Jump to content

Talk:Communitarianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.178.183.222 (talk) at 06:06, 13 June 2011 (→‎Cleaning up external links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPolitics Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy

Wikipedia is incredibly redundant when it comes to politics

We have waaay too many separate and quite lengthy articles about extremely similar and really very hard to tell apart ideologies... its extremely jargon laden as well. They need to be streamlimed enormously. There is absolutely no need for like 100 different types of anarchism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, etc etc etc. In practical real world, hardly any of these ideologies have ever even come close to being implemented. Why would something like 80% of the ideologies represented on wikipedia never even be in real practice? This makes wikipedia seem really self indulgent and foolhardy in my opinion. its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

"If they are correct in this, then communitarian doctrine reduces to little more than traditionalism and cultural moral relativism"? Hardly neutral, objective writing. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Missing?

Odd that Pierre Elliott Trudeau isn't mentioned in this article. He was a communitarian. His Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a basic communitarian element, the "balancing clause" as section 1, which is the "guarantee and limitation" clause subjecting individual rights to community priorities.

One French Canadian author who discusses Trudeau's Communitarianism is ANDRE BURELLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.183.222 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the broken link to "American Atheist" (http://www.atheists.org/magazine/supplement/communitarianism.html). I was looking through the other links and thought that this section could use some cleaning-up. Ellensn (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I removed the link in the "Opposition" section to "Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, grassroots blog to stop communitarianism" as it links to some totally irrelevant conspiracy theory. Or maybe I'm just part of the conspiracy. 65.188.210.48 (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what'conspiracy theory' did you think it links to? Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 addresses actual real-world issues in Communitarianism. UN Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy theory, it is a plan formed in 1992 by the UN and signed onto by 179 nations, including the US. Agenda 21 is primarily implemented as a land-use plan that impacts all aspects of government including private property, water rights, food production, energy consumption and more. Your need to purge this site is unfortunate considering the relevance of Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 to the explanation of how Communitarianism is affecting our world today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.47.2 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC) GOOD FOR YOU. Some of the lunkeads that get a power kick out of editing out reality need a wake-up call.[reply]

Secularism

There should maybe be a note on the role of communitarianism on the debate about secularism. Some proponents of communitarianism have been accused of being anti-secular because they knowingly defend the existence of large human communities outside the secular State, many of these communities being religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Buddhism/Hinduism. Conversely, secularists will often adopt a position which is best described as statism, because they feel that the State is the sole legitimate social organization that is based on the Enlightenment's ideal of the rule of law, while other communities such as religions tend to integrate philosophical principles that are not necessarily compatible with those ideals, such as theocratic legislation where everything is in relation to the divine, or specific gender rules for women that go against modern norms of gender equality. ADM (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation Consistency

This is a small issue, relevant only to one section, as far as I can see (Ideological Communitarianism: Positive Rights). The second sentence of this section reads: "These may include state subsidized education, state-subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one." Notice how education is "state subsidized" but housing is "state-subsidized." I personally don't know which is correct, so I though I would bring it up for someone more knowledgeable to correct. Lithrium (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The first sentence is incredibly uninformative--"Communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and argues that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities."

Is there a political philosophy that exists that denies that "individual people are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities"? That's a simple truism that could go at the top of literally any article about a political philosophy. Ditto for the need to "balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole." It seems like a communitarian wrote that sentence as a way of making it seem like their philosophy is obviously true. 65.96.114.192 (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]