And personal freedom maximized is awesome as long as everyone is pretty much equally healthy, wealthy and wise. It assumes we all start from the same starting line and that we have equal opportunities along the way.

Not necessarily. I think you have another hidden assumption that forces you to make this one: you assume everyone should succeed equally. I disagree with that assumption, and thus I don’t need to incorrectly assume that everyone will start from the same starting line and have equal opportunities.

-Bill

…just like any other ‘ism’, religion and ideology, extremes can be rather unhealthy.

and in my other post I talked about striking a balance.

I don’t believe in swinging the pendulum only one way.

At my dinner table, the person ordering a soda pop wouldn’t even pay for that soda pop. Like the other night, when a friend joined us at dinner who had already eaten and had one glass of wine. She wasn’t counted in the round.

That’s the balance I’m talking about. Next time she may pay more, but this time she didn’t pay at all.

Let’s look at your dinner example further. Lets suppose everyone ordered expensive meals. But one person was very poor and so only had a soda. Under the philosophy of Individualism, this person would be free to recontribute an equal share, even though he had not consumed equally, or he could pay for what he alone purchased. But under the philosophy of Communalism, this person would be forced to pay as much as the rest. If he only has $10 in the whole world- too bad for him- he MUST pay equal to the rest. His money would be taken from him against his will, by force if necessary. (If he isn’t forced to pay up, than we would be putting his rights as primary, ahead of the group).

Communities are comprised of individuals. We’re all individuals, every one of us. If we don’t protect individuals, than nobody is protected and the community is destroyed. Imagine a building made of bricks. If all the bricks are allowed to be destroyed in the name of “the greater good of the building”, than the building will be destroyed despite the well-intentioned efforts to protect it.

This is why the US does not have a Democracy, but a Constitutional Democracy- the majority is free to enjoy all the freedoms it wishes…except exploit the minority.

Sure, Individualism/Libertarianism does not mandate compassion, but it allows the freedom for people to show compassion to others in any way they choose and it protects communities by protecting the all individuals that comprise them.

I guess I associate Libertarianism with Individualism more than anything and Democracy with Collectivism – whereas the Individualist is concerned solely with their and their family’s well-being, and the Collectivist is concerned with making sure everyone’s well-being is taken care of.

For the record, I don’t believe in communism, but coming from Canada, I understand the necessity of a strong social system. A ‘soft place to land’ if one is less fortunate.

I think we can agree that those less fortunate or in the minority should be taken care of, what we seem to not agree on is how that is done. I look at the US and I don’t see the individualistic ideology taking care of the less fortunate (or those who all of a sudden become less fortunate). I see the split between rich and poor and the number of people who fall through the cracks here as enormous. I also see awful racial politics. Each smaller community, taking care of themselves, caring about themselves and their prosperity.

When I think of a collective people (and I’m not talking government here, I believe very strongly that too much government is a bad thing, so I agree with that Libertarian principle very much), working together towards something, the care and empathy is outside of one’s own self and individual family (although, yes, it’s especially strong there).

So, no, it may not be inherent to Libertarianism and I’ve unfairly conflated the two because of my experience of it (and it’s not happening the way it should be because of other factors), but I hadn’t even heard of the term before I moved here. Instantly, it didn’t feel very neighborly.

But that could just be rampant individualism and the fact that there is big government that squeezes us without providing much of a social system, so we feel the need to be self-protective? I don’t know…

Anything combined with a lack of trust and compassion is self-centered. Libertarianism is no different than anything else in this regard, so why single out Libertarianism? You could just as easily say “Liberalism combined with lack of trust and compassion is self-centered” or “technology” or “relationships” etc…
___

When individual rights and freedoms and compromised, it is almost always the weakest, poorest and least powerful that suffer. Only by protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals can we protect those most in need of protection.

Should the only minority in an all white town suffer less rights and freedoms than the white ‘community’ merely because the community desires it? Of course not. How than, do we protect this individual? By making the rights of the individual of highest importance. If all individual rights are protected, than no individual can be exploited or harmed unfairly. The ‘community’ should never be allowed to exploit or harm the weakest and neediest among us.

in my case, it’s feeling bad for being liberal when other poor suckers folks aren’t so fortunate

j

You are right. Libertarianism, in itself, isn’t self-centered. But libertarianism combined with lack of trust and lack of compassion for one’s neighbor is.

Yup!

And, the fact is, we need external forces to even community contributions out.

Yup! Some feel the external force is government. Some feel it is charities. Some feel it is churches or other “faith-based initiatives”. And a lot of people just watch American Idol…

Donations work in a crisis, not as an ongoing campaign.

That’s probably true. That just means it’s incumbent upon libertarians to somehow prove that non-government community initiatives will be financially sustainable. If they can’t prove that, they can’t exactly kvetch about “forced transfer payments”. Unfortunately, many libertarians are putting the cart (cutting taxes) before the horse (coming up with solid non-government alternatives to government services).

HMOs are for-profit entities that could care less about our health.

Sorry — lousy example trying to find something that fit in the health care sector. Frankly, for those who consider themselves big-L Libertarians, the choice between HMO-style health care and so-called “socialized medicine” must be a devil/deep blue sea situation.

BTW…the US has big government without accountability. That’s the worst of both worlds.

Absolutely agreed.