Rugged Individualism

[dairygirl4u2c]

so there's the idea that the new age of the US with its new deal this and social security that etc is not natural.
the reason cited is the way things were done in the west etc in the early america.

but, wasn't all that done only cause it was a new territory? and the way things were done in europe more like a balance of socialist and capitialist components in the government? if that's how society is usually run... is that what it should be compared to?

i get the picture the hard core capitalisms and libertarians think their paradigm is the natural way, but i don't get that looking at the majority of history they don't look at.

[CatherineM]

There are a lot of things that we do to adjust to time and place that aren't the ideal we should strive for. I come from a place where rugged individualism is a treasured trait. It leads to people not seeking help when they need it. My mother struggled with depression her entire life but refused to seek help because Okies just don't tell other people their troubles. I had many farmer clients who were letting their children become malnourished rather than accept food stamps. In 1991, I was severely injured and almost died. The only person I allowed to know was my pastor, and then because I wanted last rites. His words still resound in my head. He told me that I couldn't go through something like that by myself. I didn't have to be that independent, and that asking for help is good for our souls. I waited 16 years to finally tell my mother and family that I had been hurt.

That idea of the rugged mountain man, living off the land, needing no one, also means that he is helping no one either. Both accepting help in humility and grace, and offering help magnanimously is not only good for us, but also good for our souls.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1512505' date='Apr 28 2008, 10:30 AM']so there's the idea that the new age of the US with its new deal this and social security that etc is not natural.
the reason cited is the way things were done in the west etc in the early america.

but, wasn't all that done only cause it was a new territory? and the way things were done in europe more like a balance of socialist and capitialist components in the government? if that's how society is usually run... is that what it should be compared to?

i get the picture the hard core capitalisms and libertarians think their paradigm is the natural way, but i don't get that looking at the majority of history they don't look at.[/quote]
It's the socialists and economic "liberals" who don't look at the vast majority of history. Socialism is historically a very recent phenomenon, only becoming widespread in the 20th century.

If you're looking at the time of the Old West in America (mid-to-late 19th Century), the modern quasi-socialist welfare state was not yet established in Europe. England was the greatest economic and imperial power in Europe at the time, and was quite "capitalistic," as were the successful Dutch. I believe some of the post-Revolutionary governments in France flirted with socialism, but I'd have to brush up on my history for that period. At this time much of Europe was in transition/tension between traditional monarchism and liberal democracy.
It should also be noted that in this period of history from the mid-19th to early 20th century, America rapidly gained in wealth and power, rising rapidly to become a major player on the world scene.

The socialistic welfare state can hardly be considered natural, requiring a massively powerful government bureaucracy that simply didn't exist until the 20th century.

"Rugged individualism" is a rather vague concept to debate, though I believe this "rugged individualism" and self-sufficient spirit is a large part of what made America great. I'm afraid we're now turning into a nation whiny, self-indulgent wusses who avoid responsibility, expecting the "nanny-state" to take care of everything for us. This will be our demise.

[the 13th papist]

Rugged individualism, especially as expressed by Henry David Therou, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Witman, and the other Transcendentalists is, in my opinion rather imature. As much as i love their writings, i think that they are one sided. When i was a high-schooler i dreamed of being that independent, but as i grow, i find that interdependence is not only more realistic, but healthier all around. As for as politics goes, im not sure where i stand and how much i want the government in on the issue, as a Christian, I have responsibility for my brothers and sisters and their well being. I think there is social justice involved for sure, that people should help people without being forced by the government. Therefore i think the problem is twofold, people being ruggedly individualistic and seeking or accepting help, and then people in general not being generous in giving help.

[ardillacid]

I desire no dependence excepting that of my family. I believe that families are bound together, and are to be there for each other. I do not accept that the government is meant to be my mother.

[kujo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1512505' date='Apr 28 2008, 12:30 PM']i get the picture the hard core capitalisms and libertarians think their paradigm is the natural way, but i don't get that looking at the majority of history they don't look at.[/quote]

I don't think that libertarianism is necessarily the "natural way," but it's seems the safest way. I'm in favor of "little government," even when the cause is just and moral, because giving the government power over one thing usually leads to giving it power in other things. That's why I run into debates with people on here who believe that the government should make laws enforcing/encouraging morality. While I agree with the motivation, I fear the consequence of the governemnt when it is less-than-benign and pursuing a less-than-moral position

[quote name='Socrates' post='1514642' date='Apr 29 2008, 11:16 PM']The socialistic welfare state can hardly be considered natural, requiring a massively powerful government bureaucracy that simply didn't exist until the 20th century.

"Rugged individualism" is a rather vague concept to debate, though I believe this "rugged individualism" and self-sufficient spirit is a large part of what made America great. I'm afraid we're now turning into a nation whiny, self-indulgent wusses who avoid responsibility, expecting the "nanny-state" to take care of everything for us. This will be our demise.[/quote]

Agreed here dude.

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1514887' date='Apr 30 2008, 05:04 AM']I desire no dependence excepting that of my family. I believe that families are bound together, and are to be there for each other. I do not accept that the government is meant to be my mother.[/quote]

Word!

[CatherineM]

I like the idea of taking care of your family, and depending on your family, but what about people who don't have family? When I ended up in a wheelchair, I had no family willing or able to care for me. I guess that means I should have just died and decreased the surplus population.

[Socrates]

I don't see "rugged individualism" as necessarily involving a refusal to help others in genuine need. Rugged individualism is more about being capable and self-sufficient so one can take care of things on his own. It doesn't mean he refuses to help his neighbor.

[Altari]

I'm amazed no one has invoked Ron Paul yet.

The idea of "rugged individualism" is that people take care of people, that we don't need our government "nanny" standing over our shoulder ensuring we're fed/housed/clothed and that genuine human goodness can sustain a society. If I see a friend in need, I help them myself, with my own money. The opposite is the idea that if I see a friend in need, I go to my local Department of Human Services, tell the woman there that someone needs help, she sends an eMail to a social worker, the social worker hunts down my friend and then places him on public assistance. The first way is more fiscally conservative and spiritually rewarding. The second way was born of the concept that the government must give the unemployable jobs.

[the 13th papist]

i dont want to jump the gun here, but seems as though we are all kinda saying the same thing, or at least it seems that way. Big government is bad, because they are not always the most reliable people to entrust with power, especially when private individuals and communities can take care of the problem, namly helping those in need. Also, a certain amound of independence is good; one should be self sufficient when possible. This was only just introduced, but i agree that government should not legislate morality per se. this however is a hard possition to precisely put into place, easier in the case of redefining abortion as murder, but not so easy when it comes to gay marriage/civil unions, because all sin has a communal nature. Everybody's sins affect everybdy else, at least to a certain degree. Socrates recognized this, that is why he would rather suffer an injustice than commit one. On a similar note, the Church is a big fan non-restrictive politicle laws, especially free speech, because She knows that she, the most worthy of speeking, may be the first to be silienced.