"No "society"? Give me a break... that's completely untrue. Not everyone has a 100% unique opinion on everything, people tend to agree with one another. That's the idea behind representative democracies (too many individuals to participate in a direct democracy, so we have to take advantage of the fact that many people will vote in common ways.) Social trends, etc..."
I didn't say there was no society, I said society wasn't an organism unto itself: it is made up of individuals; if you violate the rights of individuals, you violate the rights of everyone. Social rights, or 'group' rights, or collective rights, mean that one group of people have the right to violate the rights of other individuals; this is why the distinction of society not being something beyond a number of individuals is important - because statism always falls back to for "the public good" or the good of "the people" etc. which doesn't mean every individual, it means the good of some people to the detriment of other people.
"While everyone IS a unique individual, our minds have a wonderful capability to abstract things, and we can view people in groups, or as a society."
Certainly, a number of individuals can be held to be a 'society' of individuals; but there is no such thing as "society" as statists use the term, to mean a collective mind (i.e. as though there is no individual).
"Also, what I find peculiar is that you say my philosophical statement would have been funny, if it wasn't so common. If it were a unique statement, would it have been funny, or "senseless", or stupid? Apparently you don't think like an individual, Mr. Invidual. You really are just a cog in the wheel."
No I'm not just a "cog in the wheel," there is no wheel (only a collectivist could think in such terms to begin with). Your attempt to destroy my argument by ad hominem will not work. Your statement would have been funny because evil, which is what your statement is, is impotent unto itself, but when put into action among a great number of people, it becomes a threat to freedom.
"Anyhow, I feel there should be a pretty high minimum standard for the living conditions of people. You should only be able to sink to a fixed low (unless you forcefully WANT to go lower.) This minimum standard should fluctuate as a society gets more or less properous, instead of being absolute."
Yes it was understood from your first post, that you think it is ok to force people to act according to how you would like them to. By determining that 'someone' should set such standards, you are stating that some group or gang should have power over the lives of individuals by way of force.
"It's not feasible to do such a thing in the US, at least not to the standard I would deem fair, but there are countries (such as Denmark) which do this quite well. Of course, Denmark is far wealthier per person than the US... they can guarantee nobody goes homeless."
The average American earns around $30,000 to $32,000 + per year; with somewhere around six or seven million millionaires in the US, with a total asset base in the U.S. of 45 trillion dollars (basically more than the rest of the world combined). The average person in Denmark by comparison, earns around $25,000; so no, the average person in Denmark is not wealthier on average than a person in the U.S.
There is only one way to "guarantee nobody goes homeless," and that is by force. But again, it is understood you think it is ok to initiate the use of force; and you also apparently think it is one individual's *duty* to support another individual (whether they want to or not).
"But it's only impossible within our current framework of thinking. Maybe in the future, it really will be possible, if so choose it."
Again back to the social subjectivism: "if it is willed to be by 'the people,' it will be."
"It depends on how you look at life. If you want to apply survival of the fittest to every individual, then so be it. But we can think of humanity as a whole (regardless of race, gender, creed, nationality, etc.) and support it, to ensure our survival."
No it doesn't depend on how you "look at life." A is A, existence exists; it doesn't depend on how you look at it - that does not change reality, it is called the law of identity, it is the base principle of logic, learn it some time.
If you want to "apply survival of the fittest to every individual" that does not mean that is in accordance with reality; whether you 'want' it to be or not.
Who does "we" refer to exactly? And who does "our survival" refer to?
"Once again, you show us a one-sided propoganda-based viewpoint.
Nazism and fascism were definitely not about selflessness in the sense I mean it: devotion to the good of others."
I knew how you meant it, and that is exactly how the Nazis 'meant' it. Devotion to the good of others is not a rational foundation for one's philosophy: there is always another mouth to feed other than your own, another desire to satisfy, someone else's "good" to be devoted to, another sacrifice to make.
"Nazism was highly selective, based on race, and on brutality."
Brutality goes along with statism and self-sacrifice (which is a fundamental of altruism, the philosophic system of selflessness): how do you suppose a socialistic government gets people to sacrifice? Practicing selflessness means that the well-being of others come before your own (thus statist governments, such as the Nazis, proclaim that it is your duty to serve the good of the 'whole' or the good of your neighbor or the good of the 'collective' or the party etc., and to not care about your self). Nazism, communism, socialism, fascism, put selflessness into practice as a political system.
Sacrifice means taking a lesser value over a greater value; there is nothing moral about that, and a rational mind would not accept such a deal - so force must be used.
"The most well known examples of selfless people are many of the Christian saints. Their stories were recorded eventually. Wether you adhere to their religion or not, you must admit their lives were truly remarkable. Perhaps they don't fit your bill of what life is about, but many of these people lived satisfying lives, not only to themselves, but to others as well. There's no harm in that. There have no doubt been many, many people who have lived lifestyles devoted to the good of others, but many are unknown."
If they were selfless, you are saying they had no self-interest in the work they did (otherwise it would be selfish work); so for instance if it was charitable work, they didn't care about it one way or another (if they did in fact care, it means the work would not be selfless). Will you please define what was remarkable about their lives?
"Your viewpoint is tainted with tainted with philosophy, as everyone's is, but I have the feeling you feel your philosophy is absolute. Humans are not fully rational, nor ought they be, in my opinion. We are both rational and non-rational, and this balance is vital to our identity."
Of course it is "tainted" with philosophy: everyone has a philosophy, some choose their philosophy knowingly, others accept such subconsciously (via the media, or by way of parents, etc.). Philosophy applies to every aspect of life.
To be rational means to act in recognition of and accordance to reality as it is; try disobeying reality sometime, reality does not bend to you. Individuals should act to be fully rational: rationality makes possible every rational value one could want to achieve, such as happiness - irrationality stands in the way of every rational value. The base of irrationality is contradiction, and a contradiction cannot exist in reality, in a thought process or in text (etc.) it is proof of error.
No, irrationality is not "vital to our identity." Identity is non-contradictory, a thing is itself (A is A). You have failed throughout your post to back up what you've proclaimed, but have simply stated 'it is' without stating why; you cannot back up what you say, because your argument is contradictory, i.e. wrong. Also, you seem to have a serious issue with using "we" or "our" when stating your own position, who are you referring to exactly?
"Being humble has never been dominant code of behavior. Look at history... So much has been about greed, nationalism, individual prosperity... often at the expense of others. There have always been rulers, and much of history has been dominated by a rigid class system."
Humbleness (along with altruism and therefore selflessness and sacrifice) is a principle of Christianity and most every other religion; Christianity was the dominant philosophy of the dark ages. So yes, humbleness has been a dominant code of behavior.
"As for the middle ages, this is another poorly thought out example. The middle ages had to happen. They weren't necessarily a time of darkness."
They were a 'dark' period in history. A thousand years went by with extremely little to show for them. The dark ages were a period dominated by the philosophy of Saint Augustine, the evil man who concretized Original Sin philosophically.
"Sure, life wasn't peachy-keen in A.D. 600-1500, but the middle ages were a time of great political turmoil and set the stage for the Renaissance."
Not peachy-keen? It was worse in Europe than it has ever been there in recorded history. The middle ages did not set the stage for (other than that they came before) the Renaissance, Saint Thomas Aquinas (thanks to Aristotle) and other philosophers did.
The dark ages were dark on principle.
"Europe found crucial parts of its identity in those often unfortunate times. The middle ages were responible for the formation of European nations, which ended up, in a way, ruling the world."
Which "crucial" parts would those be exactly? And beyond that, crucial does not mean good.
"Much of the problems in the middle ages were due to a result of a lack of virtues. Who ruled Europe? Kings, feudal lords, knights, and the clergy. Many of these people were simply ruthless and semi-barbaric. This upper class went to church, and in the case of the clergy, proclaimed their beliefs, but did not adhere to them."
Statism is not an entirely new development; dictators, and socialist gangs are the modern variation of kings and feudal lords - they all rely on force (and forced sacrifice).
"They abused their positions of power... Kings did not often get off their high horses to lend peasants a helping hand."
Not only did kings not "get off their high horses to lend peasants a helping hand" but more importantly they made it next to impossible for peasants to help their own self.