Do the needs of the many outweigh the the needs of the few, or the one? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50
  1. #26
    n00bsauce
    Reputation: Mel Erickson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    13,507
    Quote Originally Posted by dougclaysmith
    The need of the many over the needs of the individual is Democracy and what the founder fathers feared. That is why they wanted a Republic not a Democracy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

    The spirit of individualism is at the foundation of the US. We have lost it the past 100 years.

    Far reaching collectivism in the end will always infringe on the rights of the individual. My right not to participate in Social Security, my right not to participate in Medicare are gone at the expense of collectivism. My right to own a toilet that will flush with one flush have been trumped by the EPA.

    Collectivism will lead to more and more control of the people by government. Mass transit for example is collectivism. It is easier to control people and their habits when you control their movement. Where to live, where to work etc, it’s a loss of free will.

    Collective ideas, in my opinion, should create some order, to protect me and my property, but not hinder my rights to do what I want as long as I don’t hurt someone else. Clean water & food good. Social Security & Medicare, bad.

    It’s scary to think of a place where the needs of the community outweigh the needs of the individual. What if 51% of the people in your neighborhood vote to tear down your house and build a park? Your rights have suffered due to the 51%.
    Ever hear of the Tragedy of the Commons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

    There are your fog people & your sun people, he said. I said I wasn't sure which kind I was. He nodded. Fog'll do that to you, he said.

    "We are all ignorant about most things."
    Mel Erickson

  2. #27
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,089
    what's good for the individual IS good for the cummunity
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  3. #28
    Sticky Valentine
    Reputation: JoeDaddio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    28,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69
    what's good for the individual IS good for the cummunity

    I think I saw that movie.


    joe
    'They say gold paint on the palace gates comes from the teeth of pensioners
    They're so tired of shooting protest singers that they hardly mention us
    While fountains fill with second-hand perfume and sodden trading stamps
    They'll hang the bullies and the louts that dampen down the day" - EC

  4. #29
    n00bsauce
    Reputation: Mel Erickson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    13,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69
    what's good for the individual IS good for the cummunity
    You never heard of the Tragedy of the Commons either.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

    There are your fog people & your sun people, he said. I said I wasn't sure which kind I was. He nodded. Fog'll do that to you, he said.

    "We are all ignorant about most things."
    Mel Erickson

  5. #30
    Call me a Fred
    Reputation: MikeBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69
    what's good for the individual IS good for the cummunity
    If the government gives me $1,000,000, then it is good for me. If the government then gives every person $1,000,000, it is not good for me.
    Mike

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You may starch my jumper
    Hang it upside your wall
    You know by that, baby
    I need my ashes hauled.

    Sleepy John Estes

    H

  6. #31
    Low rep power
    Reputation: saf-t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,264
    Quote Originally Posted by ridenfish39
    "They" can get an education, learn a trade, etc..........JUST LIKE I DID!
    How the hell am I bigoted? I just call it like I see it and the truth hurts.
    I see it every day in Philly, people mooching off the system and popping out more babies so they can get more money from the gubbermint.

    Still doesn't get them decent housing. Or the ability to afford childcare that might let them learn something with which to earn a living- assuming that there were entry level jobs that paid more than minimum wage (that childcare issue again).

    How about free contraceptives, and sex education for kids while they're still young enough to learn about it before doing it?
    We'll be back soon, there will be more of us, and next time we won't be dropping leaflets.

    “The problem with quotes on the internet is that it’s hard to verify their authenticity” – Abraham Lincoln

  7. #32
    Covfefe
    Reputation: TerminatorX91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    21,272
    Stick 'em up.
    "It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." - Bill Murray



  8. #33
    m_s
    m_s is offline
    oh lonesome road for you
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by dougclaysmith
    How is quality of water and quanity of water related?
    Increased consumption of water reduces the amount of clean water available, meaning less ideal sources must be found. Also, many natural systems such as wetlands have an important role in filtering organic matter and toxins from water, but they need a supply of water to exist. Remove half of that supply and the wetland goes away along with its filtering effects, and the remaining water has an increased concentration of pollutants.

    Finally and most obviously, every time you dispose of wastewater (eg flushing a toilet) you are turning clean water into polluted water which needs to be treated in some way. If you are connected to a sewer system as are most people, this means an increased burden on treatment plants and the associated increase in energy and chemicals needed to deal with your waste. Also depending on where you are, extra water in the sewers may help to trigger an overflow of wastewater into rivers.

    Your question may or may not have been ingenuous, but the answer is that consumption has a great deal to do with water quality.
    Last edited by m_s; 03-30-2011 at 08:14 AM.

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotophage
    What about freeways? We accept that and we collectively pay for it. Is this socialism?
    Absolutely.

  10. #35
    Soon to be banned
    Reputation: spyderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    14,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Fixed
    First of all, it's a bit of a false dichotomy. Most of the time, the needs of the few and the many can both be respected, or at least balanced. But, sometimes the needs of the one are paramont. Put someone on trial for murder, and his rights to due process and fair trial are all that matters. On the other hand, if the country is being invaded, then the whole of society is jeopardized, and we may call upon a few to sacrifice to save the many. A witty saying doesn't resolve these issues.
    Or, we can invade a sovereign nation based upon lies, award all the rebuilding contracts to your buddies, and then give the rich an unprecedented tax cut.
    "Walmart ... Where else can you crush your business competition, and yet, serve and control the lumpenproletariat." Mr. Grumpy

    السلام عليكم

  11. #36
    Soon to be banned
    Reputation: spyderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    14,475
    Quote Originally Posted by ridenfish39
    "They" can get an education, learn a trade, etc..........JUST LIKE I DID!
    How the hell am I bigoted? I just call it like I see it and the truth hurts.
    I see it every day in Philly, people mooching off the system and popping out more babies so they can get more money from the gubbermint.
    Post of the nominee!
    "Walmart ... Where else can you crush your business competition, and yet, serve and control the lumpenproletariat." Mr. Grumpy

    السلام عليكم

  12. #37
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    69,508
    I'm sorry folks but in spite of the myth and the American dream, the needs of the many will always take precedence. It is believing otherwise that causes so much bitter disilusionment. The many drive the bus.

  13. #38
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,181
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl
    No, it's not, at least in the way that most of the planet defines "democracy" and "collectivism." Heck, we even fought a Cold War over it, sort of. You're conflating representative political systems with economic ones.

    Either that, or those commie bastards at the GOP HQ have inadvertently shown their collectivist stripes, with this quote pulled from their website:


    “The right of political parties to express their members’ views about their candidates for office while also working directly with those candidates to help elect them is crucial to a healthy democracy."


    That quote was from Michael Steele, ex-boss of the RNC. Maybe his views are why he got the axe, except it seems like the GOP is pushing democracy everywhere; their party platform singles out (with a big overquote and everything) how we need to support Israel because it's the only thriving democracy in the Middle East. And Israel, democratic thriving aside, actually has collective farms.



    Read more: http://www.gop.com/index.php/news/co...#ixzz1I1RngMDx





    Read still more: http://www.gop.com/Search/search_pag...-8&q=democracy

    I trust troutmd's link to Jefferson County PUC v. Washington clarified for you the relationship between water quality, and quantity. But why do you think you have the right to run up a massive water bill? I don't see that one mentioned anywhere in the Constitution....


    The term democracy has been thrown around so loosely, that it has lost it’s meaning and somehow, we seems to think that the fore fathers wanted a democracy. They did not, it fact they feared it. Democracy is mob rule. 51% wants, then 100% get. That to me is on the road to collectivism, albeit, not to the extreme that the word collectivism conjures up.

    I hate to link to a Wikipedia article, but has some pretty good points.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...s#cite_note-15


    As for what Steele and the Republicans have said in the last 10 years, who cares. They are not true Republicans (and/or Conservatives) in the true sense.

    Just last night I was watching a show on the BBC about the royal wedding, and they were reporting on the excitement here in the US about wedding. I’m paraphrasing but said, what has moved this country (the US) a country of “republicans” to now endorse the monarchy.

  14. #39
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    35,953
    Quote Originally Posted by dougclaysmith
    The term democracy has been thrown around so loosely, that it has lost it’s meaning and somehow, we seems to think that the fore fathers wanted a democracy. They did not, it fact they feared it. Democracy is mob rule. 51% wants, then 100% get. That to me is on the road to collectivism, albeit, not to the extreme that the word collectivism conjures up.

    I hate to link to a Wikipedia article, but has some pretty good points.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...s#cite_note-15


    As for what Steele and the Republicans have said in the last 10 years, who cares. They are not true Republicans (and/or Conservatives) in the true sense.

    Just last night I was watching a show on the BBC about the royal wedding, and they were reporting on the excitement here in the US about wedding. I’m paraphrasing but said, what has moved this country (the US) a country of “republicans” to now endorse the monarchy.
    The road is not the destination.

    And if we can't depend on the former boss of the RNC, and the GOP itself, how are we to know what "true" Republicans are?

    Some of our forefathers, mostly the wealthier ones (such as Alexander Hamilton) feared a democracy, and some (like Patrick Henry) didn't. Our nation has striven always to balance certain FFs' fears of "dangerous leveling" against the benefits of all the people, yes?

  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,181
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl
    The road is not the destination.

    And if we can't depend on the former boss of the RNC, and the GOP itself, how are we to know what "true" Republicans are?

    Some of our forefathers, mostly the wealthier ones (such as Alexander Hamilton) feared a democracy, and some (like Patrick Henry) didn't. Our nation has striven always to balance certain FFs' fears of "dangerous leveling" against the benefits of all the people, yes?

    I guess "true" is in the eye of the beholder. For me, they (current GOP) are the "cons" Not true to principles of Republicanism. (Liberty, individualism) The current lot of GOP to me, are Conservative Progressives. (More and more spending and more and more government)

    Patrick Henry – Give me Liberty or Give me Death – He was an anti-federalist. He feared the Constitution in that it gave too much power to the Federal Government. He was an advocate of Republicanism.

    And what are the benefits of all the people? Social Security?

  16. #41
    m_s
    m_s is offline
    oh lonesome road for you
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel Erickson
    Ever hear of the Tragedy of the Commons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
    Technically, the tragedy of the open-access resource

  17. #42
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotophage
    Does the idea of good for the community as a whole outweigh the idea of good for the individual?
    Yes. Nathan Hale put it best, "I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  18. #43
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69
    what's good for the individual IS good for the cummunity
    or not.

    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  19. #44
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    35,953
    Quote Originally Posted by dougclaysmith
    I guess "true" is in the eye of the beholder. For me, they (current GOP) are the "cons" Not true to principles of Republicanism. (Liberty, individualism) The current lot of GOP to me, are Conservative Progressives. (More and more spending and more and more government)

    Patrick Henry – Give me Liberty or Give me Death – He was an anti-federalist. He feared the Constitution in that it gave too much power to the Federal Government. He was an advocate of Republicanism.

    And what are the benefits of all the people? Social Security?
    Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist, and Hamilton was a Federalist. But Hamilton and other Federalists called for a Constitutional Convention six years after the Articles of Confederation in large part because they feared the effects of "mob rule," i.e., the repudiation of public debt, in which many of the FFs had personal financial interests. Rhode Island had already done so, and moneyed interests feared this would start a trend. Tory sympathizers, many of whom were in the moneyed classes, had their estates confiscated, and FFs also feared this sort of "democracy in action" might spread, once people realized who'd done a lot of the fighting and dying in the Revolution.

    Hamilton's bunch chose a Roman republic, rather than an Athenian democracy, as their model, as it assured the representation (and retention of power) of the economic aristocracy.

    By "benefits of all the people," I just meant the notion that this country has sought to balance the interests of the individual, against those of the majority, protecting both from the excesses of either.

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lotophage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    4,657
    Quote Originally Posted by TomH
    Absolutely.
    Then the follow-up, is it a bad thing?

  21. #46
    m_s
    m_s is offline
    oh lonesome road for you
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by m_s
    Increased consumption of water reduces the amount of clean water available, meaning less ideal sources must be found. Also, many natural systems such as wetlands have an important role in filtering organic matter and toxins from water, but they need a supply of water to exist. Remove half of that supply and the wetland goes away along with its filtering effects, and the remaining water has an increased concentration of pollutants.

    Finally and most obviously, every time you dispose of wastewater (eg flushing a toilet) you are turning clean water into polluted water which needs to be treated in some way. If you are connected to a sewer system as are most people, this means an increased burden on treatment plants and the associated increase in energy and chemicals needed to deal with your waste. Also depending on where you are, extra water in the sewers may help to trigger an overflow of wastewater into rivers.

    Your question may or may not have been ingenuous, but the answer is that consumption has a great deal to do with water quality.
    The broad lesson here, since you seem to have moved on, is that actions you see as relating only to yourself in fact may have far-reaching consequences for others. Acting in the collective good may simply mean acknowledging and mitigating your negative effects on other people. It may also mean policies that provide an overall benefit to society while hurting the liberty/opportunity/whatever for some individuals. The latter is the case for most environmental regulation and as Fredke said, often military service.

  22. #47
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,181
    Quote Originally Posted by xxl
    Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist, and Hamilton was a Federalist. But Hamilton and other Federalists called for a Constitutional Convention six years after the Articles of Confederation in large part because they feared the effects of "mob rule," i.e., the repudiation of public debt, in which many of the FFs had personal financial interests. Rhode Island had already done so, and moneyed interests feared this would start a trend. Tory sympathizers, many of whom were in the moneyed classes, had their estates confiscated, and FFs also feared this sort of "democracy in action" might spread, once people realized who'd done a lot of the fighting and dying in the Revolution.

    Hamilton's bunch chose a Roman republic, rather than an Athenian democracy, as their model, as it assured the representation (and retention of power) of the economic aristocracy.

    By "benefits of all the people," I just meant the notion that this country has sought to balance the interests of the individual, against those of the majority, protecting both from the excesses of either.

    Good points, let me ask you. Would you rather live in a Republic or a Democracy?

  23. #48
    xxl
    xxl is offline
    Moderator
    Reputation: xxl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    35,953
    Quote Originally Posted by dougclaysmith
    Good points, let me ask you. Would you rather live in a Republic or a Democracy?
    Does it have to be an "either/or" question? And your terms are, as you said, in the eye of the beholder. The United States, for instance, is described alternatively as a republic, republican democracy, representational democracy, etc., etc. The former Soviet Union was (officially) a Socialist Republic. (North) Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which is not at all helpful. I happen to like our nation's balancing act, but wish we'd move left of whatever you want to call what we have now.

    And it's really difficult for me to imagine life under any other political system than the one we have in the US; it's all I've known. What would the United States be like, for instance, operated as a "true" democracy? I cannot fathom a situation in which a billionaire would have no more political power than a homeless bum, any more than I can fathom life without the effects of major corporations.

    Having said that, I'm a big fan of creeping socialism.

  24. #49
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723
    Quote Originally Posted by dougclaysmith
    Patrick Henry – Give me Liberty or Give me Death – He was an anti-federalist. He feared the Constitution in that it gave too much power to the Federal Government. He was an advocate of Republicanism.

    And what are the benefits of all the people? Social Security?
    The French Revolution made Henry decide his antifederalism had been a mistake and that a strong federal government was an important defense against Jacobinism and anarchy. He joined the Federalist party and ran successfully as a Federalist for a seat in the Virginia legislature in 1798.
    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  25. #50
    banned
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    26,773

    To the question. Yes.

    The individual could not survive, much less prosper, without the community. He prospers in proportion to how well he satisfies the needs of the community. If he thinks only of himself, he will soon fail. The community will cast him out.

    Americans are perhaps the epitomy of individualism. We are a magnet for those seeking personal success, opportunity to start new lives, free of family or tribal restraints, religious and racial discrimination. But even so, individuals have succeeded mainly because of support from their communities, which for a few generations at least, remain distinct by ethnicity and culture.

    Indians, Chinese, Africans, and most other cultures place the needs of the many over the needs of the few or one. We could argue one class having their needs satisfied at the expense of the less fortunate others, but nonetheless, family and tribal ties almost everywhere are thought of more seriously by individuals than in the US, from what I've observed. Sharing of resources in African villages for example goes without saying. Family members who hoard are very much disrespected. Everyone identifies with a social grouping, family, village, tribal, that requires obedience over individual wants to a much higher degree. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya, we're seeing individual loyalties to social groupings based on family, regions, religious sects, much more pronounced than we're used to in the US.

    The US government has become an oligarchy of wealthy industrialists, satisfying the definition of a republic, as wiki says "a public affair." But with the electoral college for example, the US isn't a complete democracy. I don't think any country is. But the people still have a voice in their government, even if not as powerful as the wealthy power brokers. Like unions and management, this maintains a balance, restraining the powerful from oppressing the weak, avoiding social unrest, and the breakdown of society.
    Last edited by Fredrico; 03-30-2011 at 11:41 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.