Let me stop you for a moment. Feminists are individuals, yes, but they are not individualists; they're collectivists. They don't want a traditional family because it's, well, traditional which they've been propagandized to believe oppresses them; and the patriarchy that heads the traditional family makes them "weak", "dependent" and "marginalized". They've completely abrogated their most magical and profound role: that of lifegiver, for one of sterile, selfless and soulless service to the state. In fact, Eve's name in the Greek Old Testament is Zoe, or 'life'.

It's all horseshit. These women are just looking for excuses for their own inferiority complex. Any woman who wants to achieve will do so in spite of obstacles that have nothing to do with family, husbands, society's expectations, etc. They therefore seek safety and power in numbers. That makes them collectivist. They adopted the women's movement as their substitute "siblings"; the state as their surrogate "husband"; and, the social welfare system as their extended "family". No feminist that I know (I'm in academia, so I know lots of feminists) consider themselves individualists.

In addition, you must remember, as you look at the political spectrum, that philosophical premises do not have to possess their real-life corresponding social movement or political party. Just because we can imagine a theoretical political construct, doesn't mean it's workable in reality. So, just because absolute sovereign individualism exists on the continuum, it's not practical in any sense except as a means to argue for greater respect for individual personhood or for civil rights against the tyranny of an absolutist king or a ravening mob.

This precisely what the 18th c. Enlightenment philosphers did; because at the time, absolute monarchy (in which the executive, legislative and judicial functions of government were concentrated into one sovereign whose authority was unchallengeable) was the right-most point on the spectrum. John Locke and others argued that the sovereignty claimed by the king, alone, was a fundamental condition of all men, who are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, none of which were in the power of the king to take away.

What Locke did, then, was to push the political spectrum even further rightward by arguing for the sovereignty of each individual human being, from whose consent the king derived authority. Can we achieve a government from absolutely sovereign individuals? No. While it's philosophically sound, in practice it's unworkable: absolutely sovereign individuals will not relinquish their independence long enough to form a traditional family, community and nation.

In a concentric cascade of affiliation outward from the 'self', or ego, the family unit is one's first introduction into society proper; then church affiliation; then community, state, and nation, in that order. Leftists want to isolate individuals from their natural social progression in order to put the pieces back together in reverse order so as to create a New Soviet Man whose altruistic selflessness would make him a drone of society. Feminist theory seeks to achieve this same objective by substituting a woman's natural and traditional attachment to her own family for that of the anonymous others of the leftist state.

Look, professor.

I love Hayek. I gave The Road to Serfdom to several people to redpill them on the dangers of socialism.

However, Hayek and his dichotomy between individualism and collectivism looks only at the economic dimension. Hayek explains why a centrally planned economy fails in terms of both prosperity and (importantly) freedom. We agree on this.

However, when it comes to envisioning a whole society (i.e. politics) deciding how we decide what and how much to produce is only one problem. What makes a society is also a collection of social norms and accepted behaviors, not to mention the relationship with those outside of our society.

Think of the following issues:

1. The Saudis using their petrodollars to build thousands of mosques in your country (they do this all over Europe)

2. China flooding your country with cheap drugs

3. LGBT lobby grooming children to be homos and getting them HIV in the process

4. Feminism telling women that men are evil, and to get cats instead of having a family and making children.

If you're for "individualism" you shouldn't care about these things. That's what the Left pushes for. The current Left hates you and attacks you if you oppose any of these issues. They tell you it doesn't affect you and it's not your business what other people do.

A conservative, a right winger, understands that a society cannot survive if any of those issues is left unchecked. A Muslim, a homo, a drug addict, and a feminist will never preserve the kind of freedom of the individuals that you seem to treasure. You must understand this.

Human beings are not just mere economic actors in a textbook. A human spends a lot of his life without the ability to provide for himself: too young, too old, temporarily ill, some disabled, etc.

A feminist is individualist: she doesn't want a family, she doesn't recognize other institutions such as the Church, she probably hates her dad. She has a bullshit degree in gender studies and no work ethic. What do you think she does? She votes for socialism because she's a failure in society and needs the government to take care of her. Good luck explaining her the benefits of the free market.

So I, as a right winger, I'm saying that I do care what religion people in my community follow, if they do drugs, if they have work ethics, if they are homos, etc.

Libertarians are just like communists: they believe in a utopia that can never exist because it ignores human nature.