Unironically, it is. No other political framework actively suggest loving, caring for and helping the anonymous fellow. Conservatism is almost always exacerbated individualism. They band together because they hate the same thing, not because they love each other.
Is there a middle ground between individualism and communitarianism? I am looking for perspectives in earnest (i.e., this isn’t a “gotcha” question). I agree that “rugged individualism” ends up trampling people.
Social democracy, maybe. At least they acknowledge social justice as a core political value. Plenty of socialism political stances are emphatic about social justice without going full on accelerationist authoritarian communism.
Basing the collective mentality and the legal framework upon ubiquitous and mutual sovereignty. That is, an individual is sovereign, an organization is sovereign, etc - and thus, none have rights over another, except as agreed to by ongoing mutual agreement. Anyone can withdraw, and no other has the right to deny that. Disputes are resolved through finding the path of least incursion.
Implicit in this is the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, that abortion is a right, that forcing medical choices (including vaccination) has no moral standing, that one can arm oneself, and one can also, by contract, participate in a community which disarms itself. Government bodies are ultimately services, in this model, which people, at some point, contractually agree to - or don’t.
The right to withdraw is a necessary one, as any contract one cannot deny or reject when one wants to is, at its root, compulsion or slavery.
Your economic framework has nothing to do with social policy and vice versa. Russia was a socialist national and they let Ukraine starve to get rid of dissidents. Norway is a capitalist country with very strong social welfare programs. The two are not related whatsoever.
Socialism as an economic model is not based on empathy at all, but rather where power lies. Capitalism is not opposed to government social programs and in fact only flourishes when government can mitigate externalities.
OPs view is simplistic and OP does not seem to understand the difference between socialism and social programs.
Your Bible also says something along the lines of “chop off your hands if you jerk off.” There’s so much shit in Leviticus I could pull up which aren’t exactly “loving.”
Edit:
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
Because empathy is socialism apparently.
Unironically, it is. No other political framework actively suggest loving, caring for and helping the anonymous fellow. Conservatism is almost always exacerbated individualism. They band together because they hate the same thing, not because they love each other.
Socialism is an economic model, not a political framework. You’re being lied to when you’re told government programs are socialism.
You might want to read what you replied to again.
Is there a middle ground between individualism and communitarianism? I am looking for perspectives in earnest (i.e., this isn’t a “gotcha” question). I agree that “rugged individualism” ends up trampling people.
Social democracy, maybe. At least they acknowledge social justice as a core political value. Plenty of socialism political stances are emphatic about social justice without going full on accelerationist authoritarian communism.
Thanks.
Of course there is. Are you looking for an -ism name for it?
Basing the collective mentality and the legal framework upon ubiquitous and mutual sovereignty. That is, an individual is sovereign, an organization is sovereign, etc - and thus, none have rights over another, except as agreed to by ongoing mutual agreement. Anyone can withdraw, and no other has the right to deny that. Disputes are resolved through finding the path of least incursion.
Implicit in this is the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, that abortion is a right, that forcing medical choices (including vaccination) has no moral standing, that one can arm oneself, and one can also, by contract, participate in a community which disarms itself. Government bodies are ultimately services, in this model, which people, at some point, contractually agree to - or don’t.
The right to withdraw is a necessary one, as any contract one cannot deny or reject when one wants to is, at its root, compulsion or slavery.
Socialism…
The middle ground between capitalism and communism is socialism.
Everyone gets enough, and if you work hard you get more.
The Overton window has just shifted so far right that “middle ground” has started being treated as extreme.
That seems an overly simplistic a view point to me
You are free to refute it.
Sure I’ll bite.
Your economic framework has nothing to do with social policy and vice versa. Russia was a socialist national and they let Ukraine starve to get rid of dissidents. Norway is a capitalist country with very strong social welfare programs. The two are not related whatsoever.
Socialism as an economic model is not based on empathy at all, but rather where power lies. Capitalism is not opposed to government social programs and in fact only flourishes when government can mitigate externalities.
OPs view is simplistic and OP does not seem to understand the difference between socialism and social programs.
What? Levant, 2000 years ago, Bible “1 John 3:17”
They even number each sentence in the book to make it easy to find.
Your Bible also says something along the lines of “chop off your hands if you jerk off.” There’s so much shit in Leviticus I could pull up which aren’t exactly “loving.”
Edit: Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”
From: https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/slavery/
Well the Bible is mythology, so putting any value into the words is just like putting value into the words of a fictional book.
Words in fictional books have value.
Maybe some, but the Bible isn’t one of the ones with value.
Don’t kill each other seems like ok advice.
Apparently it didn’t do the job, as the Jesus fandom in the US are literally the ones killing social services.