Denuseri, I have chewed on this for some days, and I am not sure where you are going with this. It sounds like something interesting, though. Are you comparing individualism with socialism or the rules of society? And also socialism with kapitalism ? Further questions down below.

]The Personal Autominists say:

To be autonomous is to be a law to oneself; autonomous agents are self-governing agents. Most of us want to be autonomous because we want to be accountable for what we do, and because it seems that if we are not the ones calling the shots, then we cannot be accountable. More importantly, perhaps, the value of autonomy is tied to the value of self-integration. We don't want to be alien to, or at war with, ourselves; and it seems that when our intentions are not under our own control, we suffer from self-alienation. What conditions must be satisfied in order to ensure that we govern ourselves when we act? Philosophers have offered a wide range of competing answers to this question.

This sounds to me exactly like anarchism - complete personal freedom under personal responsibility.

Many things have been legalized in the Netherlands allowing the people themselves to decide if they wish to partake of them or not.
Examples?

This has also bled over into the adherence of the people in their country to organized religions...lowering it by a considerable margin (somthing Thorne will love I think..winks to Thorne).
Are you saying that greater personal freedom means less religion, in this case?

Here is a tidbit from Vince Robertson I found to be a good example of some of what I am talking about, or plan to be talking about, though perhaps with a less direct political sounding vien and with less of a focus on the usa so much as the world:
<snipped down here and there>


"Many times over the past 6 months I've heard the argument that Big Government is the precursor to socialism and ultimately communism. This is certainly un-American!"

I take this to mean that there is a fear that socialism or communism must inevitably mean strong central control with enormous loss of personal freedom, as we saw it in the Sovjet Republics.

Personally I do not think it has to be like that. The comminism in China and the Sovjets were the violent result of much suffering among the peoples, and without anybody ever having tried democracy. I believe a democratic socialism is possible, if resposiblitly and power is decentralized as much as is practically possible.

"The facts are that there are opposites of communism and socialism, and I propose to you that the opposites are class oppression and slavery."

This seems to be the case, out on the end of the contiimum.

"Class oppression, or classism, is defined as mistreatment on the basis of socioeconomic class. Slavery is blatant abuse and oppression to the benefit of the master.

Understanding this, the spectrum is more accurately represented as:
[/I]
<---|------------|---------------- ----------------|------------|--->
Communism Socialism Classism Slavery

[I]When this is understood, the question is no longer how far do we as Americans want to get away from Communism, but rather where is the proper balance? "

This is a very good question. Societies with a mixture of puclic economy and power and comercial economy and power will always be on a collusion course with other, a battle that goes back and forth with each election.

I often hear arguments that free markets are the key to prosperity. It has been shown over and over again that some people, when given the tools to succeed, have created wealth for themselves and those around them. But what happens when this is taken to the extreme?

The problem with all-out free markets is that this inevitably leads to bullying, tyranny, and the absolute dominance of the strongest.

You may wonder what is wrong with this. It is after all the survival of the fittest and the most deserving. Or is it the survival of the greediest and most corrupt?

I suggest that it is the later. Without laws preventing all-out free market, we would have forced child labor, monopolies, price fixing, racketeering, extortion, bribery, price gouging, and human slavery. These are all capitalist endeavors, and all have legal restrictions in the United States. Indeed we should stay away from this end of the spectrum as well.."

Indeed! And, as the lates econimical crisis showed us, the banking system and private money can shake or make our societies in ways completely beyond government control. This is, IMO, an economically insane system.

[I]Personally I believe the proper balance in the spectrum which we need to work for would be for our country to be a place where individuals are likely to succeed if they work hard, where individuals are allowed to fail miserably if they are lazy and choose not to work, and if they work hard and experience hardships that make them fail, they don’t have to worry about losing everything for the rest of their lives. This is not where America is today."

This is a good thought, but easier said than done!

There is much to be said here, but let me just for now say that in my part of the world, with a right wing goverment, this public insurance, paid by taxes, has been whittled down to very little, while we still pay enormous taxes. The state is taking our money and not fulfilling the contract.

The other side of the problem is that once the state give us (some of our) money back, it also takes a lot of control over our personal lives, in some cases up to and beyond taking in personal civil rights! Examples are: forcing people to take treatments or surgey they do not want (in some cases as test animals) or loose your sickness pay, rules and rules and rules for what you do in your spare time as well as during (unemployed) working hours, or whether you can go abroad for any reason.

You can also be hired out for your uemployed money, instead of getting a proper job, and communical workers can come shooping to see if you have any lovers visiting.

Could Personal Autonomy as it's practiced amongst the Dutch perhaps be the happy middle ground we all seek on an ideological level?
Could you say more about what you mean by that, and put it in context with above?