Refer to Advents early posts.

Well, in my viewpoint, Humanity's had Individualism for thousands of years. Look where we are now. My opinion might not matter too much, but I think this is a good time for a change.

Ah, and also..
What ideology do you think the Na'vi are more fond of? Yes, that's right. ;)

Collectivism doesn't equate to becoming a simple minded drone. I would actually argue the opposite. Collectivism relies on having powerful, free-thinking individuals.

I'm not against collectivism, but when that turns into the "nanny state" then I'm against that.

Funny though, most nanny states are in Developed countries.
That's right, Australia, America and perhaps Britain. Where else do we find the "Caution: Hot" warnings on the lids of coffee cups. >.<
Our state governments try to tell us what is in our best interest, they try to restrict the options of what people can buy with their money, like cigarettes and alcohol. That sounds like a nanny state to me.

What you highlighted there is another big problem. Common sense is just about gone these days. Society has become rather dependent and even addicted to legal process. While I can appreciate the need for laws to standardize and clarify things, there is a point where it become ridiculous like when the police have to come and hand-cuff a misbehaving first grader because no one else is allowed to do anything.

In some instances I would agree with that point but in the case of cigarettes and alcohol, the caveat with it is that the taxpayers end up paying for all damage that those items cause. Thats not to say that they should be outlawed but that the high taxes on those products should remain in my honest opinion.

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

As I mentioned in my OP, I am generally collectivist. Perhaps the dividing line in my political views in choosing between individuals and the group comes down to two basic things: Judging which party involved has the greater need and keeping a person's human dignity intact.

One of the best examples was the recent vote on removing the profanity filter. The sides were quite even in terms of votes. Although I myself did not care whether it was removed or not, I still voted no. The difference came down to whomever was in greater need. I can appreciate the fact that some people would like it removed but I know that they can very easily live with it. On the other hand, for those who want to see the filter remain, their enjoyability of TOS in some cases is completely dependent on it sometimes.

This concept of who has the greater need generally is my main rule with the exception of when someone's human dignity is at stake. My collectivist views tend to come from the former and my individualist views from the latter.

I think a lot of that "Nanny State" comes from our outstanding ability to sue people over nothing. That "Caution: Hot" warning is most likely because of a law suit where someone burned their tongue... on coffee....

Actually, she spilled it on her lap.


While driving.



Holding it between her legs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...7s_Restaurants

Or the recent story of the women who called the cops after Chili's accidently gave her daughter a Mudslide.

:facepalm:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Bai...120350514.html

This woman obviously has dollar-signs in her eyes.

The link between collectivism = nanny state is a false dichotomy. The US is a perfect example. We're a very individualist society and we have stories like those aforementioned. At the same time Europe, which is more libertarian-socialist, seems a bit more laid-back about social issues.

The problem is that Americans are very sue-happy. Any time someone has the off-chance of making a buck by dragging their fellow man to court, even for the littlest thing, they'll do it. That's why people are so uptight, because they're afraid of lawsuits. Before we become a more laid-back society, we need new methods of dealing with conflict other than lawsuits.

i think we need a dumbass clause.

Would you guys say that people suing over the smallest thing is attributable to human greed for money or a need for some form of justice from something happening?

Greed, definitely greed. A lot of these disputes could (and once were) be solved with a good conversation, but people just can't seem to work past a profit motive anymore.

A good point, it seems to occur quite a lot now.
Personally I think it's a bit of both since people look for someone to blame as well but I think that the claims for massive payouts are pretty telling. Asking for a million dollars compensation for slipping on a floor and hurting your leg is pretty unrealistic. :hmm:

Very true here. A nanny state isn't too related to Collectivism. After all, in an ideal Collectivist society, the government would be the people, and they would decide what is best for them.

Collectivism won't work, simply because States cannot ask all the collective to decide in most matters, the "People" will be represented by a small number of persons that won't necessarily hold common sense, like in the hot coffee case. It was a jury of people and the State, represented by another person (in the name of People), that allowed such frivolous case to go on.
Everything reduces to the decisions of a few. It is our duty to elect well prepared-common sensed people to represent us.

I'd say! Mc Donalds need to have a "Warning: Hot Coffee. Drink with caution!" sign on their coffee mugs so people won't sue them for burning their tongues. :facepalm: