• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Individualism or Collectivism?

Individualism or Collectivism?

  • Individualism

    Votes: 25 78.1%
  • Collectivism

    Votes: 7 21.9%

  • Total voters
    32
It does, its just not as obvious. For example, look at the life expectancy rates in societies without a functioning government (we are discussing extremes here).

remind me of the life expectancies of Jews in Nazi Germany, farmers in Stalinist Russian, dissidents in the "Great Leap Forward" and Armenians in Turkey. All of those nationals had governments that not only were functioning but were massive in their power.
 
remind me of the life expectancies of Jews in Nazi Germany, farmers in Stalinist Russian, dissidents in the "Great Leap Forward" and Armenians in Turkey. All of those nationals had governments that not only were functioning but were massive in their power.

Thats great and all, but it has nothing to do with my point that extreme individualism (anarchy) is very bad for one's health.

Thats why you need a mix.
 
Thats great and all, but it has nothing to do with my point that extreme individualism (anarchy) is very bad for one's health.

Thats why you need a mix.

but we aren't talking about that. we are talking about too much government versus too much individualism. I am unaware of there ever being 100% government or 100% anarchy short of isolated small groups.

But pure anarchy was not what caused 100 million deaths in the last 100 years. those deaths came almost completely from too much government.

for a power to kill millions that takes collective action. even the nuttiest individual bent on mayhem cannot kill anywhere near the numbers that even moderately collectivist nation-states can.
 
but we aren't talking about that. we are talking about too much government versus too much individualism. I am unaware of there ever being 100% government or 100% anarchy short of isolated small groups.

I clarified earlier and it seems we are talking about extremes.

But pure anarchy was not what caused 100 million deaths in the last 100 years. those deaths came almost completely from too much government.

Thats why I pointed towards life expectancy in places like somolia. Since deaths are not officially recorded in an anarchy, its probably the only way we can get at the tragedy.

for a power to kill millions that takes collective action. even the nuttiest individual bent on mayhem cannot kill anywhere near the numbers that even moderately collectivist nation-states can.

Or mass malnutrition. Or gang warfare. Or unchecked disease. Or lots of things.
 
I clarified earlier and it seems we are talking about extremes.



Thats why I pointed towards life expectancy in places like somolia. Since deaths are not officially recorded in an anarchy, its probably the only way we can get at the tragedy.



Or mass malnutrition. Or gang warfare. Or unchecked disease. Or lots of things.

a gang is a move away from anarchy. a gang is a form of government-albeit on a local level.
 
a gang is a move away from anarchy. a gang is a form of government-albeit on a local level.

I agree and thats another reason I don't think pure anarchy can work. Humans are wired to want some form of government, even if it means belonging to a gang. At the same time, we also want our freedoms. This goes back to my point that you need a mix.
 
I agree and thats another reason I don't think pure anarchy can work. Humans are wired to want some form of government, even if it means belonging to a gang. At the same time, we also want our freedoms. This goes back to my point that you need a mix.

which I agree with fully but I believe the slippery slope to collectivism is far more a reality than towards anarchy

given that we should guard more against genocidal collectivism-which has manifested itself in recent history vs. anarchy which really has not on more than a very small and isolated scale
 
which I agree with fully but I believe the slippery slope to collectivism is far more a reality than towards anarchy

given that we should guard more against genocidal collectivism-which has manifested itself in recent history vs. anarchy which really has not on more than a very small and isolated scale

Well, I think one of the reasons countries with weak or might as well not be existing governments tend to have fewer deaths is because of lower life expectancy. Nobody is recording how many deaths for stupid reasons are happening. But I am quite positive it is in the high millions. The deaths are there, they are just less spectacular and publicized.

But I agree that our government is starting to become fascistic in its collusion with rich at a freightening level.
 
Well, I think one of the reasons countries with weak or might as well not be existing governments tend to have fewer deaths is because of lower life expectancy. Nobody is recording how many deaths for stupid reasons are happening. But I am quite positive it is in the high millions. The deaths are there, they are just less spectacular and publicized.

But I agree that our government is starting to become fascistic in its collusion with rich at a freightening level.

It has always been that way but now we have the government colluding with the rich who are rich because of the government
 
It has always been that way but now we have the government colluding with the rich who are rich because of the government

And its never been a good thing, now its worse.
 
And its never been a good thing, now its worse.

back in the days when the rich farmers, industrialists, manufacturers, train barons, shipping magnates etc were trying to control the government it was normally a case of people controlling something so it wouldn't hurt them. Ie keep the government out of their business and perhaps sometimes do something to help them (like slapping a tariff on foreign competition). NOw we have the government rich who use the government to give them wealth they didn't create--be it Union bosses, trial lawyers (yeah I don't have much use for many tort lawyers) etc.

someone who uses influence to keep the government out of his business may well hurt some citizens but those who use the government to actively take money from others for them are far more pernicious
 
Nuh-uh! :mrgreen:

(I figure if we are going to get stuck on this point, we may as well have fun with it)

Why are you stuck on it? It's easy to go back and see what I wrote.

Are you trying to insist that scattered bands of hunter-gatherers lived under a government? :confused:

Never mind. If you don't recognize a distinction at this point I can see already we'll just disagree over what a government actually is...
 
Last edited:
Why are you stuck on it? It's easy to go back and see what I wrote.

Are you trying to insist that scattered bands of hunter-gatherers lived under a government? :confused:

Never mind. If you don't recognize a distinction at this point I can see already we'll just disagree over what a government actually is...

Because they lived in a society that made and enforced rules. To me this is very simple.
 
Because they lived in a society that made and enforced rules. To me this is very simple.

You already said that you think that. I got it.
 
Last edited:
Well lets see I help my fellow man, but I don't like sharing my bag of beef jerky. What is this supposed to mean again?
 
Individualism is huge. But however like collectivism it can go to far. I refuse to vote on this because the validity of ether is perfectly acceptable in varying degrees. I currently see in the US with a strong libertarian movement as a move to far away from the value of being in that group. It all has to do with time and place.. what the circumstances are and law making in a pragmatic manner using whichever solution works best.

Simply because I see value in collectivism does not mean I enjoy impinging on individuals to contribute to the well being of all in that group. It's the primary reason we are so communal. Clearly just looking at the size of the cities we benefit from working together. Collectivists have an egalitarian preference while individualist are inclined towards anarchist sentiment.

I think in a good and proper culture the balance between collectivism and individualism is worked out in some manner. Clearly societies that go for ether extreme have a high failure rate.

So in my opinion your poll answer column is lacking other. I think forcing people to choose one over the other is ethically wrong. What happens in the political realm if suddenly everyone believes in one side and not the other? Well it leads to political apathy and poor democratic inclusion of other people who see things differently.
 
Last edited:
Individualism, of course. Anything else is a no-brainer.


You need to be more descriptive and define your terms, before I feel I can answer. Also, neither is an absolute; I doubt that there are many of any governments that do one or the other.

The concept is quite clear, even though neither is an absolute.

America was founded upon INDIVIDUAL rights -- INDIVIDUALISM.

The Soviet Union was founded upon COLLECTIVISM. People were basically the property of the state.

Now, which would you choose?
 
Individualism, of course. Anything else is a no-brainer.




The concept is quite clear, even though neither is an absolute.

America was founded upon INDIVIDUAL rights -- INDIVIDUALISM.

The Soviet Union was founded upon COLLECTIVISM. People were basically the property of the state.

Now, which would you choose?

Neither. I don't play the "absolute" games. Threads like that are designed as "trap" threads. Like this one. Any absolute is nothing but a theoretical and not based in reality.
 
Neither. I don't play the "absolute" games. Threads like that are designed as "trap" threads. Like this one. Any absolute is nothing but a theoretical and not based in reality.

But it's not a "trap" thread. It was a simple question based on opinion. I could easily point to many poll threads that are not based in reality.
 
for a power to kill millions that takes collective action.

For a society to accomplish anything takes collective action. Collectivism is essential to all human endeavors, desirable or otherwise.
 
But it's not a "trap" thread. It was a simple question based on opinion. I could easily point to many poll threads that are not based in reality.

The OP was aiming for an answer with his absolutist alternatives. It is silly to think that one of these two cannot live without the other. Ultimately, if we look at absolutes, both, in a utopian standpoint, would work as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom