British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Unionist · 16-12-2006, 11:47 AM

I think some of the discussions on ideology in different threads are identifying two very distinct strands, namely, Collectivism versus Individualism. Collectivists elevate the group above the individual, whether the group is the nation (Nationalists) or class interests (Socialists). Some mangage to combine the two in "the people" (Populists). Collectivists may therefore abrogate free markets in the (perceived) national interest, adopt measures to promote welfare/redistribution or support protectionism.

Individualists, by contrast, elevate individual freedom and liberty above the group or nation. They see free markets, free trade, low taxes and small government as necessary for freedom as well as economic efficiency. Individualists would include Classical Liberals and Libertarians.

I don't believe that you can separate economic and political freedom and I don't agree with the assumptions of the chart posted earlier in this thread:

http://planicie-heroica.weblog.com.p...swithnames.gif

The reason I think this is wrong is that collectivism and authoritarianism are bedfellows, just as individualism and libertarianism go together. An authoritarian regime cannot co-exist indefinitely with a free market economy since people become used to exercising more choice and are empowered as individuals. The temptation of an authoritarian regime will always be to curb the market and restrict the free flow of ideas in the media. Similarly, the notion of a libertarian form of government with state control of the economy does not make sense since it necessarily involves things like curbing choice, redistributing income and central planning.

So I posit that the fundamental divide is between Collectivists and Individualists.

Within each camp there are important differences. Among Collectivists, for example, British Nationalists and English Nationalists may find some common ground but they are working towards different goals, while Socialists and Nationalists may agree on nationalisation and protectionism but Socialists will reject the ethnic/racial assumptions of some Nationalists. Among Individualists, Classical Liberals would place much more emphasis on the moral boundaries of individual actions, support the family and accept the basic framework of the liberal democratic nation state, whereas Libertarians assert maximum individual feeedom even where this may undermine traditional norms and values.

There are of course many with contradictory tendencies and political parties will tend to combine elements to form an electoral coalition. There is nothing wrong with this per se but it does mean that goals can become confused and we can end up with creeping authoritarianism (e.g., the 'nanny state') from apparently benign social objectives (such as a healthier population).

16-12-2006, 11:47 AM	#35 (permalink)
Unionist Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,056	I think some of the discussions on ideology in different threads are identifying two very distinct strands, namely, Collectivism versus Individualism. Collectivists elevate the group above the individual, whether the group is the nation (Nationalists) or class interests (Socialists). Some mangage to combine the two in "the people" (Populists). Collectivists may therefore abrogate free markets in the (perceived) national interest, adopt measures to promote welfare/redistribution or support protectionism. Individualists, by contrast, elevate individual freedom and liberty above the group or nation. They see free markets, free trade, low taxes and small government as necessary for freedom as well as economic efficiency. Individualists would include Classical Liberals and Libertarians. I don't believe that you can separate economic and political freedom and I don't agree with the assumptions of the chart posted earlier in this thread: http://planicie-heroica.weblog.com.p...swithnames.gif The reason I think this is wrong is that collectivism and authoritarianism are bedfellows, just as individualism and libertarianism go together. An authoritarian regime cannot co-exist indefinitely with a free market economy since people become used to exercising more choice and are empowered as individuals. The temptation of an authoritarian regime will always be to curb the market and restrict the free flow of ideas in the media. Similarly, the notion of a libertarian form of government with state control of the economy does not make sense since it necessarily involves things like curbing choice, redistributing income and central planning. So I posit that the fundamental divide is between Collectivists and Individualists. Within each camp there are important differences. Among Collectivists, for example, British Nationalists and English Nationalists may find some common ground but they are working towards different goals, while Socialists and Nationalists may agree on nationalisation and protectionism but Socialists will reject the ethnic/racial assumptions of some Nationalists. Among Individualists, Classical Liberals would place much more emphasis on the moral boundaries of individual actions, support the family and accept the basic framework of the liberal democratic nation state, whereas Libertarians assert maximum individual feeedom even where this may undermine traditional norms and values. There are of course many with contradictory tendencies and political parties will tend to combine elements to form an electoral coalition. There is nothing wrong with this per se but it does mean that goals can become confused and we can end up with creeping authoritarianism (e.g., the 'nanny state') from apparently benign social objectives (such as a healthier population).