PDA

View Full Version : As a side note to other threads Speaking of de Tocqueville this well describes us now



ChaseKenyon
10-16-2012, 12:16 AM
From the link given:



“Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy; those who had anything united in common terror.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/465.Alexis_de_Tocqueville)
, Recollections on the French Revolution (http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1479235)



The claim by the GOP is Dems starting class warfare.

The reality is the GOP platform is class warfare.

Extending even killing public education first at the college level (student loans) "borrow from your parents"the want to be POTUS's recommendation".

End federal subsides for public education.


"get rid of the Department of Education"

The Taliban tried to kill, summarily execute, their greatest threat, a young girl with a book.

"We have already told "You People" all you need to know." You people don't really need an education as we will tell you what you need to know when we decide to. That's why we don't need public Universities as the "Ivy League" schools can serve all of us your betters sufficiently.

Eliminate all programs that elevate workers above the minimum lowest wage level. Unions education work knowledge all must go. Send all union type skilled labor jobs overseas and then break the unions.

Destroy the banking system so the "serfs" can not have access to loans/mortages on houses, cars, or even education. Forcing serfs, laborers, to rent from the national Bain Apartment Holdings Company with it's freedom to charge whatever they can makes more money than loaning "those people" money for 30 years on a mortgage.

Heck Ryan admits his father's Social Security death benefit put him through college. But like the First Lady said don't close the doors on those behind you help them up too. Ryan has said and it is in his "budget" to eliminate Social Security. That way no one else like him can ever hope to make it to the "haves", the upper educated ruling class.

WE ARE WITNESSING THE ATTEMPT TO EXECUTE CLASS WARFARE AND TURN THIS INTO A SOCIETY OF HAVES AND THEIR SHILL PUPPETS, AND THE REST OF US THE 47 % , THE HAVE NOTS.

:mad::pmad::eek::pmad:

.

Chip-skiff
10-16-2012, 12:22 AM
The bigger the house, the brighter the fire.

Kevin T
10-16-2012, 12:25 AM
The class wars are over and the 97% LOST.

The top 3% like to say that Dems play the class warfare card, like it's a bad thing to mention it, all they do is distract a portion of the population that is either too stupid to believe that they got a right and proper screw'in or they've been deluded into believing that they themselves are only temporarily hampered millionaires who any day now will strike it rich and take their rightful place in society.

mdh
10-16-2012, 01:09 AM
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

The biggest threat to our liberty isn't that Obama is president, it's those that would vote for him.

Peerie Maa
10-16-2012, 06:22 AM
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

The biggest threat to our liberty isn't that Obama is president, it's those that would vote for him.
Those are some snappy 170 YO sound bites. I have to wonder how relevant they are today? What is the value of this nebulous concept "Freedom" or "Liberty" in a society that is about as well fitted to look after the welfare of all of its members as some tin pot penniless thirld world nation?

Peerie Maa
10-16-2012, 10:17 AM
So you wouldn't miss it if it suddenly disappears?

Be careful of what you wish for...

Kaa
According to some of the right wing "USA is perfect, everywhere else is crap" posters on here I have none anyway.

Not that I notice any lack of liberty or freedom, perhaps ours are different to yours?

Durnik
10-16-2012, 10:18 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mdh http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3564462#post3564462)
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

The biggest threat to our liberty isn't that Obama is president, it's those that would vote for him.



Those are some snappy 170 YO sound bites. I have to wonder how relevant they are today? What is the value of this nebulous concept "Freedom" or "Liberty" in a society that is about as well fitted to look after the welfare of all of its members as some tin pot penniless thirld world nation?

Don't you know? All are free to starve, steal, go to jail.. unless they are the fortunate few..

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor, from stealing a loaf of bread or sleeping on a park bench.

You know this, I am sure - I'm hoping mdh takes the time to read & think on it.. Damn! There's that 'hope' thing again! ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Peerie Maa
10-16-2012, 10:27 AM
You have less than you used to. And the direction of the trend is not encouraging.

We have less, too.

Kaa
So, what have I lost in my 60 year lifetime?

Durnik
10-16-2012, 11:30 AM
You have less than you used to. And the direction of the trend is not encouraging.

We have less, too.

Kaa

Freedom to what..

Freedom to travel? In a society which concentrates the wealth in 3% or so & practices 'economic serfdom' with the rest, where is that freedom?

Freedom to breath clean air? In a society which burns billions of tons of coal & millions of barrels of oil each year, where is that?

Freedom to drink clean water? In a society which uses its rivers as sewers & dumps & has now embarked on the grand journey of fracking, where is that?

Where is this 'freedom' of which you speak? Or is it only the freedom of the wealthy minority to trash the planet for their personal gain which is important? That seems to be the 'freedom' the righties so praise (or mourn the loss of).

I would like the freedom to enjoy clean air & water. I would like the freedom to not be subject to the religious irrationalities of others. Those would be a good start!

enjoy
bobby

Peerie Maa
10-16-2012, 11:49 AM
I am not you, I don't know :-) The usual list involves mind, hair, etc. :-D

On a bit more serious note, this is a big discussion for a separate thread. But I'll stipulate that there are people who don't want freedom, who don't need freedom, and who are afraid of freedom.

Kaa

It always depend on which freedom.
I don't see either "freedom" or "Liberty" in any of these needs in this classic hierarchy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/450px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png
So what is this Liberty that is so dear to Americans? There is an accepted view that if you score well on all of these you will be happy with your lot, whatever your nations politics and "Freedoms" are.
As you are not I, I'll turn the question round. What freedoms have you lost in your lifetime, and I'll see how we compare.

TomF
10-16-2012, 12:31 PM
Back in the day, we were taught that there's "positive" freedom ... the freedom to do something, and "negative" freedom ... the freedom from something.

Freedom to speak and gather publicly, for instance; Freedom from imprisonment without cause.

Which freedoms are you seeing eroded, Kaa? And by whom?

Reynard38
10-16-2012, 12:37 PM
The class wars are over and the 97% LOST.

The top 3% like to say that Dems play the class warfare card, like it's a bad thing to mention it, all they do is distract a portion of the population that is either too stupid to believe that they got a right and proper screw'in or they've been deluded into believing that they themselves are only temporarily hampered millionaires who any day now will strike it rich and take their rightful place in society.

So now it's 3%...

Lots of wealth envy here.

TomF
10-16-2012, 12:42 PM
So now it's 3%...

Lots of wealth envy here.Despite Tocquiveille's claim, I think it's less about envy, and more about fear and disenfranchisement.

TomF
10-16-2012, 01:17 PM
By which governments, Kaa? Or is this a rare instance of bipartisanship, or even multilateralism?

When you apply the question "cui bono?", whose interests do you find are being served by such erosions? Does this confirm for you that corporations are not eroding your freedom, albeit through using governments as their proxies?

Kevin T
10-16-2012, 01:25 PM
Both kinds. By the governments. I don't see my freedoms being eroded by corporations (primarily because you can opt out of corporate stuff but you can't opt out of government stuff).

Kaa

Did you miss the part where corporations are now considered people?
Did you miss the part where every known politician is beholden to corporations?
Did you miss the part where the GOP would like to outsource almost every function of Government to corporations?

Do you want to tell us about this magical ability of yours to "opt out" of corporate influence? Because, unless you are living like Ted Kaczinsky in a hut you made yourself out of sticks and twigs and surviving on bugs, grubs, and whatever roadkill you might be able to scrape up off the road, your as much of the corporate reality as everyone else.

Participation here is at the generosity of a corporate parent WB Magazine, so if I may suggest you might want to take that particular load of fertilizer and spread it or sell it elsewhere, nobody's buying it.

Kevin T
10-16-2012, 01:35 PM
Please do the following:

Extract your head (only temporarily, don't worry) out of the opening in which it is normally lodged.

Shove your suggestion in there.

Sideways.

Reinsert the head.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Kaa

Tis would appear that I have hit a nerve of truth. Thanks for the confirmation, and thanks for your cooperation also.

=================================

Forgot to add, but in light of your response it's perfect. In the immortal words of Mr. Jack Nicholson and I'll paraphrase slightly as this is the bilge after all: "Go sell crazy someplace else, we're all full up, you might actually sink us with any more of the crazy talk."

Kaa
10-16-2012, 01:50 PM
Tis would appear that I have hit a nerve of truth.

An interesting criterion you have there :-) So if, for example, some right-wing troll appears, comments on how all libtards are mental midgets, and is told to shove it -- that's evidence that he "hit a nerve of truth"? :-D


"Go sell crazy someplace else, we're all full up, you might actually sink us with any more of the crazy talk."

Sorry to disappoint you, you're not even close to crazy. A touch of insanity might improve you, but I'm not holding my breath...

Kaa

TomF
10-16-2012, 01:55 PM
Kaa. Does that mean you think (we) libtards aren't mental midgets? Who knew?

Maybe your post was purely hypothetical? :D

Kaa
10-16-2012, 01:58 PM
Kaa. Does that mean you think (we) libtards aren't mental midgets? Who knew?

Maybe your post was purely hypothetical? :D

It was just an example :-P

In other news, heavens opened, a voice spake, and some lightnings were hurled :-) The end result is that there are little charred spots where my recent posts used to be, so if you want to continue the discussion of liberty we might have to start from scratch :-)

Kaa

TomF
10-16-2012, 02:03 PM
Deus ex computatrum?

Kevin T
10-16-2012, 02:05 PM
An interesting criterion you have there :-) So if, for example, some right-wing troll appears, comments on how all libtards are mental midgets, and is told to shove it-- that's evidence that he "hit a nerve of truth"? :-D

Sorry to disappoint you, you're not even close to crazy. A touch of insanity might improve you, but I'm not holding my breath...

Kaa

See that's where your conservative world view, if that's what we might call your point of view, misses the mark. We wouldn't use language like you have in the underlined parts of your statement above.

Kaa, I think your attempts at cuteness are starting to collapse in on itself, you are not as clever as you'd like to think, in spite of all the evidence you post in an attempt to support that self actualized viewpoint. :-D

Kaa
10-16-2012, 02:10 PM
Deus ex computatrum?

Nah, that would be an AI :-)

Kaa

Kaa
10-16-2012, 02:14 PM
See that's where your conservative world view, if that's what we might call your point of view, misses the mark. We wouldn't use language like you have in the underlined parts of your statement above.

My world view is not conservative and the port side of the Bilge uses language like that on a regular basis.

If you want to look outside of the Bilge, google up, for example, twitter comments directed at Palin when she was a VP candidate. All made by good and proper Democrats, no doubt.


Kaa, I think your attempts at cuteness are starting to collapse in on itself, you are not as clever as you'd like to think, in spite of all the evidence you post in an attempt to support that self actualized viewpoint. :-D

I am devastated :-D What, you don't think I'm cute? <dissolves into tears> Oh, cruel, cruel world...

Kaa

TomF
10-16-2012, 02:20 PM
Burmese pythons are cute, in a creepy, suffocating way.

Kevin T
10-16-2012, 02:31 PM
My world view is not conservative and the port side of the Bilge uses language like that on a regular basis.

If you want to look outside of the Bilge, google up, for example, twitter comments directed at Palin when she was a VP candidate. All made by good and proper Democrats, no doubt.



I am devastated :-D What, you don't think I'm cute? <dissolves into tears> Oh, cruel, cruel world...

Kaa

Mon deux! Is Palin running again? Must be on some kind of double secret ballot that only the cognoscenti are aware of. Darn, guess I'm on the outside looking in again!

And they accuse the Left of being obsessed with Palin, what does Peffy call it PDS or Palin Derangement Syndrome, ha I've seen it mentioned here two or three times by the starboard side in just the last few days.

Kaa
10-16-2012, 02:35 PM
Burmese pythons are cute, in a creepy, suffocating way.

Wrong subspecies :-P

Kaa

Kaa
10-16-2012, 02:43 PM
Speaking of freedom...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/16/texas-game-warden-investigates-man-who-a

"Texas food blogger Ryan Adams thought the universe had dropped a present in his lap when a rare white-winged dove smacked into his living room window, breaking its neck. Dove hunting season had started the day before, so Adams decided to clean, dress, and grill his find, as well as document the experience (http://www.nosetotailathome.com/2012/10/08/when-life-gives-you-wild-game/) at his very good food blog, Nose to Tail at Home.

But shortly after Adams posted his tale and accompanying pictures online, a game warden from the Texas Parks and Wildlife came knocking (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/dove-dinner-lands-texas-man-in-hot-water-with-law/) on his door:"

Kaa

ChaseKenyon
10-16-2012, 02:51 PM
/



:d



/

Peerie Maa
10-16-2012, 02:59 PM
Speaking of freedom...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/16/texas-game-warden-investigates-man-who-a

"Texas food blogger Ryan Adams thought the universe had dropped a present in his lap when a rare white-winged dove smacked into his living room window, breaking its neck. Dove hunting season had started the day before, so Adams decided to clean, dress, and grill his find, as well as document the experience (http://www.nosetotailathome.com/2012/10/08/when-life-gives-you-wild-game/) at his very good food blog, Nose to Tail at Home.

But shortly after Adams posted his tale and accompanying pictures online, a game warden from the Texas Parks and Wildlife came knocking (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/dove-dinner-lands-texas-man-in-hot-water-with-law/) on his door:"

Kaa

Is this the first answer to my question, or were there others now just smoky motes in the debris of your smack on the wrist?
As to this case, that is one less "freedom" than I enjoy.

Kaa
10-16-2012, 03:09 PM
Is this the first answer to my question, or were there others now just smoky motes in the debris of your smack on the wrist

No and yes :-)

Kaa

ChaseKenyon
10-16-2012, 03:33 PM
Thank you all for allowing a nice discusion and exchange of ideas not ideology.

See I have been right that we can have an open discussion without it dropping into an ideologic black and white has to be won and lost by one or the other black and white factions.

I sit here in NH and wonder how it came to pass that the GOP I ws part of that had good ideaas adn sound duty to the public has gone AWOL.

Our Rep controlled house is destroying the physical and the mental logical factual basis for the we together doing things that have made this a great state for 200+ years.

As an example in the past decade or so we have had floods that did more destruction per land area and population per capita than Katrina and New Orleans. More of both by multiples. Yet it hardly made the national news. We just get down and get together adn p;itch in and deal with it ourselves. Yes we do put in for federal disaster relief financially but after the situation is completely under control. Last year the floods hit our neighbor VT. WE had big numbersof our DOT and fire adn forest fire crews over there helping. WE have a tax system that needs major revision as everything uns on property tax. THat has gone from a nice place to retire with low taxes here even 20 years ago to an untenable situation where anyone on fixed income is suffering from rising property taxes.

I do not have instant cures but jour microcosm and the lack of common language as stated is indicative of the national rift.

Peerie Maa
10-16-2012, 04:10 PM
No and yes :-)

Kaa

I'm sorry that I missed them. Were they good enough to repost?

Kaa
10-16-2012, 04:18 PM
I'm sorry that I missed them. Were they good enough to repost?

Lessee if I can recreate something...


I don't see either "freedom" or "Liberty" in any of these needs in this classic hierarchy

So, do you think it's possible to be a happy, well-adjusted, self-actualized slave?


What freedoms have you lost in your lifetime, and I'll see how we compare.

The freedom to walk the streets without being observed and recorded by cameras. The freedom to be not subject to a random search (yeah, the local constitution says something about that but no one seems to care). The freedom to photograph bridges and other important things. The freedom to joke in an airport. The freedom to take a domestic plane or a train and not show a government-issued ID to a lot of busybodies.

On a non-political note, the freedom the let your children run wild in the neightbourhood... :-/

Kaa

Peerie Maa
10-16-2012, 04:46 PM
Lessee if I can recreate something...



So, do you think it's possible to be a happy, well-adjusted, self-actualized slave?
That really depends on the slave owning system. For example in the "Viking" era a householder who had fallen on hard times and could no longer support himself could sell himself into bondage to a neighbour or family member. The fact that the site chosen by the Icelanders for their first parliament was land owned by a slave indicates that in their system slaves could own property. In Roman Britain grave memorials were raised to wives who had been slaves. In that context in those times which was better, bondage or starvation?



The freedom to walk the streets without being observed and recorded by cameras. The freedom to be not subject to a random search (yeah, the local constitution says something about that but no one seems to care). The freedom to photograph bridges and other important things. The freedom to joke in an airport. The freedom to take a domestic plane or a train and not show a government-issued ID to a lot of busybodies.

On a non-political note, the freedom the let your children run wild in the neightbourhood... :-/

Kaa
Yes, we have cameras on our main line trains, and in some big towns and cities. Personally I never notice them.
We do not suffer random searches. There always has to be a good reason. There were "Sus" laws that mainly resulted in the harassment of blacks, but as they became discredited I think that they are used less now. I have never been approached by a Bobby ever.
I think that the only place where the law gets nervous with cameras is in the vicinity of Westminster, otherwise it's not a problem.
Joking in an airport? You have to be kidding.
As a nation we have rejected the idea of ID cards. If necessary we use a driving licence and a utility bill, but that is only required for some "official" transactions.

Freedom to let kids play out? Not a problem in Barrow, but in some areas mothers are paranoid about child molesters and in others there is just too much traffic.

Kaa
10-16-2012, 05:04 PM
In that context in those times which was better, bondage or starvation?

There's no answer that's good for everyone. Some would choose bondage, others would choose starvation.

But I notice that you actually avoided the question and instead implied that being a slave is not necessarily all bad :-)


Yes, we have...

You asked about what freedoms I have lost. If you recall, it started with the now-gone post where you asked which freedoms have you lost and I said that I am not you so I don't know. I am still not you :-)

Kaa

Peerie Maa
10-16-2012, 05:21 PM
There's no answer that's good for everyone. Some would choose bondage, others would choose starvation.

But I notice that you actually avoided the question and instead implied that being a slave is not necessarily all bad :-)Sorry, but I thought that I had indicated that it must have been possible to be "a happy, well-adjusted, self-actualized slave" if the social system is set up to facilitate it.




You asked about what freedoms I have lost. If you recall, it started with the now-gone post where you asked which freedoms have you lost and I said that I am not you so I don't know. I am still not you :-)

Kaa
I suggested that as you are not me, you could list what you have lost. I would then respond with comparisons, so that you could understand whether I have lost freedoms. There by moving the question of post#8 forward.

Kaa
10-16-2012, 05:31 PM
Sorry, but I thought that I had indicated that it must have been possible to be "a happy, well-adjusted, self-actualized slave" if the social system is set up to facilitate it.

Ah, I see. However, bondage and slavery are different things. I am also not sure how do you consider the right to own property or the existence of burial memorials to be the evidence for happiness and self-actualization. On the other hand it doesn't matter as you've answered my question: you do believe that it's possible.


I suggested that as you are not me, you could list what you have lost. I would then respond with comparisons, so that you could understand whether I have lost freedoms. There by moving the question of post#8 forward.

If I were to live in the UK my list would likely be different :-) In any case, the need for freedom varies a great deal across individuals. Some need a lot, some don't need much. If you feel you have not lost any freedoms and you are content with the amount of liberty you think you have, fine! Just do not generalize this to everyone.

Kaa

Smitty
10-16-2012, 09:37 PM
It was just an example :-P

In other news, heavens opened, a voice spake, and some lightnings were hurled :-) The end result is that there are little charred spots where my recent posts used to be, so if you want to continue the discussion of liberty we might have to start from scratch :-)

Kaa


Speaking about liberty is not allowed here. It will get you banned.

Peerie Maa
10-17-2012, 03:04 AM
If I were to live in the UK my list would likely be different :-) In any case, the need for freedom varies a great deal across individuals. Some need a lot, some don't need much. If you feel you have not lost any freedoms and you are content with the amount of liberty you think you have, fine! Just do not generalize this to everyone.

Kaa

I do not believe that I have done that. I am guilty of asking generalized questions in an attempt to get the few knee JERK posters to think when they have made huge sweeping generalisations about UK culture. The responses that I challenge are typified by posts on this http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?154215-Ssssh-Don-t-mention-the-guns (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?154215-Ssssh-Don-t-mention-the-guns)
You yourself made a generalisation that I had lost freedoms, which we then debated, from which I conclude that my losses are far less than yours on the small sample that you listed.

varadero
10-17-2012, 05:56 AM
Freedoms lost cannot really be seen or felt unless you are away for a notable period of time, and are correlated in the US and the UK to new laws being passed.
I do not think any freedom which allows the possibility to injure or steal that has been removed can be called a freedom lost.
On my few visits to the UK I have noted many things that I am not allowed to do now, or now have to pay to do, but really the sensation is more than the reality. The new uniforms and equipment carried by the law enforcement officers are intimidating and agressive, the survielance cameras are very noticable, the "not allowed" signs are everywhere. But really you can still go on doing pretty much what you like as long as you are, not hurting any one, not damaging property, or paying for the access.
On the other hand, when I lived in the US, I was nearly arrested one day for enjoying a bottle of wine on a sunny day while having a picnic in the local park, and not having a photo ID was a royal PIA. Without an ID you could not do a thing, rent a car, have a beer, cash a cheque, etc.
Now I have lived and worked in Spain for about 20 years. The difference here over a short period of time are very noticable, especially with what you are allowed to do with your own money. No cash transactions over €2500, No transfers over €3500 without notifying tax office. It is now illegal to do a non violent protest, it is called civil disobedience, all the local police are in fully armed paramilitary gear even for school road crossing duty, random car stops with all papers and licences inspected. Here in Spain, if there is not a law saying you CAN do it, you can't.

Keith Wilson
10-17-2012, 07:39 AM
Few people are misquoted more often than De Tocqueville


The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.This is a bogus quote. De Tocqueville never wrote it. And, honestly, it goes against a fundamental principle of democracy; paying taxes for the common good is how a people govern themselves.


Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.This isn't De Toqueville either; the word socialism wasn't current when he wrote. It's Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1944. Look here. (http://books.google.com/books?id=qg61T_I1mwsC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=Democracy+and+socialism+have+nothing+in+common+ but+one+word,+equality.+But+notice+the+difference: +while+democracy+seeks+equality+in+liberty,+social ism+seeks+equality+in+restraint+and+servitude.&source=bl&ots=3cfdykVI-E&sig=iDwJEnWozLnOyts7997s4HiIF4Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=daV-UIvtGubkyQGyqYG4Dw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Democracy%20and%20socialism%20have%20nothing%20i n%20common%20but%20one%20word%2C%20equality.%20But %20notice%20the%20difference%3A%20while%20democrac y%20seeks%20equality%20in%20liberty%2C%20socialism %20seeks%20equality%20in%20restraint%20and%20servi tude.&f=false)

The third one is real.

Durnik
10-17-2012, 09:30 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Kaa http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3564845#post3564845)

It was just an example :-P

In other news, heavens opened, a voice spake, and some lightnings were hurled :-) The end result is that there are little charred spots where my recent posts used to be, so if you want to continue the discussion of liberty we might have to start from scratch :-)

Kaa

Speaking about liberty is not allowed here. It will get you banned.

And yet you were able to write this post - which still exists 24 hours later..

Perhaps it is the 'liberty' to be rudely insulting which calls lightening bolts from gawd.. er, the Admin. I remember the post in question.. something about removing heads, replacing with dimensioned lumber, etc.. not nice at all. Scott was quite precise in his excising's. Many of Kaa's other relevant posts remain - he, & you, _are_ allowed to speak of liberty.. Politely.

enjoy
bobby

ETA: My mistake, no dimensioned lumber, simply a suggestion to place a suggestion..

Kaa
10-17-2012, 10:18 AM
And, honestly, it goes against a fundamental principle of democracy; paying taxes for the common good is how a people govern themselves.

Um, Keith, you're way too glib about this. There is a very strong incentive for politicians to borrow money and bribe their constituents. It is a big problem for democracy -- why do you think most every Western country has a huge public debt?


This isn't De Toqueville either; the word socialism wasn't current when he wrote. It's Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1944. Look here. (http://books.google.com/books?id=qg61T_I1mwsC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=Democracy+and+socialism+have+nothing+in+common+ but+one+word,+equality.+But+notice+the+difference: +while+democracy+seeks+equality+in+liberty,+social ism+seeks+equality+in+restraint+and+servitude.&source=bl&ots=3cfdykVI-E&sig=iDwJEnWozLnOyts7997s4HiIF4Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=daV-UIvtGubkyQGyqYG4Dw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Democracy%20and%20socialism%20have%20nothing%20i n%20common%20but%20one%20word%2C%20equality.%20But %20notice%20the%20difference%3A%20while%20democrac y%20seeks%20equality%20in%20liberty%2C%20socialism %20seeks%20equality%20in%20restraint%20and%20servi tude.&f=false)

You are wrong. Looking right there I see Hayek quoting de Tocqueville. Here's de Tocqueville in the original French: http://books.google.com/books?id=kIsdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA546&vq=%22La+d%C3%A9mocratie+%C3%A9tend+la+sph%C3%A8re +de+l%27ind%C3%A9pendance+individuelle%22&dq=%22Il+%C3%A9tait+aussi+grand+qu%E2%80%99un+homm e+puisse+l%E2%80%99%C3%AAtre+sans+la+vertu%22&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0

And, of course, the world "socialism" was very current in 1848.

Kaa

Kaa
10-17-2012, 10:24 AM
... huge sweeping generalisations about UK culture.

Just tit-for-tat :-) Huge sweeping generalizations go both ways.


You yourself made a generalisation that I had lost freedoms, which we then debated, from which I conclude that my losses are far less than yours on the small sample that you listed.

That's not a generalization, that's an observation that from my point of view you (along with the rest of the subjects of HM the Queen) you have lost freedoms. You disagree -- you're saying that from your point of view you have not. As I have said, that's fine -- we have different frameworks and perceive needed freedoms differently.

Kaa

Peerie Maa
10-17-2012, 11:14 AM
That's not a generalization, that's an observation that from my point of view you (along with the rest of the subjects of HM the Queen) you have lost freedoms. You disagree -- you're saying that from your point of view you have not. As I have said, that's fine -- we have different frameworks and perceive needed freedoms differently.

Kaa

However, I believe that freedoms are specific, and it is therefore possible to set out which freedoms are under review.
You state that you believe I have lost freedoms, so it is reasonable to expect you to be able to set out what freedoms you perceive I lack. So what are they?

Kaa
10-17-2012, 11:25 AM
You state that you believe I have lost freedoms, so it is reasonable to expect you to be able to set out what freedoms you perceive I lack. So what are they?

That's not likely to be a useful exercise, as for any list of freedoms that I might come up with (e.g. freedom to own a gun, some aspects of the freedom of speech, etc.) you can retort that you don't need that freedom and do not feel the loss.

In general, there is often (but not always) a trade-off between freedom and something else (for example, security) and absolutes rarely work. So in effect this boils down to a value judgment as to where should be the correct balancing point -- and different people, not to mention different societies, would not choose the same balancing point as optimal in their mind.

But let me try to ask the question in a different way. Do you think there's less individual freedom now than compared to, say, 20-30 years ago -- given that we're not concerned with whether that "extra" freedom was necessary of desirable? You might think that the contraction of liberty is a good thing -- but would you agree that such a contraction occurred?

Kaa

Peerie Maa
10-17-2012, 11:43 AM
That's not likely to be a useful exercise, as for any list of freedoms that I might come up with (e.g. freedom to own a gun, some aspects of the freedom of speech, etc.) you can retort that you don't need that freedom and do not feel the loss.

In general, there is often (but not always) a trade-off between freedom and something else (for example, security) and absolutes rarely work. So in effect this boils down to a value judgment as to where should be the correct balancing point -- and different people, not to mention different societies, would not choose the same balancing point as optimal in their mind.

But let me try to ask the question in a different way. Do you think there's less individual freedom now than compared to, say, 20-30 years ago -- given that we're not concerned with whether that "extra" freedom was necessary of desirable? You might think that the contraction of liberty is a good thing -- but would you agree that such a contraction occurred?

Kaa

In general I have not lost any of the freedom that I enjoyed 20-30-or 40 years ago. In fact since licensing laws have been relaxed I am now free to drink in a pub when ever I fancy a pint. There have been some changes that have made exercising the freedom more difficult or irritating. Since a couple of gun related massacres, you now need to jump through more rigorous hoops to own a fire arm, but we can still shoot for sport or the pot if we want to. The process of boarding an aircraft has become slightly more tedious due to US paranoia since 7/11 but I still can and do fly.
So I really cannot think of any freedom that I once enjoyed that I have lost.

Your turn.:D

Kevin T
10-17-2012, 11:49 AM
". . .But let me try to ask the question in a different way. Do you think there's less individual freedom now than compared to, say, 20-30 years ago -- given that we're not concerned with whether that "extra" freedom was necessary of desirable? You might think that the contraction of liberty is a good thing -- but would you agree that such a contraction occurred?"

Kaa

I have no desire to get into the middle of the conversation that you and Nick are engaging in, but I think the premise of the two questions you ask in your last post don't really do anything in the way of contextualizing the issue at hand.

Of course there is less freedom thirty years later, we also live in a vastly different world. The population has increased and the world has become in some respects a very different place. 30 years ago I could leave my front door unlocked all the time, in fact I could go away for a week or more at a time and leave the side door on the garage unlocked so my neighbor could come and go as needed to take care of my dog and bring my mail into the house. I also recognize that this was in suburban Connecticut and that may not have been the same situation even back then for people who lived elsewhere.

So has a contraction in freedoms occurred here in the states and elsewhere, of course it has, so I'm not sure I follow your reasoning with stating the obvious in 2012.

Kaa
10-17-2012, 11:56 AM
So I really cannot think of any freedom that I once enjoyed that I have lost.

Lucky you :-)

But would you be willing to agree to a stronger statement -- that you've lost no freedoms at all, regardless of whether you enjoyed them or not and regardless of whether you think that allowing such things is a good idea?


Your turn.:D

My turn to do what? (you didn't forget post #33, by any chance?)

Kaa

Kaa
10-17-2012, 11:59 AM
Of course there is less freedom thirty years later

So, do you expect this trend to continue? Until what happens?


we also live in a vastly different world.

I don't live in a vastly different world. The people are the same, there's been a few technological and political changes, but nothing that would come close to being "vastly different".

Kaa

Kevin T
10-17-2012, 12:15 PM
So, do you expect this trend to continue? Until what happens?



I don't live in a vastly different world. The people are the same, there's been a few technological and political changes, but nothing that would come close to being "vastly different".

Kaa

So almost 2.5 billion more people squeezed on this rock means nothing. Just curious, what would be a population number that might cause some people to feel the need to "get theirs"? and perhaps do whatever was necessary to achieve that goal.

When I was born there was just under 3 billion, in my lifetime it's a tick under 7 billion, you don't see that as "vastly" different?

Kaa
10-17-2012, 12:23 PM
When I was born there was just under 3 billion, in my lifetime it's a tick under 7 billion, you don't see that as "vastly" different?

You didn't answer the first question. Do you expect there to be less and less freedom as time goes by?

And no, I don't see this as vastly different. It's also likely that my idea of "vastly" is different from yours :-)

Kaa

Peerie Maa
10-17-2012, 12:26 PM
Lucky you :-)

But would you be willing to agree to a stronger statement -- that you've lost no freedoms at all, regardless of whether you enjoyed them or not and regardless of whether you think that allowing such things is a good idea?



My turn to do what? (you didn't forget post #33, by any chance?)

Kaa

That is what I intended to convey.

I have tested my perceptions by a Google. No hits since 2010 and they were Op Eds from our most Liberal of newspapers.

Kaa
10-17-2012, 12:31 PM
That is what I intended to convey.

Your perception of the world is quite different from mine. Interesting.

Kaa

Peerie Maa
10-17-2012, 12:56 PM
Your perception of the world is quite different from mine. Interesting.

Kaa

I have not been discussing the world as I have only sampled a tiny portion of it, I have limited my discussion to the UK, just as you have only discussed the places that you wander over.
However this has been a useful conversation as I can now respond to comments like these

Thanks for reminding us why we don't want to be British anymore.


+2 Nice to know that in the UK anyone can just walk into your house and commit a crime without being in peril from the homeowner.


If your idea of being civilized is to have every aspect of your life under government scrutiny, cameras at every corner, permission needed to own anything but a butter knife under 3 inches long I'll remain an unwashed barbarian thank you very much.
in the informed knowledge that they are ignorant and prejudiced fools.

Kaa
10-17-2012, 01:11 PM
...in the informed knowledge that they are ignorant and prejudiced fools.

While that may or may not be true, you seem to have come to this conclusion based on a difference in values. A value preference, for example, for widespread gun ownership does not make one either ignorant or prejudiced. People you disagree with are not always fools :-)

Kaa

Peerie Maa
10-17-2012, 05:02 PM
While that may or may not be true, you seem to have come to this conclusion based on a difference in values. A value preference, for example, for widespread gun ownership does not make one either ignorant or prejudiced. People you disagree with are not always fools :-)

Kaa

I sincerely hope that they are not. The evidence however . . .

The conclusion does not come from a difference in values. It comes from a clear indication that they responded to a piece in the media without really reading or thinking about it, but in response to an unthinking knee jerk imperative. Further more your posts and this post made by
I recently waded through the crowds of curbside drinking loud pub crawlers while walking from the South Kensington tube station back to my hotel.
Had it been the sane scenario at home in Seattle, I would have gone blocks out of my way to avoid the crowds.

BTW: Thank you for "Jingoistic hoplophile twaddle". indicate that their opinions are based on a solid foundation of ignorance. Sadly this is a little more rock solid than a "value preference". They might like to believe that they have more "liberty" than I, but it is just an illusion with no evidential foundation.

Keith Wilson
10-17-2012, 06:28 PM
Here's de Tocqueville in the original French:
La démocratie et le socialisme ue se tiennent que par un mot, l égalité, mais remarquez la différence: la démocratie veut l égalité dans la liberté, et le socialisme veut l égalité dans la gêue et dans la servitude. Well, damn. I was dead wrong. My French isn't very good, but it's good enough for that. The book's from 1866, later than I thought, and socialism was very much a current term by them. Too early in the morning, it seems, and moving too fast.

purri
10-17-2012, 06:36 PM
I believe in the original French that "socialisme" meant something quite different than that currently thrown about. Context y'know.

Keith Wilson
10-17-2012, 06:39 PM
In 1866, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Perhaps there's someone here who knows about it?

purri
10-17-2012, 07:29 PM
Perhaps "group identity" or aspirations?

Kaa
10-18-2012, 01:29 AM
I believe in the original French that "socialisme" meant something quite different than that currently thrown about. Context y'know.

In 1860s? "Socialism" meant the views of people like Saint-Simon and Proudhon.

Lessee what the Wikipedia says...

"The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, a founder of utopian socialism. The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Liberalism) doctrine of "individualism (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Individualism)".[78] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth.[78] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Egoism) and that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition.[78] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a society based on cooperation.[78] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77)

...

Linguistically, the contemporary connotation of the words socialism and communism accorded with the adherents' and opponents' cultural attitude towards religion. In Christian Europe, of the two, communism was believed the atheist (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Atheism) way of life. In Protestant England, the word communism was too culturally and aurally close to the Roman Catholic communion rite (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Communion_rite), hence English atheists denoted themselves socialists.[76] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-75)
Friedrich Engels (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) argued that in 1848, at the time when the Communist Manifesto (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Communist_Manifesto) was published, "socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not." The Owenites (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Owenites) in England and the Fourierists (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Fourierists) in France were considered "respectable" socialists, while working-class movements that "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" denoted themselves communists. This latter branch of socialism produced the communist work of Étienne Cabet (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Cabet) in France and Wilhelm Weitling (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Wilhelm_Weitling) in Germany.[77] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-76)


Kaa

purri
10-18-2012, 02:14 AM
Not bad but wiki is not a good reference for historicity and accuracy as you probably know, y'know...

Peerie Maa
10-18-2012, 03:36 AM
Not bad but wiki is not a good reference for historicity and accuracy as you probably know, y'know...

In which case you follow those little linky things in the superscript square brackets back to the original source. ;)

ChaseKenyon
10-18-2012, 03:41 AM
excellent points by almost everyone.

Now having broken De Tocqueville down adn brought out definitions ofrom the present adn many from the past' pre WWI Pre WW
II post WWII adn Cold War adn now we are experiencing the normal dawn of a new century turmoil world wide. So we are in the informatin age. The self controlling Internet has made all knowledge available to all people who can access it even at a library or kiosk. I agreee with the Dalai Lama world wide, and Obama nationally we have to extend the access to all. The fires of hatred are stoked by lack of knowledge and maintained by fear of what they do not understand.

So we can go back to the original post adn disect it using the new shared knowledge from where we are in this thread already..

To do so we need to acknowledge some things first. A big one would be that almost all colleges and universities are adding distance learning classes. 20 years ago you had only two that were fully acredited Thomas Edison of the U of NJ and Charter DOak of U of CT. U of Phoenix soon was accredited adn joined them.

So we have most types of college degrees availble on line. It is truely the information age.

So first define socialism for our age adn even our children's age.
Define communism for ojur age.

Define oligarchy andpluto cracy for our age.

Now we can with some common ground go back and discuss the one or two percenters the elite, adn now with Citizens United the ownership by finances of our government by the few the ruling class. I see many similarities between France before the revolution and our country at this time.

Our elite the controllers gain more wealth faster (as since before the Rothschilds) during wars. "W" started 2 and would like to have started more. The GOP Platform from the convention wants to take preventative action in war against Iran. The 2%ers love it they make more and more money during the war.
In Europe from the 1500s on the money changers keep goading the elites to have continuous wars. Would Germany started WWII if the treaty of Versailles had not punished them with costly ne vrer ending retribution that made the German population paupers with not enough to eat? maybe maybe not.

So with common ground what about the elite and their military industrial complex. Now that they have purchased the country step by step statge by state will they start wars just for profit?Will martial law be declared to support the structure of continual warfare? Many more questions and I am sure most of you can think up better ones than I.

|:(:(:(

purri
10-18-2012, 04:20 AM
Zehr naturlichte (but naturally) and many linky thingies are found to be full of it and the rest of disassociation.
In which case you follow those little linky things in the superscript square brackets back to the original source. ;)

Peerie Maa
10-18-2012, 05:08 AM
Zehr naturlichte (but naturally) and many linky thingies are found to be full of it and the rest of disassociation.

True (in part) so enquiring minds (what a novel consept) will continue to burrow down to find a consistent set of data that may be relied on.

Keith Wilson
10-18-2012, 07:16 AM
Remember also that the "liberal individualism" that the early socialists opposed was very different from what would go by that name today. Closer to what we would call "Social Darwinism" or the Gospel According to Ayn Rand.

Durnik
10-18-2012, 08:40 AM
In 1860s? "Socialism" meant the views of people like Saint-Simon and Proudhon.

Lessee what the Wikipedia says...

"The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, a founder of utopian socialism. The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Liberalism) doctrine of "individualism (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Individualism)".[78] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth.[78] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Egoism) and that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition.[78] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a society based on cooperation.[78] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77)

...

Linguistically, the contemporary connotation of the words socialism and communism accorded with the adherents' and opponents' cultural attitude towards religion. In Christian Europe, of the two, communism was believed the atheist (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Atheism) way of life. In Protestant England, the word communism was too culturally and aurally close to the Roman Catholic communion rite (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Communion_rite), hence English atheists denoted themselves socialists.[76] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-75)
Friedrich Engels (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) argued that in 1848, at the time when the Communist Manifesto (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Communist_Manifesto) was published, "socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not." The Owenites (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Owenites) in England and the Fourierists (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Fourierists) in France were considered "respectable" socialists, while working-class movements that "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" denoted themselves communists. This latter branch of socialism produced the communist work of Étienne Cabet (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Cabet) in France and Wilhelm Weitling (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Wilhelm_Weitling) in Germany.[77] (http://forum.woodenboat.com/#cite_note-76)


Kaa


Hmm.. Either your browsers show different links than mine or y'uns haven't followed any of these links - as my browser (FF on xubuntu) shows the likes of "http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Liberalism".. I wasn't aware that woodenboat forum had a wiki.

Hey Kaa, let's add no appendages to no cheeks - maybe you should get Mowgli to operate the mouse for you? ;-)

for those getting woodenboat forum wiki links,
Here's a link to the heading Etymology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Etymology) on the wiki page for Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism).
Here's the wiki page on the History of Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism).

As always, YMMV, YADDA - take time to verify - links _and_ wiki.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Kaa
10-18-2012, 09:44 AM
Hmm.. Either your browsers show different links than mine or y'uns haven't followed any of these links - as my browser (FF on xubuntu) shows the likes of "http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Liberalism".. I wasn't aware that woodenboat forum had a wiki.

Hey Kaa, let's add no appendages to no cheeks - maybe you should get Mowgli to operate the mouse for you? ;-)

I did a plain-vanilla copy-and-paste. The superscript links in the Wikipedia are links to anchors on the same page and so are not first-class URLs. When I'm feeling neat, I edit them out, when I'm not, I do not :-) If you actually want these references, it's rather trivial to go to the proper Wikipedia page and see what the links refer to.

And no need for human hands, I just hypnotize the mice to do what I need :-P

Kaa

Kaa
10-18-2012, 09:55 AM
Remember also that the "liberal individualism" that the early socialists opposed was very different from what would go by that name today. Closer to what we would call "Social Darwinism" or the Gospel According to Ayn Rand.

And, of course, what the early socialists proposed is also very different from what we call "socialism" today. Closer to a religious cult, really.

Also do note that out of ideas of "liberal individualism" grew countries like the USA and the UK. Out of ideas of early socialism grew countries like the Soviet Union and Mao's China.

Kaa

Durnik
10-18-2012, 10:06 AM
I did a plain-vanilla copy-and-paste. The superscript links in the Wikipedia are links to anchors on the same page and so are not first-class URLs. When I'm feeling neat, I edit them out, when I'm not, I do not :-) If you actually want these references, it's rather trivial to go to the proper Wikipedia page and see what the links refer to.

And no need for human hands, I just hypnotize the mice to do what I need :-P

Kaa

Strange, my 'plain vanilla copy-and-paste' gets links correct..


Etymology

The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, a founder of utopian socialism. The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) doctrine of "individualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism)".[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth.[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoism) and that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition.[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77) They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a society based on cooperation.[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-Marvin_Perry_1600.2C_p._540-77)



and I should have guessed on the mice.. tho perhaps their sub-conscious resentment at being manipulated is driving them to mangle your links.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

Kaa
10-18-2012, 10:13 AM
Strange, my 'plain vanilla copy-and-paste' gets links correct.

<shrug> I can assure you I didn't rewrite all these links by hand :-) I suspect some intermediate piece of software decided it was smart :-/


and I should have guessed on the mice.. tho perhaps their sub-conscious resentment at being manipulated is driving them to mangle your links.. ;-)

That's okay, natural selection works pretty well, mice that mangle links, subconsciously or not, soon become micicles and shortly after that, food :-D

Kaa

Keith Wilson
10-18-2012, 05:13 PM
Also do note that out of ideas of "liberal individualism" grew countries like the USA and the UK. Out of ideas of early socialism grew countries like the Soviet Union and Mao's China.Not so simple. The societies of both the US and Western Europe have both individualist and communitarian roots, and are today a combination of both. The line of descent is more from the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment to laissez-faire 'liberal individualism' on one side, modern western societies in the middle, and various shades of socialism and communism on the left. The influence from actual socialism is stronger in Western Europe than in the US, but it exists in both. Old-style 'liberal individualism' (Spencer, William Charles Sumner, etc. is not quite as dead as Marxism, nor was it quite as bad undiluted, but it's pretty extreme by modern standards - for all that Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan would like to revive it.