Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Not really. Any real decent analysis must go beyond methodological individualism and hence be open to being called "collectivist" but unless it is talking about completely absorbing individual identity and individuals in complete abstractions, like fascists or Orthodox Marxists, then it is not really good to call it collectivist.

I agree;

Because I believe in social co-operation and have a social responsibility to do common good with fellow men, that doesn't make me collectivist in the Fascist sense. Because I believe in my own individual rights before what any governmental body tells me.

That is what I was trying to explain when I posted about the 'scale/compass':

Statism/Fascism/radical collectivsim-----------me----Ruthless Libertarianism/Anarchism
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Not really. Any real decent analysis must go beyond methodological individualism and hence be open to being called "collectivist" but unless it is talking about completely absorbing individual identity and individuals in complete abstractions, like fascists or Orthodox Marxists, then it is not really good to call it collectivist.

It absolutely is. A collectivist is someone who considers politics, morality, law, etc in terms of groups of people and not individuals - do you deny this?

Noachian is doing exactly this and so to call him a collectivist (in terms of his wanting a common unifying culture or monarchy and institutions) is correct.

You are using an obscure definition of collectivist, which is making it difficult for you to grasp what is meant. As applied to the current discussion it is absolutely adequate. Collectivism can apply to many things.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by noachian:
Then you are not a republican because you are a libertarian; your a republican simply on republican terms, which I can except.

Nope, I'm a republican because I'm a libertarian. Nice try, but I know what I believe.

Originally Posted by :
Anyways; I see what you are arguing with me for; I am saying that I support the British Crown yet I am caliming myself a Libertarian, but you are saying this is impossible since the British Crown does not hold libertarian sentiments...right? I would say that the British Crown Did have Libertarian sentiments at certain point in history.

I would say that is absolutely false. Please give me an example of when the British crown was libertarian.

Originally Posted by :
Anyways, I am trying to say I support the British Crown as appose to the European Federal laws. I am not a Monarchist because I am a libertarian, I am a Monarchist because most aspects of Monarchical philosophy I support. Besides the monarchy istelf doesn't conflict my Libertarian views. What the Crown enforces (and by Crown I mean all institutions of the Crown, mainly the Commons) I may not agree with, but I see my own right and many of the laws evolved from the Crown over centuries as a far better alternative to the European Federal laws.

I hope you understand why I support the Monarchy?

Of course I do (notice I have considered your opinion! :-)), but I don't see it as being libertarian. You might be a libertarian - but a libertarian with un-libertarian beliefs.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I would say that is absolutely false. Please give me an example of when the British crown was libertarian.

"And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God." — from the Oath of Allegiance in the English Bill of Rights, 1689

I would say this has nationalist-libertarian sentiments.

Source: Libertarian Party website.
The UK Libertarian Party - Constitutional

I wouldn't mind joining them actually, they hold somewhat better policies than UKIP do. Not to sure at the moment.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Of course I do (notice I have considered your opinion! :-)), but I don't see it as being libertarian. You might be a libertarian - but a libertarian with un-libertarian beliefs.

A Libertarian with libertarian belief's that differe from yours :-). Just as my 'collectivist' beliefs differ to that of Karl Marx's. Like you said, Libertarian can mean a number of different thing, just as collectivist can.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
It absolutely is. A collectivist is someone who considers politics, morality, law, etc in terms of groups of people and not individuals - do you deny this?

That could mean many different things. Individuals should be put first but it is useless to simply talk in terms of abstract individuals, in general groups are where you find individuals.

If you mean someone who doesn't use just methodological individualism or atomism then it is quite sensible to be one, alot more than holding those simplistic and silly ways of looking at society, politics et al.

If you mean he puts groups and collectives, particularly large ones, always ahead of the individual and generally thinks only about them then that is different and could deserve the term collectivist.

Originally Posted by :
Noachian is doing exactly this and so to call him a collectivist (in terms of his wanting a common unifying culture or monarchy and institutions) is correct.

You are using an obscure definition of collectivist, which is making it difficult for you to grasp what is meant. As applied to the current discussion it is absolutely adequate. Collectivism can apply to many things.

It depends how you use the term. I fear you are using it in the Randian way of simply anyone who goes beyond childish methodological individualism.
[Rep]