights (which does not include all rights) which even the largest majority cannot do away with, or you believe that the needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few regardless of the nature of the imposition on the individual.

Under individualism the individual has, by way of example, the right to life, liberty and property, none of which may be infringed upon for reasons other than as punishment or compensation for wrongdoing by the individual himself. Therefore the individual may not be stripped of any of the above merely because the collective expresses a desire to do so.

Under collectivism, the individual is not sovereign and he owns nothing by right, not even his own life, which may be disposed of by the collective as it deems necessary to the health and protection of the collective. Therefore he may be stripped of liberty, property and even his life if it serves the needs of the collective, regardless of whether or not the individual has done something to warrant being stripped of his rights, like initiating force or fraud on others.

The core philosophy is what determines the legitimacy of the political system. All forms of socialism are fundamentally collectivist in nature and therefore (as MrJonno is wont to say) rights are granted by the collective, to the extent that the collective decides is appropriate for the individual. This philosophy is inherently evil because it makes a slave of everyone, without exception, and makes them the chattels of the collective, to be used, misused and disposed of as the majority demands.

The principles of individualism inform Libertarianism and some forms of socialistic society, but only in Libertarianism are the rights of the individual to be "left alone" by the collective absent some initiation of force or fraud respected absolutely.

But at the end of the day, every form of socialism is based in the principle that the individual is the property of the state and that the state determines what freedoms and liberties and property the individual is permitted to enjoy. Whether and to what extent the individual has a say in those decision varies from ideology to ideology in the collectivist sphere, but in the end it's slavery all the way down.

[Seth]

Not really, as we don't have set prescriptions and a wide ranging set of fundamental principles. We take bits and pieces from here and there, and what works in one situation might not be favoured for another situation.

That doesn't mean you aren't an idealogue.

[Seth]

Yes, societies usually do benefit from enslaving the individual to the will of the majority

Which in the end of the day is the only thing that matters.

Freedom and 'liberty' are nothing more than ideas that sometimes can benefit society , when they don't fuck freedom

Sounds like you would be a perfect fit as a worker in an ant colony, Jonno.

Sure, we know that Seth goes a little crazy in his rejection of almost every control exerted by society on the individual, but it is also disturbingly easy for societies to drift in the other direction. There needs to be a dynamic balance between the needs of society and the rights of individuals, and people need to be able to fight hard to protect individual liberties, even when conceding the need to accept a certain, judicious amount of legal constraints imposed by a democratic society.

The keyword here is dynamic. As the factors affecting a society change over time, the balance between individual rights v. society as a whole ought to change along with them.

Should they? That's what Hitler thought. The US does not lightly define certain rights as "unalienable." It does so because history shows us that if that principle is not adhered to by the government and the collective it is certain to end up with people being abused and killed in the name of the collective and tyranny and despotism become an inevitable course.

The purpose of enunciating certain rights as unalienable is to prevent the collective from abusing the individual merely because it is convenient or desirable to do so.

This does not mean that all rights are unalienable however, and society does indeed change with the times, but within the boundaries of the fundamental rights always.

[Blind groper]

Either you believe that the individual is sovereign or you believe the collective is sovereign. There is no middle ground there.

Actually, there is all the middle ground in the world. Nor is the word 'sovereign' applicable here.

Individual rights and collective rights can exist harmoniously side by side, and they do. Every nation in the world, all 195 of them, have laws which govern rights of individuals, and other laws that govern the rights of the collective.

You cannot drive drunk, because that harms other people, and this is a law of the collective. Similar laws govern rapes, murders, assaults, theft etc.

But there are other laws for your personal and individual benefit, such as protecting your property, right to privacy etc.

The two can and must exist side by side.

[Seth]

Either you believe that the individual is sovereign or you believe the collective is sovereign. There is no middle ground there.

Actually, there is all the middle ground in the world. Nor is the word 'sovereign' applicable here.

Individual rights and collective rights can exist harmoniously side by side, and they do. Every nation in the world, all 195 of them, have laws which govern rights of individuals, and other laws that govern the rights of the collective.

You cannot drive drunk, because that harms other people, and this is a law of the collective. Similar laws govern rapes, murders, assaults, theft etc.

But there are other laws for your personal and individual benefit, such as protecting your property, right to privacy etc.

The two can and must exist side by side.

The key is the foundational principles. If the state grants rights, the state can revoke rights, and the inevitable upshot of that is abuse by the state of the individual. The US operates on the principle that certain rights are beyond the state's authority to revoke precisely in order to prevent the state from even attempting to do so.

But you're wrong when you speak of the "rights of the collective." The collective has no rights, only individuals have rights. All of the regulatory mechanisms you describe exist not to benefit the collective but to benefit each and every individual who comprise the collective, through whom overall social control is maintained and protected. It's a very fine distinction but an important one. In a socialist state, the collective is this abstract thing that the government rules and regulates that is different from the individuals who make up the collective. Therefore, in socialism things done in the name of the collective are legitimized even when they abuse the individual because no particular individual or individuals are more important, or have rights that supersede the will of the collective as managed by the state.

Thus, anything can be done to any particular individual in the name of the collective because the collective's "rights" are always superior to the rights of the individual. This is the grievous harm that democracy produces; the tyranny of the majority.

The US model operates from the first principle that the individual is sovereign and has rights that occur as a natural result of the individual's status as a human being, and these fundamental rights are always held superior to the democratic will of the collective, which cannot revoke or infringe on those rights absent some act by the individual justifying such interference, such as committing a crime.

This distinction between collectivism and individualism is subtle but important because the fundamental principle involved, when enforced properly by the system, is most likely to prevent abuse of the individual at the behest of the collective. It's not perfect of course, but history shows that it's superior to any form of socialism.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You draw a distinction between a 'collective' as an item, and the word 'collective' as meaning a whole lot of individuals with separate rights.

I am happy to go along with that. But the end result is that there are still laws set down by the state for the 'collective' even if the definition is as above.

If you stop someone driving drunk, you are interfering with his individual right to do as he chooses. But by driving drunk he is putting others at risk, and that is not permitted. It is still a law designed to protect a 'collective', what ever your definition of collective may be.

[piscator]

But you're wrong when you speak of the "rights of the collective." The collective has no rights, only individuals have rights.

In America, individual corporations like Exxon have rights, but not informal collectives like "The Energy Sector". So I guess you're right, in a way...

[Seth]

Seth

You draw a distinction between a 'collective' as an item, and the word 'collective' as meaning a whole lot of individuals with separate rights.

I am happy to go along with that. But the end result is that there are still laws set down by the state for the 'collective' even if the definition is as above.

If you stop someone driving drunk, you are interfering with his individual right to do as he chooses. But by driving drunk he is putting others at risk, and that is not permitted. It is still a law designed to protect a 'collective', what ever your definition of collective may be.

No, it's a law designed to protect each and every individual in the collective. This is why in criminal cases there must be a person who has been harmed by the unlawful act. In the UK I believe that a person may be charged with a crime based on an assessment by the police that the act contravenes some law without identifying an actual victim. In the US, there must be an actual victim in whose name the charges are brought. It can be "the people" of the state or nation, but the state itself (meaning the government) cannot bring charges in its own name.

The distinction is important because historically despotic tyrannies have alleged crimes against "the state", which means the apparatus and dignity of the political class, whether representative or dictatorial. In this way the apparatus of government can oppress the individual by alleging that an abstract political power can be harmed by the individual rather than requiring that some actual harm be done to one or more individuals who comprise the society.

[JimC]

Seth

You draw a distinction between a 'collective' as an item, and the word 'collective' as meaning a whole lot of individuals with separate rights.

I am happy to go along with that. But the end result is that there are still laws set down by the state for the 'collective' even if the definition is as above.

If you stop someone driving drunk, you are interfering with his individual right to do as he chooses. But by driving drunk he is putting others at risk, and that is not permitted. It is still a law designed to protect a 'collective', what ever your definition of collective may be.

No, it's a law designed to protect each and every individual in the collective. This is why in criminal cases there must be a person who has been harmed by the unlawful act. In the UK I believe that a person may be charged with a crime based on an assessment by the police that the act contravenes some law without identifying an actual victim. In the US, there must be an actual victim in whose name the charges are brought. It can be "the people" of the state or nation, but the state itself (meaning the government) cannot bring charges in its own name.

The distinction is important because historically despotic tyrannies have alleged crimes against "the state", which means the apparatus and dignity of the political class, whether representative or dictatorial. In this way the apparatus of government can oppress the individual by alleging that an abstract political power can be harmed by the individual rather than requiring that some actual harm be done to one or more individuals who comprise the society.

I actually agree to a fair extent; the phrase "crimes against the state" is fairly chilling, and is a hallmark of a totalitarian state. However, wouldn't treason be an exception? It's not a crime against a specific individual, but it can bring harm to both the existence of a state, and the individuals within it...

However, to a degree, we have been quibbling over semantics. Essentially, most of us in this thread accept a certain amount more control by an elected government over individuals than you do, seat belts and helmets being the classic examples. However, the whole thing is on a spectrum; I've said several times that it is important to minimise the interference of private choices by governments, but not by an ideological position, instead on pragmatic grounds in a case-by-case process.