• 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
The problem with such a question is that human beings don't become individualist if you take away all collective entities. If you look the various societies in which people have the most individual freedoms, they also tend to have fairly powerful governments. Conversely, many societies without government devolve into highly repressive behavior at the individual or small group level. In reality, a collective choice to promote individualism is the best way to accomplish a free society.
 
megaprogman said:
Well that about sums up our discussion. Personally, I don't think people will ever be as moral as you think that they will. I don't think such a system could ever work. .
Click to expand...

I didn't say it would work, but the question is one of preference if forced to choose between the two. I would rather take my own chances and live freely.
 
lizzie said:
I didn't say it would work, but the question is one of preference if forced to choose between the two. I would rather take my own chances and live freely.
Click to expand...

I can only say that I hope you made the right choice.
 
Ikari said:
The thread wanted to know which extreme you wanted. I think most people agree that to some degree there should be mixing of the two, but of the end points which one would you take sort of thing.

IMO, individualism wins out every single time. While both extremes, complete socialism or complete anarchy, would in reality lead to bad things; the emphasis on the individual is philosophically greater. Thus in they hypothetical such as that which was proposed, I would endorse individualism over collectivism.

It's sort of like what is your ideal government? If you didn't have to worry about human nature, or the reality of implementing certain bureaucracies, etc. what form of government would you choose? My pipe dream of a government is anarchy. If humans weren't humans and any system would perform exactly to theory, I'd push for anarchy; it's the ideal.
Click to expand...

Good post except for the anarchy part. ;-) Neither of these extremes would work, I agree. The upper 10% (guessing on the %) of our society right now operates on a kind of individualism. They are targets for envy, ridicule. "Tax 'em! Who cares about 'em? They should pay more."

I'm afraid if we operated toooo closely to individualism, a whole lot of people would need food tasters.
 
Ikari said:
The thread wanted to know which extreme you wanted. I think most people agree that to some degree there should be mixing of the two, but of the end points which one would you take sort of thing.

IMO, individualism wins out every single time. While both extremes, complete socialism or complete anarchy, would in reality lead to bad things; the emphasis on the individual is philosophically greater. Thus in they hypothetical such as that which was proposed, I would endorse individualism over collectivism.

It's sort of like what is your ideal government? If you didn't have to worry about human nature, or the reality of implementing certain bureaucracies, etc. what form of government would you choose? My pipe dream of a government is anarchy. If humans weren't humans and any system would perform exactly to theory, I'd push for anarchy; it's the ideal.
Click to expand...

I don't think it accomplishes that though. For example, I would make different choices depending on whatever the circumstances are, all with an eye to increasing freedom and having enough security to secure that freedom. So in an extreme I would go with socialism because having an oppressive monster of a government would be better than being dead or starving. While in a more civilized situation, I would probably go towards more individualism.

Perhaps this is a question for less pragmatic people.
 
MaggieD said:
Good post except for the anarchy part. ;-) Neither of these extremes would work, I agree. The upper 10% (guessing on the %) of our society right now operates on a kind of individualism. They are targets for envy, ridicule. "Tax 'em! Who cares about 'em? They should pay more."

I'm afraid if we operated toooo closely to individualism, a whole lot of people would need food tasters.
Click to expand...

Hey look, making up crap about the position of people we disagree with. How unusual...
 
MaggieD said:
I'm afraid if we operated toooo closely to individualism, a whole lot of people would need food tasters.
Click to expand...

but too close to collectivism, and we wouldn't even have the food.
 
other said:
but too close to collectivism, and we wouldn't even have the food.
Click to expand...

MaggieD said:
Good post except for the anarchy part. ;-) Neither of these extremes would work, I agree. The upper 10% (guessing on the %) of our society right now operates on a kind of individualism. They are targets for envy, ridicule. "Tax 'em! Who cares about 'em? They should pay more."

I'm afraid if we operated toooo closely to individualism, a whole lot of people would need food tasters.
Click to expand...

Both statements are correct I think.
 
MaggieD said:
Good post except for the anarchy part. ;-) Neither of these extremes would work, I agree. The upper 10% (guessing on the %) of our society right now operates on a kind of individualism. They are targets for envy, ridicule. "Tax 'em! Who cares about 'em? They should pay more."

I'm afraid if we operated toooo closely to individualism, a whole lot of people would need food tasters.
Click to expand...

Well reality and hypothetical are two different beasts. Of course in reality, anarchy doesn't work. That's why I said it's a pipe dream. It's a utopia, those things are not attainable in real life but rather an ideal. Anarchy is the ideal form of government. It doesn't mean we can have it because it's fundamentally opposed to human nature, but it's the ideal. And individualism is a two way street. While there are certainly people who think the rich should bear a higher tax burden, there's also rules and regulations against the rest of us as well. The upper 10% pay a lot, but the upper like .1% don't pay ****. The mega rich have all the rules set up for them, as they are part of the aristocracy. I think a lot of people operate on an individual basis from the lower-middle class through probably mid-upper class. We're bracketed on either side by collectivist or statist ends. Regardless, for a system in which we do not need to consider the reality of implementing our ideal, than I would push for anarchy as it is the ideal form of government.
 
rivrrat said:
No need to even think about it. Individualism.

Living freely is always the right choice.
Click to expand...

Living freely would be great, but I think in such a condition, the hard accomplishment would be the living part. Most people would die.
 
Individualism is to freedom as collectivism is to slavery.

Gee, I wonder which one I'd rather have.
 
megaprogman said:
I don't think it accomplishes that though. For example, I would make different choices depending on whatever the circumstances are, all with an eye to increasing freedom and having enough security to secure that freedom. So in an extreme I would go with socialism because having an oppressive monster of a government would be better than being dead or starving. While in a more civilized situation, I would probably go towards more individualism.

Perhaps this is a question for less pragmatic people.
Click to expand...

I think the question is better suited for people who have a better ability to grasp abstract ideals for sure. Mostly because we're dealing with terms of utopia mixed with application. There's nothing innate to that socialist system which keeps you from not starving. It was hell in many communist/socialist states in reality. Sure the ideal is great....I suppose, if you're into that thing. But the ideal for anarchy is the same way. It's not that you sit there and starve, it's that you get to make your own food, or you can exchange your work for whatever you want. Nothing is given, but nothing is forced.

But this is part of the complications of fictional hypothetical questions. Because in the end, I doubt many people really push for 100% one way of the other since the practical implications of the systems makes them unable to be sustained in and of themselves.
 
megaprogman said:
Living freely would be great, but I think in such a condition, the hard accomplishment would be the living part. Most people would die.
Click to expand...

Why?.......
 
Hmmm- I find it interesting that so far, all votes are for individualism and none for collectivism. Does this indicate that collectivists are afraid of commitment?:lol:
 
Mellie said:
Individualism is to freedom as collectivism is to slavery.

Gee, I wonder which one I'd rather have.
Click to expand...

So you oppose the military, the police and fire department? Good to know.

See how stupid absolute statements and rhetoric are?
 
Ikari said:
I think the question is better suited for people who have a better ability to grasp abstract ideals for sure. Mostly because we're dealing with terms of utopia mixed with application. There's nothing innate to that socialist system which keeps you from not starving. It was hell in many communist/socialist states in reality. Sure the ideal is great....I suppose, if you're into that thing. But the ideal for anarchy is the same way. It's not that you sit there and starve, it's that you get to make your own food, or you can exchange your work for whatever you want. Nothing is given, but nothing is forced.

But this is part of the complications of fictional hypothetical questions. Because in the end, I doubt many people really push for 100% one way of the other since the practical implications of the systems makes them unable to be sustained in and of themselves.
Click to expand...

If it were ideal forms of either system, I would probably choose equally between them because ultimately they would be the same thing. Essentially both would be like living on a self sufficient colony. If you don't work you don't eat (due to survival pressures, I am assuming scarcity still exists) while everyone would probably also share and share alike (we would all likely find a specialization)
 
Redress said:
So you oppose the military, the police and fire department? Good to know.

See how stupid absolute statements and rhetoric are?
Click to expand...

Those are all volunteer in our country.
 
megaprogman said:
If it were ideal forms of either system, I would probably choose equally between them because ultimately they would be the same thing. Essentially both would be like living on a self sufficient colony. If you don't work you don't eat while everyone would probably also share and share alike.
Click to expand...

Mostly. Well in an anarchic state I think there would probably still be class structure even in the ideal. Maybe not so much with socialism, but who really knows. It's not like any of us have seen these systems worked out to their ideal. Maybe in the socialist state less people starve since everyone works and gets an equal share. But there's no way to become outstanding in such a system. There's no way to advance, or to save up, or to reward harder work. In the individualist society there may be greater chance to go hungry, but you get what you put in. So if you work hard, you get a lot. And if you don't want to work hard, you get a little.
 
megaprogman said:
Living freely would be great, but I think in such a condition, the hard accomplishment would be the living part. Most people would die.
Click to expand...

Why? We survived for centuries. Dare I say, many millenia.
 
Ikari said:
Mostly. Well in an anarchic state I think there would probably still be class structure even in the ideal. Maybe not so much with socialism, but who really knows. It's not like any of us have seen these systems worked out to their ideal. Maybe in the socialist state less people starve since everyone works and gets an equal share. But there's no way to become outstanding in such a system. There's no way to advance, or to save up, or to reward harder work. In the individualist society there may be greater chance to go hungry, but you get what you put in. So if you work hard, you get a lot. And if you don't want to work hard, you get a little.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on whether you see human nature change in such a system. In either system, nobody would like to see their fellow colonist starve and would have compassion, unless they are people without empathy and were built for capitalism. Than maybe they would. I guess it depends on how far you want to go.

Also, you mention advancement. Again, in a robinson crusoe type situation, what would you have the opportunity to advance to? If it were anarchistic, there would probably be no person in charge.
 
Instead of speaking of the extremes, which are purely hypothetical, just answer the question of whether or not you prefer a government that is more individualist or more collectivist. It is a given that the Individualist extreme is not a govermnent at all and that peoples' most basic needs cannot be adequately met in the collectivist extreme--and so their will be a mix. Which way would you have it tilt though?

I think this is what the OP was asking when he asked which you would prioritize.
 
rivrrat said:
Why? We survived for centuries. Dare I say, many millenia.
Click to expand...

I think most of our history, we have had tribal societies which would be a form of government, so it does not meet the criteria for extreme individualism which would require anarchy (no rules of any sort)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom