Ed Griffin? G Edward Griffin? The Great Quack? The big bad John Birch Society poobah? I think you will fit in well up there on the loonie-tune band-wagon.

@gwizz: I'm guessing you don't know anything about the wacko John Birch Society. Or...wait a minute. Aren't you that really creepy stalker guy?

>> ^qualm:
@gwizz: I'm guessing you don't know anything about the wacko John Birch Society. Or...wait a minute. Aren't you that really creepy stalker guy?


No, I don't know the John Birch Society, to be honest. It doesn't really matter, because what is said in this video makes sense. It's also cute how you can only hit back by a personal attack. You owe me an apology, good sir, both for bringing up the topic and your conduct in it at the time. Until that happens, I'd rather not interact with someone like you.

Whatever. At least your public slapdown after that little trip to Texas (from Denmark) seems to have curtailed your constant habit of posting totally juvenile and inappropriate sexual comments. I'm not really surprised this childish video "makes sense" to you.

>> ^qualm:
Whatever. At least your public slapdown after that little trip to Texas (from Denmark) seems to have curtailed your constant habit of posting totally juvenile and inappropriate sexual comments. I'm not really surprised this childish video "makes sense" to you.


Oh whatever, you insensitive prick. How was the rape in prison? I bet you liked it.

I'm actually surprised you can work a keyboard, while having your fingers so far up your own ass at the same time, you fucking dick.

Die in a fire.

>> ^qualm:
Whatever. At least your public slapdown after that little trip to Texas (from Denmark) seems to have curtailed your constant habit of posting totally juvenile and inappropriate sexual comments. I'm not really surprised this childish video "makes sense" to you.


whoa..my douche meter just clocked that at around 120% dickogenes.
mind your own business kid.

now..about this video:
while he made some salient points on collectivism it is a pretty myopic view and ignores the pitfalls of pure individualistic society.he is spot on with the failings of collectivism but a pure individual society has pitfalls also i.e:selfishness,self centeredness,lack of empathy etc etc.
a pure individual society will find itself left behind in many areas while excelling in others.
both systems are flawed and will hamper a societies growth,hence the beauty of our constitution.it attempts to marry both philosophies.sometimes it succeeds,other times it fails but either of those philosophies taken to their extreme will ultimately destroy a society.
and the john birch society are pretty fucking extreme.

Wow, collectivists sure are a nasty, childish bunch.

Wow, individualists sure are a nasty, childish bunch.

Newsflash: civilization is collectivist.

Wow, human kind is a nasty childish bunch.

All those problems are also in collectivism as well. It is one group collectively being selfish,self centered,and having lack of empathy. The problems of the systems is more of a problem of human nature and not the systems themselves. So the real question is, given the evil tendencies of humanity, do we want a system of humans having great power to tell other humans what to do, or a system where in large they decide for themselves.

>> ^enoch:
>> ^qualm:
Whatever. At least your public slapdown after that little trip to Texas (from Denmark) seems to have curtailed your constant habit of posting totally juvenile and inappropriate sexual comments. I'm not really surprised this childish video "makes sense" to you.

whoa..my douche meter just clocked that at around 120% dickogenes.
mind your own business kid.
now..about this video:
while he made some salient points on collectivism it is a pretty myopic view and ignores the pitfalls of pure individualistic society.he is spot on with the failings of collectivism but a pure individual society has pitfalls also i.e:selfishness,self centeredness,lack of empathy etc etc.
a pure individual society will find itself left behind in many areas while excelling in others.
both systems are flawed and will hamper a societies growth,hence the beauty of our constitution.it attempts to marry both philosophies.sometimes it succeeds,other times it fails but either of those philosophies taken to their extreme will ultimately destroy a society.
and the john birch society are pretty fucking extreme.

>> ^rougy:
Newsflash: civilization is collectivist.


You made the same word play that he discredits. Civilization is a group of cultures, which in turn are really just groups of individuals. A civilization could be, like america was for about 100 years, very individualistic. You're misusing the term, which is common in such talks on the interwebs. It would be like calling a single computer "the internet". While it may indeed be a part of the internet network...it is still just a single computer node.

Edit: In fact, the way the internet works might be a perfect analogy to what we have going on here with the word play. The internet is one of the finest examples of why systems of individuals is more a less a better system than one of collectivism...because both systems can exist in a system of individual rights. Look at the video sift. No one is forcing us to do anything thing here. We all chose to be here and contribute as much or as little as we see fit. And to get a little more personal, my household of roomies works more like a Communism. It is the systems within systems where individualism really shows its strength. People can willingly submit themselves to groups of their choosing at their own discretion, according to their own moral code. Only system of individual liberty can accommodate multiple moral codes. IE, only a system of individual rights can you be the most free you can be.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^rougy:
Newsflash: civilization is collectivist.

You made the same word play that he discredits. Civilization is a group of cultures, which in turn are really just groups of individuals. A civilization could be, like america was for about 100 years, very individualistic. You're misusing the term, which is common in such talks on the interwebs. It would be like calling a single computer "the internet". While it may indeed be a part of the internet network...it is still just a single computer node.
Edit: In fact, the way the internet works might be a perfect analogy to what we have going on here with the word play. The internet is one of the finest examples of why systems of individuals is more a less a better system than one of collectivism...because both systems can exist in a system of individual rights. Look at the video sift. No one is forcing us to do anything thing here. We all chose to be here and contribute as much or as little as we see fit. And to get a little more personal, my household of roomies works more like a Communism. It is the systems within systems where individualism really shows its strength. People can willingly submit themselves to groups of their choosing at their own discretion, according to their own moral code. Only system of individual liberty can accommodate multiple moral codes. IE, only a system of individual rights can you be the most free you can be.


I did not misuse the term.

Civilization is a collectivist effort, albeit it has been perverted to the point where only the rich are allowed to benefit from the fruits of our labors.

You are the one playing with words.

The rich would not be rich if they had to do it all by themselves.

It is only our political system that allows them to get 90% of the pie that all of us are responsible for baking.

The bullshit award goes to the person who claims that collectivism negates individuality, just as the bullshit award would go to the person who claims that a single computer (individual) is "the internet" (a collection of individuals).

@geesussfreak.
either you didnt read my entire post or you were offering a helping hand.
either system is flawed if taken to its extreme.
both have their inherent advantages and disadvantages.
game theory espouses the harnessing of mans selfish nature to create an equilibrium and was used almost exclusively during the cold war.
so while it did create a stalemate it also promoted a protracted and prolonged conflict.
on the other hand,co-operation can reap benefits that are much more quickly manifested yet takes a certain thing called "trust" that game theory was never really able to resolve.
i use these examples to illuminate my previous post.
sometimes stalemate is the only option and is necessary,other times it is co-operation that brings the biggest rewards.

i would like to know where this system of pure individual rights exists?
is it a country?a city?township?
where on planet earth is this place of pure individual rights?
said the spider to the fly......

Wow, VideoSifters sure are a nasty, childish bunch.

this thread was a major turn on. Boner succeeded.

*promote rottenseed's boner!

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, January 16th, 2010 5:42pm PST - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

There are quite a few digressions in this thread, but I don't think anyone has actually addressed the content of the video. The speaker is saying that groups are merely abstractions; that you shouldn't forsake the trees for the forest.

We all want to live in a happy, peaceful society - collectivist or individualist. I don't think theres any denying that. What the speaker is trying to illustrate with his tree/forest metaphor is that the soul of these two ideologies is actually quite different - despite the fact they share the same goals.

Expanding on the tree/forest metaphor, one might define a "good" forest as one with a lot of healthy, thriving trees. If, in walking through a forest, you came across an area where the soil was nutritionally deficient and the growth of all the trees in the area stunted, you might view this forest as somehow imperfect. To correct this flaw, you could cut down the largest tree you can find, grind it up into fertilizer, and spread it around on the soil to help the stunted trees thrive.

What actually happens though, when you cut down a tree to grow a forest, as it were, is you lose sight of whats actually important. Yes, by some definition you are fulfilling "the greatest good for the greatest number" but if you have to lose your soul to achieve some measure of "good", what have you really accomplished? You thought you were saving the forest, but the forest doesn't exist. The forest is only how your mind perceives a group of trees; what existed was a group of trees sharing the same habitat. All you did was kill one tree, and use it to fertilize another.

So my question has to be: What glory is there in forging a perfect society, if it has no soul?

A non-libertarian faq: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Downvote for use of straw man logical fallacy

^tree man, actually

Let's take this nonsense argument to its logical extreme, shall we?

-An individual is made up of organs, bone and fluid, therefore the individual doesn't exist.
-Organs, bone and fluid are made up of molecules, therefore organs, bone and fluid don't exist.
-Molecules are made up of atoms, therefore molecules don't exist.

Also, isn't there just a tiny bit of irony in forming a group that is anti-group.

Objectivist idiots.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ed griffin, collectivism, individualism, abstraction' to 'ed griffin, collectivism, individualism, abstraction, ayn rand' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Objectivist idiots.


I think what you meant to say was "Way to go Objectivist idiots."