What makes dictators dictators is that they believe most strongly in one man, one vote - they are the one man, and they have the only vote.

EG

Hah. That's pure Terry Pratchett, that is...

"Pure" Pratchett? Is there such a thing?

It's also more accurate, I think. Dictators don't always trample all over the rights of the individual, although it is often the case that the right to express a contrary opinion is supressed.

I think it is this suppression of the right to publicly express a contrary view that is the mark of the dictator. Other individual rights don't necessarily come into it. And, since society is more than just a collection of individuals (too individual to let socialism work, to social to let libertarianism work), even this will sometimes be tolerated if the appropriate bread and circuses are available (or skoolz-n-hospitals in contemporary Britain).

EG

And, since society is more than just a collection of individuals

No, that is exactly what society is... just a collection of individuals. In this case the sum is not greater than its parts.

In this case the sum is not greater than its parts

I maintain that humanity leans too far in the direction of selfish individualism to make socialism a workable ideology, and yet too far in a communal direction to make selfish individualism work.

People are naturally social creatures, deriving from our evolution as pack hunter-gatherers, and persisting through settlement as farmers and on into the industrial era. We have a basic need for a group identity as well as an individual indentity.

There are people who don't function well in groups, some might call them socially maladjusted, but they do not form all or even a majority of humanity. Most people like, want and at heart need a social dimension to their lives. It is this, coupled with the fact that societies can in some but not all circumstances achieve more than individuals, that makes human society more than just the sum of the humans within it.

Ideoology and dogma are usually suspect, and tend ultimately to end in death and misery. So it is with the dogma of Marx, and so I am willing to bet it is with the ideology of selfish libertarianism.

EG

People are naturally social creatures, deriving from our evolution as pack hunter-gatherers, and persisting through settlement as farmers and on into the industrial era. We have a basic need for a group identity as well as an individual indentity.

For sure. But that is where society and STATE actually come into conflict. I am all for joining groups, I am a member of many conspiracies social groups. But that does not give 'society' some sort of emergent independent existence as a thing separate from the groups of individuals who make it up.

I am all for civil society and the ability of people to define themselves by how they relate to others by forming attachments and affinities and dis-affinities within civil society. The overarching state, its politics and its government, however, are quite separate creatures from that patchwork thing called 'civil society' and conflating them is quite incorrect.

We do not need 'state' to have what you describe as 'group identity'... all we need for that is free association. Being an individualist does not mean you have to be alone.

Well said, Perry, the observation that EG made regarding selfish individualism is one all too often associated with that idea, and it is simply incorrect..

Isn't "selfish individualism" redundant? And isn't the only reason to include the word "selfish" to impugn the word "individualism"? And didn't Ayn Rand, decades ago, in "The Virtue of Selfishness" deflate this attempt at imposing collectivism by casting aspersions on individualism?

Isn't "selfish individualism" redundant?

No. It is the selfishishness of individualism that makes capitalism work efficiently.

casting aspersions on individualism

I'm not doing this. There's nothing wrong with individualism, but my point is that this is not ALL that makes up humanity.

Ideologues of left, right and centre rarely seem able to see beyond the limitations of their dogma. The left maintains that selfish individualism is an aberration and distracts from the true collective nature of humanity. They are wrong. The other side (or enough of them, at any rate) maintains that collectivism is the aberration, and if everyone only focused on selfish needs all the problems would be solved. They are also wrong.

Humanity is both individual and collective. The selfish individual part makes socialism unworkable and capitalism efficient, and means we seek private solutions to private problems. The collective side means we live in groups with some form of hierarchical social structure and for some bigger problems seek collective solutions.

Ideologues only ever see a small part of the picture. It is, I think, better to be rather more pragmatic and look at how people really work rather than how textbooks say they should in theory work.

EG

Isn't "selfish individualism" redundant?

No. It is the selfishness of individualism that makes capitalism work efficiently.

casting aspersions on individualism

I'm not doing this. There's nothing wrong with individualism, but my point is that this is not ALL that makes up humanity.

Ideologues of left, right and centre rarely seem able to see beyond the limitations of their dogma. The left maintains that selfish individualism is an aberration and distracts from the true collective nature of humanity. They are wrong. The other side (or enough of them, at any rate) maintains that collectivism is the aberration, and if everyone only focused on selfish needs all the problems would be solved. They are also wrong.

Humanity is both individual and collective. The selfish individual part makes socialism unworkable and capitalism efficient, and means we seek private solutions to private problems. The collective side means we live in groups with some form of hierarchical social structure and for some bigger problems seek collective solutions.

Ideologues only ever see a small part of the picture. It is, I think, better to be rather more pragmatic and look at how people really work rather than how textbooks say they should in theory work.

EG

A society is more than just a collection of individuals - it also covers their interrelationships with each other. For example, when we discuss things here on samizdata, we are creating a category of behaviour that would not be possible if we were just all thinking individually.

The mistake collectivists make is to assume that these group behaviours have any kind of moral superiority to individual behaviours, or grant any kind of authority to impose on those who do not wish to partake in them.

Euan - no libertarian (at least none with any grasp on reality) tries to deny the partly collective nature of the vast proportion of human beings. What they deny is that these collective desires can permissibly be turned into routine coercion of individuals, without inherently becoming immoral.

It is perfectly moral to form groups and submit to the group decision on matters of all kinds. That does not mean it is moral to then impose these decisions on people who do not wish to be part of those groups.

The libertarian is not trying to deny the existence, popularity, or power of these groups - he merely accuses them of immorality and double standards, and tries to reduce the impact of their predations.

'Collectivism' may be the only way for us to survive as a species! 'Individualism' is just some 17/18th century philosophical jargon set out to enable the then and current ruling classes to hold on to their wealth. 'Selfish individualism' of the 20th century is a description of that atttiude writ large- "it's mine I made it get of you cunt it's all justified go starve". For us in the West we can grab a bit for ourselves and look on the lower classes as failures, whilst the rest of the world drops dead from whatever preventable disease it is this week. Don't buy it!Down with the Nation State. Whatta bout' the ONE LOVE?

What they deny is that these collective desires can permissibly be turned into routine coercion of individuals, without inherently becoming immoral.

But part of submitting to a group decision is that one must accept it even if one personally doesn't agree. This can sometimes require coercion. You can't just accept only the group decisions you like, after all.

That does not mean it is moral to then impose these decisions on people who do not wish to be part of those groups.

See above. Also, this inevitably means that you fragment society into multiple groups with different rules. OK, so that's what nations are, but is it really sensible to break these up? I think it is counter-productive unless everyone thinks the same way, everyone is libertarian and nobody or no group would try to take advantage of the weakened and fractious groups in front of them. This is great in theory, but utterly impracticable in real life.

This kind of libertarian ideal works if you neglect the acquisitive, aggressive and warlike nature of most of humanity, and if you assert that people will essentially get along with everyone else if they are left alone themselves. Many ordinary people, probably most, would in fact probably go along with this to a sufficient extent, at least initially, but what you overlook is that the sort of people who wind up running countries don't think like this. The aggressive instinct which takes them to positions of power is the same one that causes the problem with this type of Utopian social vision.

I have long thought that this strand of libertarianism is a practical and workable as communism - i.e. not at all. Both neglect fundamental aspects of human nature. The more I read, even on blogs like this, the more I feel my belief is correct. You can't build society out of textbooks and theoretical considerations, you need to actually work with people - many of whom are brutal, thuggish, ignorant and selfish.

'Collectivism' may be the only way for us to survive as a species!

Rubbish. Some problems need collective solutions, but not all. Probably not even most.

EG