English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

26 answers

The traditional rugged individualism paired with the traditional freely chosen and created associations as described by Tocqueville and as lived every day by tens of millions of Americans.

We didn't get to be the World's Only Superpower by accident.

2007-06-27 11:27:12 · answer #1 · answered by SallyJM 5 · 7 2

I must have missed something in your 8-word question.

Why do people have the idea that rugged individualism means no laws, no banks, no comfort, and no government??

That interpretation is just plain ignorant whether honest, willful, or ingenuous.

Small government folks know the functions that only a federal government can and should handle (banks and commerce, infrastructure, and defense are high on the list).

Protecting the weak, if not handled by the local neighborhood association as it was for most of US history before FDR, is a job the government can handle nowadays.

Let's do a thought experiment and take one connotation of 'individualism' to an extreme - everyone carries a handgun.

YES, *absolutely* there would be blood in the streets for *months* but then a strange thing happens - people are polite, crime is down, and gangs start to disappear.

The possibility of terrorism is certainly reduced, especially if when you are over 18 and board an airplane, they ask if you would like frangible ammunition. lol^2

See Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon" for a short, cute projection of how this society would function - and 'peace brassards' for the slow or fearful.

The popular quote 'An armed society is a polite society' came from this novel.

2007-06-27 15:48:02 · answer #2 · answered by xxpat 1 3 · 3 1

Individualism.

2007-06-27 11:46:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

Depends what you mean by rugged individualism. If by that, you mean everyone must take care of themselves without any help from the state, then I do not particularly care for either one. I believe people should ber encouraged to fend for themselves. I also believe there should be a safety net for those who have worked hard but who have fallen on difficult times through no fault of their own. It disturbs me that people can be bankrupted simply because they get ill or if they are involved in an auto accident with an uninsured driver and have to spend time in hospital.

2007-06-27 11:28:18 · answer #4 · answered by skip 6 · 3 3

Individualism.

2007-06-27 11:25:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6 3

Your question misses the point. America is the delicate balance between the two. Not the choice between one and the other. The need for a signal solitary individual to stand both alone and with his neighbors. America is the dynamic between both. Lose one and the other is meaningless.

2007-06-27 11:29:56 · answer #6 · answered by Thomas G 6 · 3 2

Individualism is always best, free enterprize works, anyone can make it in AMerica, its tougher due to all teh socalist regs being put in place but it can be done, I came from dirt poverity, but never viewed myself as a victim, I raised 7 kids 2 I adopted, lost my wife to an auto accident, left a big peice of me in Vietnam, Im not waelthy by some standards but I have a small business I do volunteer work, and my bills are pid mortgages paid, so is my harley , truck and car. So I am wealthy in many respects no thanks to handouts but due to hard work

2007-06-27 12:24:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6 3

Rugged individualism? Does that mean anarchy? I support anarchy over fascism. In your world, you'll hire police militias to protect you from the hordes. Offer me $2.00 per hour and I'll shoot you in the head. That's my brand of 'rugged individualism'. And hey, in your world, who owns the banks? The bank owns everybody, so there really won't be freedom without controlling the banking/monetary system. Your argument, if you had one, wouldn't be supported by Reagan, Dewey, Lincoln, Clinton, the Rockelfellers, the Bushes, or any of your leaders. They've all been indoctrinated into supporting the New World Order (one world govt.) of the world's wealthiest families. Stop thinking. Start reading.

2007-06-27 11:33:48 · answer #8 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 2 6

there are a few things that the "State" should own for public benefit
One is the means of exchange, which should never become a store of wealth.
However private property should remain private

2007-06-27 12:38:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

There was not alot of meat to go with those potato's!........
Rugged individualism was what this country was founded upon! We were not going to be dictated too...........
Thus Our beginnings..........It's kind of like religion, these pinko's have even watered that down.......this Country is going to Hell in a hand-bag.......What we have is nothing like what our forefathers had envisioned for this Great Nation!
We keep "P"in' and moanin' and before you know it, it will just be a memory. "Wake-up America, grab it and Growl"

2007-06-27 11:51:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

fedest.com, questions and answers