Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Foxfyre]

Damn. Applauding Erand and Intense's very competent posts and me outta rep.

NECESSARY regulation to ensure that people are not able to legally foul the water, air, and soil shared with others is a means of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights. It is not an infringement on capitalism.

But when the regulations start infringing on what perfectly acceptable products a manufacturer is allowed to manufacture or what retailers are allowed to sell, that is going beyond a protection of rights and is an infringement on capitalsm. Also when the federal government presumes to dictate how much an employer must pay his employees, what benefits he must provide, how much time off he must allow him to have, how much the executive should be allowed to earn, etc. etc. etc., we are getting very close to government control of the means of production which cannot happen and still have a free society.

 

[Londoner]

There is an echo chamber filled with a rotating parade of horribles, designed to agitate the stupid. It's a tactical form of demonology designed to obscure who really owns government. You know the demons, right? Soviets Liberals Terrorists Marxists Baby Killers Gays Illegals Bureaucrats Janet Jackson's Breast Evolution, etc. The echo chamber makes people believe we live in a world where Stalin can show up at any second and steal the family pharmacy, like he did to Ayn Rand's family. Problem is, now Stalin works for Eli Lilly and Halliburton and Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs. If you want to talk about concentrated power, you have to step out of the echo chamber and analyze who funds elections and who staffs government and who controls the world.

 

[dilloduck]

Just follow the money-----all the way.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is an echo chamber filled with a rotating parade of horribles, designed to agitate the stupid. It's a tactical form of demonology designed to obscure who really owns government. You know the demons, right? Soviets Liberals Terrorists Marxists Baby Killers Gays Illegals Bureaucrats Janet Jackson's Breast Evolution, etc. The echo chamber makes people believe we live in a world where Stalin can show up at any second and steal the family pharmacy, like he did to Ayn Rand's family. Problem is, now Stalin works for Eli Lilly and Halliburton and Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs. If you want to talk about concentrated power, you have to step out of the echo chamber and analyze who funds elections and who staffs government and who controls the world.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

Excellent post! There is not a liberal or progressive who is unaware of the dangers of too much government. Conversely, I don't see any 'conservatives' who are even faintly aware of the malfeasance of power that has occurred during the last 30-40 years.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

------------------------------------------------------------

James Madison famously wrote in the Federalist Papers (#51), "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

We've learned the hard way, most starkly in the Great Depression and now in the Great Recession, that men and women are anything but angels, and that government first and foremost must protect the American people from the unmitigated avarice of the private sector.

The problem is, what has happened to that lofty, Founding Fathers notion of government as our protector? To me, the most important contribution, and the most disturbing part of Janine Wedel's brilliant new book, "Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government and the Free Market", is that she has laid bare the lie that we have functional separation today between the public and private sector. Over time, capitalism and democracy have become gradually melded into corporatism in the corridors of power in Washington (and in many other national capitals around the world). Public and private are now substantially blurred, as the "transnational" political elites and the financial elites have become literally the same people. It is a condition which leaves the people feeling unrepresented, unprotected and utterly disregarded, a prop in their own play, a hollow feeling the great Peruvian journalist Gustavo Gorriti once eloquently described as "cosmetic democracy."

According to Janine, whose unflinching social anthropological work I have respected for years, three out of four people doing the work of the federal government today are actually private contractors. Think about that a minute...That means private company employees -- with less stringent conflict of interest requirements and also not generally obligated to adhere to the Freedom of Information Act -- increasingly have become the government and now substantially rule the roost.

When I directed the Center for Public Integrity earlier in this decade, we discovered a mercenary culture far more extensive than I had ever imagined. For example, in 2002, in a report entitled "Making a Killing: The Business of War", we identified 90 private military companies operating in the world, hired by governments or corporations. In early 2003, we reported that nine out of 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, then chaired by Richard Perle, had ties to defense companies with $76 billion in Pentagon contracts in just the preceding two years. In late 2003, the Center issued "Windfalls of War", first revealing that Kellogg, Brown & Root, then a subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, was the top recipient of U.S. war contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. That report, which won the first George Polk award for online reporting and was produced by 20 researchers, writers and editors, also revealed that the most of the major contractors had close employee or Board ties to the executive branch for Republican and Democrat administrations and cumulatively they had contributed many millions of dollars to the political process.

More...

 

[Londoner]

The old imperialism was overtly repressive - boots on the ground. The new imperialism is done through the imposition of market relationships. [Capitalism is the most productive machine ever created. When it exhausts the low hanging fruit in the host country, it must expand. Helps to consider the exponential logic of 3-5% growth in relation to any given environment. When oil runs out in Texas, you must go to the Persian Gulf. This is why capitalism wants to impose a centralized, open-border, unitary legal structure on all the world's diverse, autonomous regions: because it requires predictable, efficient, and ultra-cheap access to all the word's labor and raw materials. You can't have the kind of growth capitalism requires without having control over the resources of an ever-expanding territory. The need for the highest possible returns requires that capital not be bogged down with a different set of laws and cultural norms at every border. It has a leveling affect which Hayek couldn't even imagine because the global capitalist system had not yet emerged. The less literate parts of the right don't understand this: capital's need for efficient ACCESS to resources runs counter to the Borders, Language, Culture mantra. If big business in California can realize a higher return by loosening borders and lowering labor costs, it will do so, Borders and Culture be damned. This is why Reagan passed the largest amnesty bill ever - to break union control of labor. The right's illegal immigrant agitation is a tool designed to scare under-educated nativists into the voting booth to pull the lever for billionaires.]

But let's go back to the 80s and look at how the resource hungry global north dealt with the resource rich global south. Let's look at the new imperialism. By the end of the postwar boom, developed industrial northern economies like the USA started to need more and more oil from the middle east, sugar from south America, precious metals from Africa, cheap labor from Grenada and Asia (etcetera to the nth). [Again, capitalism runs through raw materials in the host country very quickly. Put simply: 3rd world raw material and labor become essential to the advanced, mature, resource hungry northern economies. This is why the Cold War was centered around under-developed places in Central-Southern America: because the US needed a context for intervention in vital resources regions.... and > national security has always been the best way to grease capitalist expansion or the maintenance of vital markets (unless you think we were really in the middle east because we were afraid of petty tyrants with box cutter technology. Presidents from FDR to Bush 43 realize that you sometimes have to drag American kicking and screaming into conflict. But you gotta admit, it got kind of funny with Grenada. Was Reagan afraid of a nutmeg bomb. I guess he was lucky to have a voting block who was so naive that they would eventually get 100% of their information from people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reilly)]

But how did we "discipline" the global south and open their treasures to our businesses? An effective tool used by Reagan was loosely termed "Structural Adjustment Programs". This involved disbursements to "important" parts of the 3rd world. Massive, un-payable loans were given to US-friendly dictators for infrastructure projects, usually performed by US transnationals. The country would predictably default and the US would seize assets and open the country to foreign investment, which kept the lion's share of the profits without having to invest in things like protecting fresh water. Of course, the accommodating dictator was financed lavishly and protected, so the markets could be kept open to US interests. And the labor was of the sweatshop variety, which is why you can by a toaster for $6. The dictator would keep the local population oppressed so that they could only earn pennies a day, while the real benefit accrued to the investors and the countries who benefited from cheap goods. Essentially, Reagan used World Bank and IMF loans to ensure that state enterprises, laws, and markets would be handed over to the needs of outsiders. This is why we have bases all of the globe - to "stabilize" markets in dangerous regions or regions where local populations might want to be the primary beneficiaries of their resources. The Cold War (again) created the context to base the globe; we used the Soviet threat to pull resource rich parts of the 3rd world under the eagle's protective wing. Read the labels on the stuff you buy - read where it is made. You need to a big military to gain access to those resources, and to ship them home from dangerous parts of the globe.

Be careful with believing that we have an ideal version of capitalism - with perfect competition and total freedom for all players. I would urge you to think about the military component of global capitalism. I have dog eared copies of "Capitalism and Freedom", "The Road to Serfdom", and "Capitalism: the unknown Ideal". I love those books. They are all brilliant. But it's dangerous to have a dogmatic relationship to them. They were more necessary before Reagan and Thatcher and 30 years of neoliberalism. We now have problems that those books don't address because they were written before big business owned government.

 

[Bfgrn]

The old imperialism was overtly repressive - boots on the ground. The new imperialism is done through the forcible imposition of market relationships. [Capitalism is the most productive machine ever created. When it exhausts the low hanging fruit in the host country, it must expand. Helps to consider the exponential logic of 3-5% growth in relation to any given environment. When oil runs out in Texas, you must go to the Persian Gulf. This is why capitalism wants to impose a centralized, open-border, unitary legal structure on all the world's diverse, autonomous regions: because it requires predictable, efficient, and ultra-cheap access to all the word's labor and raw materials. You can't have the kind of growth capitalism requires without having control over the resources of an ever-expanding territory. The need for the highest possible returns requires that capital not be bogged down with a different set of laws and cultural norms at every border. It has a leveling affect which Hayek couldn't even imagine because the global capitalist system had not yet emerged. The less literate parts of the right don't understand this: capital's need for efficient ACCESS to resources runs counter to the Borders, Language, Culture mantra. If big business in California can realize a higher return by loosening borders and lowering labor costs, it will do so, Borders and Culture be damned. This is why Reagan passed the largest amnesty bill ever - to break union control of labor. The right's illegal immigrant agitation is a tool designed to scare under-educated nativists into the voting booth to pull the lever for billionaires.]

But let's go back to the 80s and look at how the resource hungry global north dealt with the resource rich global south. Let's look at the new imperialism. By the end of the postwar boom, developed industrial northern economies like the USA started to need more and more oil from the middle east, sugar from south America, precious metals from Africa, cheap labor from Grenada and Asia (etcetera to the nth). [Again, capitalism runs through raw materials in the host country very quickly. Put simply: 3rd world raw material and labor become essential to the advanced, mature, resource hungry northern economies. This is why the Cold War was centered around places in Central-Southern America and the Middle East: because the US needed a context for intervention in vital resources regions.... and > national security has always been the best way to grease capitalist expansion or the maintenance of vital markets (unless you think we were really in the middle east because we were afraid of petty tyrants with box cutter technology. Presidents from FDR to Bush 43 realize that you sometimes have to drag American kicking and screaming into conflict)]

But how did we "discipline" the global south and open their treasures to our businesses? An effective tool used by Reagan was loosely termed "Structural Adjustment Programs". This involved disbursements to "important" parts of the 3rd world. Massive, un-payable loans were given to US-friendly dictators for infrastructure projects, usually performed by US transnationals. The country would predictably default - the dictator was financed lavishly and protected - and the US would seize assets and open the country to foreign investment, which kept the lion's share of the profits without having to invest in things like protecting fresh water. And the labor was of the sweatshop variety, which is why you can by a toaster for $6. The dictator would keep the local population oppressed so that they could only earn pennies a day, while the real benefit accrued to the investors and the countries who benefited from cheap goods. Essentially, Reagan used World Bank and IMF loans to ensure that state enterprises, laws, and markets would be handed over to the needs of outsiders. This is why we have bases all of the globe - to "stabilize" markets in dangerous regions or regions where local populations might want to be the primary beneficiaries of their resources. The Cold War (again) created the context to base the globe; we used the Soviet threat to pull resource rich parts of the 3rd world under the eagle's protective wing. Read the labels on the stuff you buy - read where it is made. You need to a big military to gain access to those resources, and to ship them home from dangerous parts of the globe.

Be careful with believing that we have an ideal version of capitalism - with perfect competition and total freedom for all players. I would urge you to think about the military component of global capitalism. I have dog eared copies of "Capitalism and Freedom", "The Road to Serfdom", and "Capitalism: the unknown Ideal". I love those books. They are all brilliant. But it's dangerous to have a dogmatic relationship to them. They were more necessary before Reagan and Thatcher and 30 years of neoliberalism. We now have problems that those books don't address because they were written before big business owned government.

Here is some very interesting information.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdas-Zyg9MU]Confessions of an Economic Hitman - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Londoner]

Consider what happened with Mossadeq in Iran. He was wildly popular with the people - who had every right to choose their own leader. Problem was, he would not play ball with western energy needs. He didn't want foreign influence over his country's primary wealth producing asset any more than Iowans want Russians to amass near corn fields in Des Moins.

So the British and US removed Mossadeq... and installed a brutal dictator - the Shaw, who sold his country down river for western energy needs. Predictably, the Shaw was hated by the local population, who eventually revolted, giving power back to Islamic extremism (which is what happens whenever the west tinkers) > enter the Ayatollah Khamenei who hated the west. Reagan takes power and tries to rebuild assets in the region, starting with Hussein, who he funded heavily, and the Mujahidean in Afghanistan (to fight the Russians. But isn't it funny how the Reagan-Bushies made Hussein and the earliest version of Al Qaeda more powerful). Point is: in order to get resources for our economy, we had to spill blood and fund a lot of monsters. Welcome to the jungle. Let's not even talk about our half-centruy of support for the brutal freedom hating Saudi regime. Capitalism's need to expand to other countries and cultures is not about spreading the freedom or markets. It's about forcibly opening the resources and politics of other countries to our needs.

[People just don't get the expansionary power of capitalism. Marx understood it. He had more respect for the power of capitalism than anyone from the Chicago School. When you need an ever-expanding supply of raw material from an ever-crowded globe of extremely diverse nations, the result is not freedom but conflict. Problem is: the average right wing voter has been fed cliches that are more appropriate to early capitalism, when markets were local and resources plentiful. Even Adam Smith warned of the problems created when business goes global. But people don't read the Wealth of Nations. They listen to cliches from the right wing message machine]

Capitalism and freedom is beautiful notion. Nothing is better than competitive free markets for allocating resources and setting prices. If your economic system flows up-river and runs counter to human nature - if you don't get incentives right - your system will die. We get it. But global capitalism is not about innocent free market relationships. It's about the necessary imperialism implied by capitalist expansion. When the energy runs out in Texas or the copper runs out in West Virginia, you better grab a gun and find it somewhere else. The rest you may ignore.

 

[Bfgrn]

Consider what happened with Mossadeq in Iran. He was wildly popular with the people - who had every right to choose their own leader. Problem was, he would not play ball with western energy needs. He didn't want foreign influence over his country's primary wealth producing asset any more than Iowans want Russians to amass near corn fields in Des Moins.

So the British and US removed Mossadeq... and installed a brutal dictator - the Shaw, who sold his country down river for western energy needs. Predictably, the Shaw was hated by the local population, who eventually revolted, giving power back to Islamic extremism (which is what happens whenever the west tinkers) > enter the Ayatollah Khamenei who hated the west. Reagan takes power and tries to rebuild assets in the region, starting with Hussein, who he funded heavily, and the Mujahidean in Afghanistan (to fight the Russians). In order to get resources for our economy, we had to spill a lot of blood and fund a lot of monsters. Welcome to the jungle, which is less about glorious freedom and more about war. Let's not even talk about our half-centruy of support for the brutal freedom hating Saudi regime. Capitalism's need to expand to other countries and cultures is not about spreading the freedom or markets. It's about forcibly opening the resources and politics of other countries to our needs.

Capitalism and freedom is beautiful notion. Nothing is better than competitive free markets for allocating resources and setting prices. If your economic system flows up-river and runs counter to human nature - if you don't get incentives right - your system will die. We get it. But global capitalism is not about innocent free market relationships. It's about the necessary imperialism implied by capitalist expansion. When the energy runs out in Texas or the copper runs out in West Virginia, you better grab a gun and find it somewhere else. The rest you may ignore.

John Perkins (video I posted) mentions the first economic hitman, Kermit Roosevelt.

The Iranian Coup of 1953 and Kermit Roosevelt

 

[Bfgrn]

Don't forget Iraq.

Abd al-Karim Qasim

Qasim was Prime Minister from July 1958 - February 1963.

Qasim soon withdrew Iraq from the pro-Western Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union. Iraq also abolished its Treaty of mutual security and bilateral relations with the UK. Also, Iraq withdrew from the agreement with the United States that was signed by the monarchy from 1954 to 1955 regarding military, arms, and equipment. On May 30, 1959, the last of the British soldiers and military officers departed the al-Habbāniyya base in Iraq.

On July 26, 1958, the Interim Constitution was adopted, proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting them freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government freed political prisoners and granted amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the 1943 to 1945 Kurdish uprisings. The exiled Kurds returned home and were welcomed by the republican regime.

Qasim passed law No. 80 which seized 98% of Iraqi land from the British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, and distributed farms to more of the population. This increased the size of the middle class. Qasim also oversaw the building of 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes. The most notable example, and indeed symbol, of this was the new suburb of Baghdad named Madinat al-Thawra (revolution city), renamed Saddam City under the Baath regime and now widely referred to as Sadr City. Qasim rewrote the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society.

An assassination attempt in 1959 by dedicated pan-Arabists including Saddam Hussein and reportedly supported by the United States, led to a harsh crackdown on domestic opposition and the development of a personality cult. Qasim was a strong opponent of British military intervention in the Middle East, and repeatedly called for the removal of foreign troops.

Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup of February 8, 1963, motivated by fear of communist influence and state control over the petroleum sector. This coup has been reported to have been carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA.

 

[francoHFW]

And Allende and many Latin Americans...Pubs!!

Pestritto is a FOS RW hack...Liberals are liberals, just in different times- and progessives are liberals- then there're lying cheating Neocons, and just plain cronyism Pubs (see scandal and recession/depressions...)...and their ignorant dupes. Fact.

 

[Intense]

Consider what happened with Mossadeq in Iran. He was wildly popular with the people - who had every right to choose their own leader. Problem was, he would not play ball with western energy needs. He didn't want foreign influence over his country's primary wealth producing asset any more than Iowans want Russians to amass near corn fields in Des Moins.

So the British and US removed Mossadeq... and installed a brutal dictator - the Shaw, who sold his country down river for western energy needs. Predictably, the Shaw was hated by the local population, who eventually revolted, giving power back to Islamic extremism (which is what happens whenever the west tinkers) > enter the Ayatollah Khamenei who hated the west. Reagan takes power and tries to rebuild assets in the region, starting with Hussein, who he funded heavily, and the Mujahidean in Afghanistan (to fight the Russians. But isn't it funny how the Reagan-Bushies made Hussein and the earliest version of Al Qaeda more powerful). Point is: in order to get resources for our economy, we had to spill blood and fund a lot of monsters. Welcome to the jungle. Let's not even talk about our half-centruy of support for the brutal freedom hating Saudi regime. Capitalism's need to expand to other countries and cultures is not about spreading the freedom or markets. It's about forcibly opening the resources and politics of other countries to our needs.

[People just don't get the expansionary power of capitalism. Marx understood it. He had more respect for the power of capitalism than anyone from the Chicago School. When you need an ever-expanding supply of raw material from an ever-crowded globe of extremely diverse nations, the result is not freedom but conflict. Problem is: the average right wing voter has been fed cliches that are more appropriate to early capitalism, when markets were local and resources plentiful. Even Adam Smith warned of the problems created when business goes global. But people don't read the Wealth of Nations. They listen to cliches from the right wing message machine]

Capitalism and freedom is beautiful notion. Nothing is better than competitive free markets for allocating resources and setting prices. If your economic system flows up-river and runs counter to human nature - if you don't get incentives right - your system will die. We get it. But global capitalism is not about innocent free market relationships. It's about the necessary imperialism implied by capitalist expansion. When the energy runs out in Texas or the copper runs out in West Virginia, you better grab a gun and find it somewhere else. The rest you may ignore.

Translation:

Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī (Persian: محمدرضاشاه پهلوی, [mohæmˈmæd reˈzɒː ˈʃɒːhe pæhlæˈviː]; 26 October 1919 – 27 July 1980) was the last Shah of Iran who ruled Iran from 16 September 1941 until his overthrow by the Iranian Revolution on 11 February 1979. He was the second and last monarch of the House of Pahlavi of the Iranian monarchy. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi held several titles: His Imperial Majesty, Shahanshah (King of Kings,[1] Emperor), Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans) and Bozorg Arteshtārān (Head of the Warriors,[2] Persian: بزرگ ارتشتارا&#1606.
Mohammad Reza came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During his reign, the Iranian oil industry was nationalized under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, and Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. The Shah's White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources, and extending suffrage to women.
A secular Muslim himself, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran, particularly due to his strong policy of modernization, secularization, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, and recognition of Israel. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran's intelligence agency, SAVAK. According to official statistics, Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978, a number which multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution.[3]
Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most notable of which were the U.S. and UK backed coup d'état against Mosaddegh in 1953, clashes with Islamists, and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 16 January, forced the Shah to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic. Facing likely execution should he return to Iran, he died in exile in Egypt, whose President, Anwar Sadat, had granted him asylum.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

COLLECTIVISM
"COLLECTIVISM: Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher, HERE

"collectivism ... treats society as if it were a super-organism existing over and above its individual members, and which takes the collective in some form (e.g., tribe, race, or state) to be the primary unit of reality and standard of value." -- Prof. Fred D. Miller HERE

"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'." -- Ayn Rand, HERE

"Collectivism is a form of anthropomorphism. It attempts to see a group of individuals as having a single identity similar to a person. ... Collectivism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group." -- Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands HERE

"Collectivism requires self-sacrifice, the subordination of one's interests to those of others." -- Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand

"Collectivism, unlike individualism, holds the group as the primary, and the standard of moral value." -- Mark Da Cunha HERE

"G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), and Karl Marx (1818-83) ... both viewed political phenomena as the inevitable result of historical processes, and regarded collectives as of greater reality and value than their individual members." -- Prof. Fred D. Miller HERE

"collectivist ethical principle: man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Whether those 'others' are a dictator's gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant -- the point is that man in principle must be sacrificed to others." -- Mark Da Cunha HERE

"Collectivism is the political theory that states that the will of the people is omnipotent, an individual must obey; that society as a whole, not the individual, is the unit of moral value. ... Collectivism is the application of the altruist ethics to politics." -- Dr. Andrew Bernstein, HERE

"The antipode of individualism is collectivism, which subordinates the individual to the group -- be it the 'community,' the tribe, the race, the proletariat, etc. A person's moral worth is judged by how much he sacrifices himself to the group. [Under collectivism] the more emergencies (and victims) the better, because they provide more opportunity for 'virtue'." -- Glenn Woiceshyn

"Collectivism is the doctrine that the social collective -- called society, the people, the state, etc. -- has rights, needs, or moral authority above and apart from the individuals who comprise it. We hear this idea continually championed in such familiar platitudes as 'the needs of the people take precedence over the rights of the individual,' 'production for people, not profits,' and 'the common good.'
"Collectivism often sounds humane because it stresses the importance of human needs. In reality, it is little more than a rationalization for sacrificing you and me to the desires of others." -- Jarret B. Wollstein in The Causes of Aggression, HERE

"Don't forget that pure democracy is a form of collectivism -- it readily sacrifices individual rights to majority wishes. Since it involves no constitutional bill of rights, or at least, no working and effective one, the majority-of-the-moment can and does vote away the rights of the minority-of-the-moment, even of a single individual. This has been called 'mob rule,' the 'tyranny of the majority' and many other pejorative names. It is one of the greatest threats to liberty, the reason why America's founding fathers wrote so much so disparagingly of pure democracy." -- Bert Rand

"A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Is the power of society limited or unlimited?

collectivism vs. individualism
"Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.
"Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes." -- Ayn Rand, Textbook of Americanism, HERE

 

[Intense]

INDIVIDUALISM
"Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights ..." -- Nathaniel Branden HERE

"INDIVIDUALISM: The term 'individualism' has a great variety of meanings in social and political philosophy. There are at least three types that can be distinguished: (1) ontological individualism, (2) methodological individualism, and (3) moral or political individualism. Ontological individualism is the doctrine that social reality consists, ultimately, only of persons who choose and act. Collectives, such as a social class, state, or a group, cannot act so they are not considered to have a reality independent of the actions of persons. Methodological individualists hold that the only genuinely scientific propositions in social science are those that can be reduced to the actions, dispositions, and decisions of individuals. Political or moral individualism is the theory that individuals should be left, as far as possible, to determine their own futures in economic and moral matters. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher HERE

"The foundation of individualism lies in one's moral right to pursue one's own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.
"But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party's happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.
"Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right." -- Shawn E. Klein HERE

"Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." -- Ayn Rand HERE

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." -- Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -- Ayn Rand


Relevant Comments

"This right to life, this right to liberty, and this right to pursue one’s happiness is unabashedly individualistic, without in the slightest denying at the same time our thoroughly social nature. It’s only that our social relations, while vital to us all, must be chosen -* that is what makes the crucial difference." -- Prof. Tibor R. Machan, HERE and HERE

"...individualism is not antithetical to community. Rather, it can involve free association and a belief in an over-arching harmony of interests. In a free socety, individuals join with others because of love and mutual benefit, not because they are programmed or coerced." -- Prof. Clifford Thies

"One byproduct of individualism is benevolence -- a general attitude of good will towards one's neighbors and fellow human beings. Benevolence is impossible in a society where people violate each others' rights." -- Glenn Woiceshyn

"Paradoxical as it may seem, men and women who are free to pursue individualism and material wealth turn out to be the most compassionate of all." -- Financial Times, London, Nov 22, 2001

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Jefferson et al, The Declaration of Independence

"The fact that most people think that ... pursuing one's own self-interest equates to behaving brutally or irrationally, is, as Ms. Rand noted, a 'psychological confession' on their part. In fact it is against one's own long-term self-interest to behave irrationally or trample others. Such actions are the exact opposite of selfish -- they're self-destructive." -- Wayne Dunn
(Emphasis added. Criminals and other sociopaths do not think in terms of how their actions affect the society around them and set bad examples for others. Nor do they empathize with others, certainly not their victims. And they certainly don't feel the pride of honest achievement or of helping to build civilization.)

"Individualism is a concept which the advocates of most political systems try desperately to avoid. They'd prefer that political contests, debates and symposia were limited to answering loaded questions such as, 'WHICH type of powerful government should we have?', 'WHICH type of dictatorship do you tend to prefer?", 'WHAT KINDS of intrusiveness should government engage in?' and, 'WHICH type of control freaks are best suited to run your life for you?' ... They often get upset, even hysterical, if you point out that socialism, fascism, communism and mixed-economy welfare-states have a lot in common.1 They carry on and on as if non-essentials such as style(!) or WHAT anybody sacrifices individual rights in the name of (the master race, the proletariat, the society, the common good, the majority, the country, the fatherland, the motherland the brother-in-law-land, the revered leader or savior or god or whatever) is a big freakin' deal, especially as only in their particular fantasies do they imagine everyone, the enforcers and even their victims, acting forever polite and cooperative in the sacrifice-extracting rituals (as have many fledgling and would-be dictators, including the incredibly bloody Pol Pot at first)." -- Rick Gaber

"Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism." -- Onkar Ghate

"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

collectivism vs. individualism

 

[clevergirl]

John Locke The truest of Classical Liberal thinkers.. He was/is the antithesis to modern progressive liberalism.

 

[Contumacious]

The issue to me is that progressivism has morphed into statism. .

"progessivists has been statist since the beginning - they are responsble for enacting such marxist statutes as the income tax and the federal reserve board.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

INDIVIDUALISM
"Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights ..." -- Nathaniel Branden HERE

"INDIVIDUALISM: The term 'individualism' has a great variety of meanings in social and political philosophy. There are at least three types that can be distinguished: (1) ontological individualism, (2) methodological individualism, and (3) moral or political individualism. Ontological individualism is the doctrine that social reality consists, ultimately, only of persons who choose and act. Collectives, such as a social class, state, or a group, cannot act so they are not considered to have a reality independent of the actions of persons. Methodological individualists hold that the only genuinely scientific propositions in social science are those that can be reduced to the actions, dispositions, and decisions of individuals. Political or moral individualism is the theory that individuals should be left, as far as possible, to determine their own futures in economic and moral matters. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher HERE

"The foundation of individualism lies in one's moral right to pursue one's own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.
"But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party's happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.
"Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right." -- Shawn E. Klein HERE

"Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." -- Ayn Rand HERE

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." -- Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -- Ayn Rand


Relevant Comments

"This right to life, this right to liberty, and this right to pursue one’s happiness is unabashedly individualistic, without in the slightest denying at the same time our thoroughly social nature. It’s only that our social relations, while vital to us all, must be chosen -* that is what makes the crucial difference." -- Prof. Tibor R. Machan, HERE and HERE

"...individualism is not antithetical to community. Rather, it can involve free association and a belief in an over-arching harmony of interests. In a free socety, individuals join with others because of love and mutual benefit, not because they are programmed or coerced." -- Prof. Clifford Thies

"One byproduct of individualism is benevolence -- a general attitude of good will towards one's neighbors and fellow human beings. Benevolence is impossible in a society where people violate each others' rights." -- Glenn Woiceshyn

"Paradoxical as it may seem, men and women who are free to pursue individualism and material wealth turn out to be the most compassionate of all." -- Financial Times, London, Nov 22, 2001

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Jefferson et al, The Declaration of Independence

"The fact that most people think that ... pursuing one's own self-interest equates to behaving brutally or irrationally, is, as Ms. Rand noted, a 'psychological confession' on their part. In fact it is against one's own long-term self-interest to behave irrationally or trample others. Such actions are the exact opposite of selfish -- they're self-destructive." -- Wayne Dunn
(Emphasis added. Criminals and other sociopaths do not think in terms of how their actions affect the society around them and set bad examples for others. Nor do they empathize with others, certainly not their victims. And they certainly don't feel the pride of honest achievement or of helping to build civilization.)

"Individualism is a concept which the advocates of most political systems try desperately to avoid. They'd prefer that political contests, debates and symposia were limited to answering loaded questions such as, 'WHICH type of powerful government should we have?', 'WHICH type of dictatorship do you tend to prefer?", 'WHAT KINDS of intrusiveness should government engage in?' and, 'WHICH type of control freaks are best suited to run your life for you?' ... They often get upset, even hysterical, if you point out that socialism, fascism, communism and mixed-economy welfare-states have a lot in common.1 They carry on and on as if non-essentials such as style(!) or WHAT anybody sacrifices individual rights in the name of (the master race, the proletariat, the society, the common good, the majority, the country, the fatherland, the motherland the brother-in-law-land, the revered leader or savior or god or whatever) is a big freakin' deal, especially as only in their particular fantasies do they imagine everyone, the enforcers and even their victims, acting forever polite and cooperative in the sacrifice-extracting rituals (as have many fledgling and would-be dictators, including the incredibly bloody Pol Pot at first)." -- Rick Gaber

"Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism." -- Onkar Ghate

"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

collectivism vs. individualism

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

 

[Intense]

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

Consider that the Rights of The Individual, being Unalienable, Exist both within and without of Society. Unalienable Rights are not dependent on Society, but on the Author of Creation, Recognized or not. True enough, it is our loss for what we fail to recognize. We count on Society, on Government, to protect those Rights, those Interests, being Civilized, not to take them away, nor charge a fee. We are a part of the whole, yet we act and take irresponsibility as Individuals. Even in matters of Salvation, We are Judged, Each, for who We Are, and where we are. Your Salvation is not based on Me, nor Mine based on You. Be Fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. Bear Witness, and Tell the Truth about what You see, from Your Unique Perspective. No State can Rightly stand in the way of that. No State has Ultimate Authority, no matter how much you Lust for it. It does not belong to this Realm. By taking away Liberty, Individual Right's without just cause, you, in the end, become It's enemy, you forfeit the charge, the trust. To Establish and Serve Justice, even Liberty, you cannot put the Mechanism before the Purpose it was created to serve. You are not that Important. No One is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jesus of Nazareth is quoted in the New Testament as saying: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The Founding Fathers defined unalienable rights as those that God gives. It is the right to do whatever you choose to do that does not violate the rights of the next person. It is the principle upon which the United States of America and its Constitution was intended to hang.

An unalienable right is that which requires no contribution or participation from any other person other than his/her non interference. Whatever requires contribution or participation of another person is not a right but is a privilege and is secured by an implied or formal contract negotiated between the parties. . . .or. . . .is established by social contract agreed among those establishing a society for mutual benefit. An example of social contract is when the community agrees to protect its aquifer via a well managed communally shared sewer system rather than each citizen having his/her own septic system.

Modern American liberalism would do away with the concept of social contract and would assign much more responsibility to the federal/central government to assign what rights and privileges we will have.

Modern American conservativism wants the federal government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to form whatever social contract we wish to have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

INDIVIDUALISM
"Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights ..." -- Nathaniel Branden HERE

"INDIVIDUALISM: The term 'individualism' has a great variety of meanings in social and political philosophy. There are at least three types that can be distinguished: (1) ontological individualism, (2) methodological individualism, and (3) moral or political individualism. Ontological individualism is the doctrine that social reality consists, ultimately, only of persons who choose and act. Collectives, such as a social class, state, or a group, cannot act so they are not considered to have a reality independent of the actions of persons. Methodological individualists hold that the only genuinely scientific propositions in social science are those that can be reduced to the actions, dispositions, and decisions of individuals. Political or moral individualism is the theory that individuals should be left, as far as possible, to determine their own futures in economic and moral matters. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher HERE

"The foundation of individualism lies in one's moral right to pursue one's own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.
"But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party's happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.
"Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right." -- Shawn E. Klein HERE

"Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." -- Ayn Rand HERE

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." -- Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -- Ayn Rand


Relevant Comments

"This right to life, this right to liberty, and this right to pursue one’s happiness is unabashedly individualistic, without in the slightest denying at the same time our thoroughly social nature. It’s only that our social relations, while vital to us all, must be chosen -* that is what makes the crucial difference." -- Prof. Tibor R. Machan, HERE and HERE

"...individualism is not antithetical to community. Rather, it can involve free association and a belief in an over-arching harmony of interests. In a free socety, individuals join with others because of love and mutual benefit, not because they are programmed or coerced." -- Prof. Clifford Thies

"One byproduct of individualism is benevolence -- a general attitude of good will towards one's neighbors and fellow human beings. Benevolence is impossible in a society where people violate each others' rights." -- Glenn Woiceshyn

"Paradoxical as it may seem, men and women who are free to pursue individualism and material wealth turn out to be the most compassionate of all." -- Financial Times, London, Nov 22, 2001

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Jefferson et al, The Declaration of Independence

"The fact that most people think that ... pursuing one's own self-interest equates to behaving brutally or irrationally, is, as Ms. Rand noted, a 'psychological confession' on their part. In fact it is against one's own long-term self-interest to behave irrationally or trample others. Such actions are the exact opposite of selfish -- they're self-destructive." -- Wayne Dunn
(Emphasis added. Criminals and other sociopaths do not think in terms of how their actions affect the society around them and set bad examples for others. Nor do they empathize with others, certainly not their victims. And they certainly don't feel the pride of honest achievement or of helping to build civilization.)

"Individualism is a concept which the advocates of most political systems try desperately to avoid. They'd prefer that political contests, debates and symposia were limited to answering loaded questions such as, 'WHICH type of powerful government should we have?', 'WHICH type of dictatorship do you tend to prefer?", 'WHAT KINDS of intrusiveness should government engage in?' and, 'WHICH type of control freaks are best suited to run your life for you?' ... They often get upset, even hysterical, if you point out that socialism, fascism, communism and mixed-economy welfare-states have a lot in common.1 They carry on and on as if non-essentials such as style(!) or WHAT anybody sacrifices individual rights in the name of (the master race, the proletariat, the society, the common good, the majority, the country, the fatherland, the motherland the brother-in-law-land, the revered leader or savior or god or whatever) is a big freakin' deal, especially as only in their particular fantasies do they imagine everyone, the enforcers and even their victims, acting forever polite and cooperative in the sacrifice-extracting rituals (as have many fledgling and would-be dictators, including the incredibly bloody Pol Pot at first)." -- Rick Gaber

"Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism." -- Onkar Ghate

"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

collectivism vs. individualism

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

You support corporations having rights just like people then, good to know.

 

[Foxfyre]

INDIVIDUALISM
"Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights ..." -- Nathaniel Branden HERE

"INDIVIDUALISM: The term 'individualism' has a great variety of meanings in social and political philosophy. There are at least three types that can be distinguished: (1) ontological individualism, (2) methodological individualism, and (3) moral or political individualism. Ontological individualism is the doctrine that social reality consists, ultimately, only of persons who choose and act. Collectives, such as a social class, state, or a group, cannot act so they are not considered to have a reality independent of the actions of persons. Methodological individualists hold that the only genuinely scientific propositions in social science are those that can be reduced to the actions, dispositions, and decisions of individuals. Political or moral individualism is the theory that individuals should be left, as far as possible, to determine their own futures in economic and moral matters. Key thinkers include Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher HERE

"The foundation of individualism lies in one's moral right to pursue one's own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.
"But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party's happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.
"Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right." -- Shawn E. Klein HERE

"Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." -- Ayn Rand HERE

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." -- Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -- Ayn Rand


Relevant Comments

"This right to life, this right to liberty, and this right to pursue one’s happiness is unabashedly individualistic, without in the slightest denying at the same time our thoroughly social nature. It’s only that our social relations, while vital to us all, must be chosen -* that is what makes the crucial difference." -- Prof. Tibor R. Machan, HERE and HERE

"...individualism is not antithetical to community. Rather, it can involve free association and a belief in an over-arching harmony of interests. In a free socety, individuals join with others because of love and mutual benefit, not because they are programmed or coerced." -- Prof. Clifford Thies

"One byproduct of individualism is benevolence -- a general attitude of good will towards one's neighbors and fellow human beings. Benevolence is impossible in a society where people violate each others' rights." -- Glenn Woiceshyn

"Paradoxical as it may seem, men and women who are free to pursue individualism and material wealth turn out to be the most compassionate of all." -- Financial Times, London, Nov 22, 2001

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Jefferson et al, The Declaration of Independence

"The fact that most people think that ... pursuing one's own self-interest equates to behaving brutally or irrationally, is, as Ms. Rand noted, a 'psychological confession' on their part. In fact it is against one's own long-term self-interest to behave irrationally or trample others. Such actions are the exact opposite of selfish -- they're self-destructive." -- Wayne Dunn
(Emphasis added. Criminals and other sociopaths do not think in terms of how their actions affect the society around them and set bad examples for others. Nor do they empathize with others, certainly not their victims. And they certainly don't feel the pride of honest achievement or of helping to build civilization.)

"Individualism is a concept which the advocates of most political systems try desperately to avoid. They'd prefer that political contests, debates and symposia were limited to answering loaded questions such as, 'WHICH type of powerful government should we have?', 'WHICH type of dictatorship do you tend to prefer?", 'WHAT KINDS of intrusiveness should government engage in?' and, 'WHICH type of control freaks are best suited to run your life for you?' ... They often get upset, even hysterical, if you point out that socialism, fascism, communism and mixed-economy welfare-states have a lot in common.1 They carry on and on as if non-essentials such as style(!) or WHAT anybody sacrifices individual rights in the name of (the master race, the proletariat, the society, the common good, the majority, the country, the fatherland, the motherland the brother-in-law-land, the revered leader or savior or god or whatever) is a big freakin' deal, especially as only in their particular fantasies do they imagine everyone, the enforcers and even their victims, acting forever polite and cooperative in the sacrifice-extracting rituals (as have many fledgling and would-be dictators, including the incredibly bloody Pol Pot at first)." -- Rick Gaber

"Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism." -- Onkar Ghate

"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

collectivism vs. individualism

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

You support corporations having rights just like people then, good to know.

Corporations do not have rights. Corporations are legally structured entities for the purpose of conducting business, sometimes providing certain tax advantages, and providing liability protections for the individuals conducting the business.

Corporations, however, are the sum of the people who run them. And the people have rights just like everybody else, yes.

And anybody has the right to form their own corporation.