Yeah sure but the way I see it the more collectivist a society is the more trampling on personal freedom there is. It's a kind of tyranny.
Perhaps, but in the real world examples you may be thinking of how do you know this is not a function of the scope and power of the state rather than collectivism
per se?
Let's take a scenario that does not involve the state-- a workers cooperative. Now wouldn't you agree that, in most cases, a worker in a coop is going to have more personal freedom on the job than a wage worker who is employed by someone else? So here is an example where "collectivism" and personal freedom/choices/liberty are not at odds with each other, but are, rather, quite compatible, and the former helps to facilitate the latter.
Agreed but I would like to know what you think is the solution. Is it equal wages?
Not necessarily. The solution would be a system that reduces inequalities in wealth (I do not necessarily think it is necessary or even desirable to eliminate all wealth inequality, but it is necessary to reduce it in order for the maximum number of people to have the maximum amount of individual liberty).
Such a system could conceivably be achieved in any number of ways. I personally would favor a system where a decentralized and popularly elected cartel of worker cooperatives control basic resources and industry, and non-essential consumer goods and services are handled by free-market competition of smaller worker coops, subject to wealth aggregation limits imposed by the cartel. Workers would distribute the wealth produced amongst themselves on the basis of who produced what (you produce 400 widgets, you get remunerated for the wealth produced by 400 widgets, minus overhead, with bonuses for individuals who come up with innovative ideas or otherwise excel in their work). This way there is still incentive for hard work, innovation and excellence. This is why I say it may not necessarily be desirable to complete eliminate wealth disparities. I do not believe in a Marxian gift economy, and I think Proudhon and Bakunin were closer to the mark.
Of course I didn't mean they are close to each other in terms in intellect or scholarly worth. Of course.
What I mean is that while Friedman articulates concepts and analysis, Stossel gives real-life examples. And although I do agree with the smarmy part he still has done some very good segments on capitalism.
Stossel sucks big, diseased donkey dicks, and I wish all of his interviewees would do to him what the wrestler did. Problem with Stossel's "real-life examples" is that he cannot be trusted-- he regularly excludes information from his reports which may challenge his ideological agenda. Which is what makes him an unethical journalist.
P.S: you didn't answer my other more pressing questions
... just saying...
I answered your more general questions. The others were more specific to panoptic's view of things, and although I'm a libertarian socialist (who's now cynical and doesn't give a fuck, really) so I can relate to where panoptic is coming from on a lot of things, I'm not a left communist and I don't even know what kind of left communism he subscribes to, so I cannot answer for him.
Topic: An Autonomous and Free New Year to you All