On-Topic: The Case for Community

[Kulindahr]

The case for individual rights is simple: rights rest on the fact of self-ownership. Because we as individuals own ourselves, we have absolute authority over our own lives, beginning with our thoughts and reaching to religious freedom, self-defense, privacy, freedom of association, and more. Marriage is a right because it is the exercise of self-ownership by two individuals, not because government grants or doesn't grant.

It's a case that rests on first principles, i.e. on a foundation observable and relying on nothing but itself: self-ownership is something we experience every time we scratch our heads or type words or grab a snack. It's a case, though, that has limits: my self-ownership does not allow me to swing a baseball bat anywhere and any time I please, because if any of those swings endangers someone else, I am intruding on that person's self-ownership. Rights are thus inherently bounded because while self-ownership makes me absolute master of myself, it also reminds me that I am decidedly not the master of other selves -- they are masters of their own.

But even if all the troubles arising from there could be ironed out, it remains evident that rights and self-ownership are not sufficient to describe or define the parameters of a good, well-functioning human society. Self-ownership provides no more than hints that there might be such things as obligations -- not obligations as in the Golden Rule (which logically derives from self-ownership) and its guide of how to treat those we encounter, but obligations in the sense of what we may or may not owe to those who are part of our community or society, yet whom we not only have not met but are unlikely ever to meet.

Yet many people maintain that there are such obligations. The entire divide over the issue of health care in the United States revolves around that question, one side maintaining that the only morality is the Golden Rule -- often invoked piously as a cover for greed -- while the other insists that there is a greater morality which arises from.....

That's where the discourse fails -- no one can give a solid foundation rationally to the case for community, the stance that we all ought to take care of each other, and those more able to do so ought to contribute more heavily. The claim is made that health care is a "right", though since it cannot be derived from the initial principle of self-ownership, it is clearly not; the real claim is that it is an obligation, that those with resources are bound by some kind of duty to provide for those less fortunate, and that all should contribute as they are able, being a part of that same community.


So-- The point of this thread is to allow propositions to be set forth showing the source of this obligation, in other words, to make a case for community that rests on as solid a foundation as do rights. Long ago the derivation was simple, because government was on a level where all within its reach were related, so the claim to family could be made. Now, many of us live where we have no blood relations within a day's drive, or even more. Even that, though, isn't a bar to community; in WW II many people in many areas across the country banded together and acted as though everyone around were family, acting on a sense of community even though they had no formally defined boundaries.

Today that's not enough -- and it's failing, anyway. The U.S. is so divided along so many fault lines that though in times of crisis we briefly (and sometime suspiciously) act as a community, the moment it's safe we go back to squabbling and -- yes -- hating. What's needed is a foundation for arguing our mutual obligations, a case for community that rests on rock so solid it can wash away (or at least tame) the divisions and show us how we are one and what that means.

So, have at it -- make a case for community, to show that we have not merely rights but obligations. Make it solid, because it's going to get picked apart. And make it in a way that does not exclude any citizens, but encircles us all.



note: non-Americans, don't exclude yourselves! your countries may have a better sense of community than the U.S., and hopefully you'll be able to share a rational basis for it -- look at it as an opportunity to pound some sense into the Yanks... or to admit that you have/know no rational basis; it's just the way you do things.

 

[EastMed]

An excellent post, Kulindahr, in my opinion. Though I would rephrase it more broadly to the case for society.
And yes, what makes for a good society is a combination rights and obligations amongst other things, and in particular an understanding of the role of class and power.
I am suspicious of any attempt to order society exclusively through rational foundations. The history of Western Philosophy shows that this cannot be achieved for a variety of reasons.
But this is not fatal. The case for a good society can still be made.

 

[Benvolio]

The case against it is that it is contrary to our natures. People will work hard out of self interest. Not much out of obligation. The plight of the common man did not improve much from the beginning of time to about 1800: one room hovels, one set of rags, poor food, no plumbing, no medicine. Then a combination of factors including a favorable legal environment gave rise to free enterprise capitalism, first in Britain, then US, Europe, now Asia. People working to better themselves, yes get rich, had the incentive to work hard and think of ways to get rich by making improved good for the mass of people, while providing jobs and salaries. Men like Henry Ford, working in his garage to develop a cheap automobile. Not out of charity or obligation but self interest, which liberals call greed. It works to benefit mankind. Nothing else has ever done much. That is why socialism/liberalism/communism is wrong. By depriving people of their economic freedom, they destroy the incentive to work and create. What you call community fails for the same reason.

 

[kallipolis]

The greed that masquerades as private enterprise practised by those jodpur wearing illuminati of the economic new scholasticism would be much kinder to the 'laid off' and the 'retrenched.' They would simply 'let them go' on account of 'restructuring' then rationalise their enterprises by 'restructuring' in China, or are labour rates in Vietnam, now more attractive? - until they would be forced to 'let go' and 'restructure' again. No wonder private enterprise is so maligned! Then there is Chinese private enterprise manufacturing on behalf of The West enabling Chinese sweat shops to participate in the global advancement of private enterprise for the benefit of the human race.

 

[Kulindahr]

The case against it is that it is contrary to our natures. People will work hard out of self interest. Not much out of obligation. The plight of the common man did not improve much from the beginning of time to about 1800: one room hovels, one set of rags, poor food, no plumbing, no medicine. Then a combination of factors including a favorable legal environment gave rise to free enterprise capitalism, first in Britain, then US, Europe, now Asia. People working to better themselves, yes get rich, had the incentive to work hard and think of ways to get rich by making improved good for the mass of people, while providing jobs and salaries. Men like Henry Ford, working in his garage to develop a cheap automobile. Not out of charity or obligation but self interest, which liberals call greed. It works to benefit mankind. Nothing else has ever done much. That is why socialism/liberalism/communism is wrong. By depriving people of their economic freedom, they destroy the incentive to work and create. What you call community fails for the same reason.

In both sociology and anthropology classes I learned that in societies where there's a sense of community and people look out for each other, productivity and creativity are higher than in a comparable society without that sense. Raw individualism is not a foundation for a healthy society, because it leads to exploitation.

The question here is a rational basis for community, not a denial of scholarship showing that community improves a society in all ways. So if you have anything logical on the topic, let's hear it -- your position was already dismissed as insufficient in the opening post.

 

[Benvolio]

In both sociology and anthropology classes I learned that in societies where there's a sense of community and people look out for each other, productivity and creativity are higher than in a comparable society without that sense. Raw individualism is not a foundation for a healthy society, because it leads to exploitation.

The question here is a rational basis for community, not a denial of scholarship showing that community improves a society in all ways. So if you have anything logical on the topic, let's hear it -- your position was already dismissed as insufficient in the opening post.

At least we can agree that the Democrat agenda of diversity, multiculturalism, class warfare and high immigration of outsiders are counter productive.

 

[Benvolio]

I think your views are incredibly narrow-minded. People do not work hard simply out of self interest. There are other reasons too. The only reason that we live in the kind of world we do, is because those things which happen to be in our own self interest, is shared by practically everyone else. We are far more successful as an animal, by working with others to help each other, not just ourselves. If you want to argue the case that community is against our natures, you would have to concede that modern man is un-natural, as in fact, the most natural way that human beings can be, is feral. Community is something that is essential to humanity, without it, we would devolve. We need others to teach us and to nurture us, in youth and old-age. We need the brains that some have, the strength that others have, the compassion that others have, the wisdom.... you get the point. It is far more important to prioritise the community as a whole, than to protect 'individual' parts of it.

In response to Kuli. You say that rights rest on the fact of self ownership. Who decided that this is where they rest? I think it is far more relevant that they rest on humanity alone. Whilst the self ownership aspect is perfectly true to say, it is also somewhat irrelevant, since you cannot exercise your individual rights without the consent of the society to which you are a part. When society is at a point where they can say, your rights are important and to be protected, only then do you actually have a right that has a meaningful substance to it. Community will ALWAYS be more important than Individuality, we cannot evolve without the former.

The self ownership argument is kulindahr's argument, not mine.
Mine is pragmatic. Economic freedom and self interest have done far,far more good for mankind--especially the poor--than all the charity, altruism, philanthropy, liberalism, socialism, community etc etc in all of history put together. It is not even close.

 

[Kulindahr]

In response to Kuli. You say that rights rest on the fact of self ownership. Who decided that this is where they rest? I think it is far more relevant that they rest on humanity alone. Whilst the self ownership aspect is perfectly true to say, it is also somewhat irrelevant, since you cannot exercise your individual rights without the consent of the society to which you are a part. When society is at a point where they can say, your rights are important and to be protected, only then do you actually have a right that has a meaningful substance to it. Community will ALWAYS be more important than Individuality, we cannot evolve without the former.

Self-ownership is the fact from which rights arise -- "rights" are just aspects of ownership.

Until there is as self-evident a foundation for community, nothing at all can be said to arise from community.

 

[Kulindahr]

The self ownership argument is kulindahr's argument, not mine.
Mine is pragmatic. Economic freedom and self interest have done far,far more good for mankind--especially the poor--than all the charity, altruism, philanthropy, liberalism, socialism, community etc etc in all of history put together. It is not even close.

I doubt it. Community got us from erectus to sapiens, and from the stone age to the bronze age. Without that, mankind would never have gotten to the point where individual enterprise did anything for us at all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Its one phase in humanity however. It does not mean it is the most superior means of development. Furthermore, when measures are called for and imposed upon the self-interested who are 'all about the money', it won't cause society to collapse, just adapt, and for the better.

Yes. Empire did more for mankind than any other system -- in its time, which is to say until something better came along.

But through all the stages we've had as a race, community has been a force for good. It's the force that kept life tolerable through the early industrial age, and what keeps people from starving in the corporate age.


But I want to find a rational basis, a foundation in first principles, for community. It's clearly an impulse, possibly biological, but is there a philosophical base that can be set against that for individualism?

 

[Benvolio]

Kulindahr says: "all should contribute as they are able". Where have we heard that before? Oh, yes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program" (Wikipedia).

The problem with the idea is that while, given the freedom to do so, individuals will pursue their self interest, work hard and creatively, the reverse is true. If obligated to share, many--indeed, most--will work less hard and less creatively. Then "community" necessarily becomes coercive. How do you force the slackers to contribute? What do you do to those who work hard but try to retain the fruits for themselves and their families?
Who administers the "community"? The GSA perhaps? In a representative Democracy, the politicians will reward their supporters.
While "community" sounds good to some, it NECESSARILY involves trying to coerce people to behave as the leaders wish.
The great beauty of free enterprise capitalism is that it harnesses, for the benefit of all, the natural inclination of people to pursue their own self interest. You don't need to force people to work hard if they can reap the benefit. The reverse is true.

Your references to "self ownership" and "Empire" as an epithet for free enterprise, and your reference to sociology and anthropology studies of "community", suggest an academic background in Marxism whether you instructors chose to reveal that source or not. I hope you also studied history to know what monstrous cruelty has resulted from attempts to bring about "community". Stalin send tens of millions of peasants to their deaths because they resisted his communal farms. Mao Tse Tung, exceeded even him.
May I also suggest Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation". The Pilgrims began with a communal farming system and almost starved. People didn't work as hard as they might and grumbled about others who worked even less. The problem was solved by giving each family its own plot and allowing them to keep the fruits of their labor.

 

[Kulindahr]

Self-ownership is ownership, ownership is possession, possession is materialism, materialism is trivial. There is a far more simplistic foundation to base rights upon, that's freedom itself.

If you think so, then derive freedom from first principles. It's certainly not an observable fact of existence.

The self evidence for community is positive evolution, hence without it, we couldn't evolve to where we have. Humanity itself rises from community.

How does "positive evolution" come from first principles?

 

[Benvolio]

It is dangerous to try to make economic decisions by philosophy. Pragmatism is critical.

 

[Kulindahr]

It would be helpful if you could restructure the question for my benefit, i'm not accustomed to the term 'first principles'.

From the opening post:

...on first principles, i.e. on a foundation observable and relying on nothing but itself

Individual rights rest on first principles, because they're merely an expression of the observable fact of self-ownership.


I am assuming, since historically community has been of great benefit to humans, that there may be an equally plain foundation for community and resulting obligations. If there is, it should serve to a large extent to define what those obligations are. The great trouble with arguing for community in politics is that while only the socially parasitic reject all community, almost invariably the philosophical foundation boils down to good feelings.

 

[Benvolio]

Kulindahr, as I understand it, it arguing for more community, i.e. more obligation and coercion and corresponding less individual freedom. Why?

 

[kallipolis]

Kulindahr, as I understand it, it arguing for more community, i.e. more obligation and coercion and corresponding less individual freedom. Why?

My reading of Kulindahr's contribution suggests the polar opposite with him arguing for the protection of the human rights of the individual human person, mentored through a community which supports the birth right of all human beings to contribute to the common good enabling all to be served when need arises.

Homo sapiens' purposes can be achieved only in the context of a collectivity; that is within its society where it expresses its individual nature of being itself. Man is not simply an individual but also a social animal sharing a common purpose, or aspirations with other human beings as a result of sharing a common human nature.

The Common good is not something determined by the personal choices, and preferences of each person, rather it is founded upon who we are as human beings understanding that each of us benefits when contributing something of our energies, time and excess wealth for the benefit of all which inevitably will include one self when our moment of need arrives.

Quoting Thomas Aquinas' employment of Greek philosophical ideas, said: “Because all human beings share in the nature of the species, every human being is naturally a friend to every human being; and this is openly shown in the fact that one human being guides, and aids, in misfortune, another who is taking the wrong road.”

Reality readily informs us that greed, and obsessive self interest will often reveal the easy willingness of not a few people to feather their own nest at the expense of others whose trust they abuse.

 

[kallipolis]

From the opening post:



Individual rights rest on first principles, because they're merely an expression of the observable fact of self-ownership.


I am assuming, since historically community has been of great benefit to humans, that there may be an equally plain foundation for community and resulting obligations. If there is, it should serve to a large extent to define what those obligations are. The great trouble with arguing for community in politics is that while only the socially parasitic reject all community, almost invariably the philosophical foundation boils down to good feelings.

And a common purpose, revealed through the aspirations which evolve out of a common human nature.

 

[Benvolio]

And a common purpose, revealed through the aspirations which evolve out of a common human nature.

Even on a local or tribal level community involves some degree of coercion as discipline iin some form is applied to those who dissent or stray. The downside of community is a sacrifice of material progress. The tribal communities which seem to be the model for community, make very little and very slow progress.
If you favor common purpose and community on a national level, would you not agree that diversity, muticuralism, and immigration are detrimental to the achieving and maintenance
of the common purpose? Would we not be better served by a return to the goals of assimilation and "from many, one "?

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, as I understand it, it arguing for more community, i.e. more obligation and coercion and corresponding less individual freedom. Why?

What in the world are you reading???

"Coercion"? "Less individual freedom"?

I'd say your reading is 90% your own ideology reacting to things you see, in a knee-jerk, unthinking fashion. Your response here shows you're doing what the literary community, when interpreting a piece of writing, calls "eisegesis", importing meaning that isn't there.

If you'd go back and read a lot of the past threads in this board, you'll find I'm the biggest advocate of individual liberty around. You'll also find that I like to address fundamentals down below the level of mere observed phenomena or ideology. That's what I'm doing in this question: I'm not advocating anything, I'm asking a "theoretical" question (so many would say, but those "theoreticals" are more practical than the great majority of what people regard as "practical"), namely, that many people regard community as an extremely important aspect of humanity, one which should guide us politically -- so, does it have a foundation in first principles?

I don't care at this point what effects or results or implications might be, I'm looking for some truth about the human condition.

 

[kallipolis]

If you favor common purpose and community on a national level, would you not agree that diversity, muticuralism, and immigration are detrimental to the achieving and maintenance of the common purpose? Would we not be better served by a return to the goals of assimilation and "from many, one "?

No, and no based upon my own experiences.

To believe otherwise is to assume that our common ancestors were somehow defective, and that a darker skin pigmentation is a barrier to the evolution of the human species. Science has proved, and continues to prove that appearances are deceptive.