I hope that ideal keeps you warm as the Chinese take over. Like it or not, individualism is actually weaker than collectivism because of the ability to disagree. They are stronger because of the enforced conformity.
Individualism has some weaknesses when taken to such an extreme that you refuse to use collective self-defense against collectivist attacks, or when libertarians defend the "property rights," etc. of colluding internationalist corporations or NGO's which form de facto governments.
However, collectivism is almost never for the genuine benefit of any population, but a tool for oligarchs to centralize all power.
The modern understanding of "collectivism vs individualism" is really a farce. For most of American history, individualism really meant communitarianism. People were still "collective" in the sense that they organized with their families, their churches, and their local communities. It doesn't have to be every man for himself or a totalitarian government.
Agreed. As a pragmatist, I tend to side with "the most decentralized structure that could reasonably work." It's easier for a local community to respect the individual dignity of each of its members than a globalist empire whose leaders see everyone except their own families as tools, slaves, and statistics.
I hope that ideal keeps you warm as the Chinese take over. Like it or not, individualism is actually weaker than collectivism because of the ability to disagree. They are stronger because of the enforced conformity.
Communist chinese did not create the AR-15, F-35, or a damn thing worthwhile.
In war we'd need to be able to recognize one another to avoid friendly fire, that's all.
China has neither capability nor desire to invade.
Individualism has some weaknesses when taken to such an extreme that you refuse to use collective self-defense against collectivist attacks, or when libertarians defend the "property rights," etc. of colluding internationalist corporations or NGO's which form de facto governments.
However, collectivism is almost never for the genuine benefit of any population, but a tool for oligarchs to centralize all power.
Centralized power is the worst case scenario.
The modern understanding of "collectivism vs individualism" is really a farce. For most of American history, individualism really meant communitarianism. People were still "collective" in the sense that they organized with their families, their churches, and their local communities. It doesn't have to be every man for himself or a totalitarian government.
Agreed. As a pragmatist, I tend to side with "the most decentralized structure that could reasonably work." It's easier for a local community to respect the individual dignity of each of its members than a globalist empire whose leaders see everyone except their own families as tools, slaves, and statistics.