Is /pol/ Individualist, Collectivist, or somewhere inbetween? I'm roughly at a ratio of 70/30 in favour of Collectivism.
Pure Collectivism is a hivemind, and pure Individualism is selfish.
But how can you Individualists justify your beliefs when you are part of a collective anyway, with or without your consent? Therefore, you have a responsibility to contribute to that collective,
Society is a collective. That is a fact, and to be a pure Individualist is to be blind.
Furthermore, does it not make more sense that collective rights should trump individual rights? Why should the collective be sacrificed for the sake of one individual? I just don't understand it.
At the same time, I recognise the importance of free speech, hence why I said I'm not a total Collectivist.
But please, can any Individualists please deliver a solid argument against this?
Collectivists are free to join too.
Fuck off faggot
Contribute to society by killing yourself
>>69726128
People must work as a team to survive however those who don't work don't deserve to eat and the trash man shouldn't be paid the same as the doctor. Pay should depend on the value of a persons skills and what they do. You know like it was through all human history.
>>69726445
Yes, I'm not a Commie.
Just because I'm a majority Collectivist doesn't mean I'm a Commie.
Yes, individuals need to contribute to the collective with their talents, and they should be paid according to their job and how much they contribute.
>>69726799
There is no collective there is society. People can be useful or homeless that's all there is.
>>69727135
Society is a collective by its nature. It's a group of individuals working towards certain goals (economic recovery, material production, etc.)
They're economic individualists and social collectivists.
>>69727295
Yes but your liberal wording pisses me off. I hate when liberals try to reword things in an effort to redefine them and confuse people. A collective implies my goals and yours are similar which I will bet they are not.
>>69726128
>I recognise the importance of free speech
Why is it important? Serious question.
>>69727536
Firstly, I'm not a Liberal, I'm a Traditionalist Conservative/moderate alt-righter.
Secondly, yes, our goals may be different as individuals. But society as a whole works as a collective to produce items and materials for consumption by the general populace, the majority of us also seek out mates to reproduce with, etc.
Of course there are outliers, but that's just basic statistics.
>>69726128
It really depends on what you call collectivist.
Democracy seems collectivist, right? All people vote on issues that affect the collective; that seems very "collectivist". BUT... If we take a vote on what kind of pie we want, and let's say I'm allergic to nuts, and you're allergic to blueberries, then we might agree on voting for a pumpkin pie, while 3 others might out-vote us and get a pie with nuts and blueberries, therefore it wasn't a collective decision, but a decision based on individual desires. If it was a collective decision, then we'd opt for something tasty for all of us.
Collective individualism.
>>69728413
Well, it allows us to criticise the government and each other. I mean, if freedom of speech wasn't impeded in Soviet Russia, for example, then people would be like "Hold on, this Five-Year Plan thing is bullshit!", and could have maybe persuaded the Communist Party out of the idea.
>>69728517
I suppose so. Democracy is somewhat Collectivist, but not everyone is working towards the same goal in that case. Some people may want to vote Left, and some others may want to vote Right.
>>69729112
do you believe in internet anonymity?
honestly all the worst parts of individualism are proven by this board and the internet as a whole, which is why I find it ironic that a traditionalist collectivist doesn't realize this
>>69729639
Yes, but as I said, I value freedom of speech and press. That's why 4chan is a thing.
Yes, I believe in internet anonymity. How is that related?
>>69726128
There is no such thing as an "individual"; counting is an abstraction. Only One exists.
>>69730169
I really hope you don't buy into the "we're all one being" hippie new age crap that the UN promotes
>>69726128
Well it's not even really a question that the group takes general priority.
If you're asking what the best way to apply this to society, then I would say the best way to do it is to start with a pure anarchy, a completely Individualistic system.
Then you add restrictions and collectivization where necessary to benefit the people/body politic. It's a gross simplification, but we can follow the train of thought:
>people survive together in groups much better than individually so we form groups
>murder in the group is morally wrong and also detrimental so we ban murder
>but we need some way to enforce that ban and punish violators so we create a state with the authority to kill and imprison
>but the state doesn't just magically appear so now we need people and material for the state, so we implement a tax
>but now we have to also punish people who don't pay their allotted tax
Essentially we just apply this to multiple issues which compound on one another, and you end up basically saying "X is provably detrimental or represents a risk to the group so we should ban it, and Y must be done in a certain way in order to avoid being detrimental".
I think if you follow this method, where you essentially just apply Realpolitik to the State, you end up at a point where you've banned and regulated enough things, that all you have left are minor issues and on those issues individual liberties and the feelings or results of freedom are often more beneficial to the group than the direct benefits that would result from further regulation.
Ideally I like to think this would end up in some form of National Socialism. Then again maybe I'm just rambling on about bullshit that has nothing to do with anything.
>>69731408
I agree with that assessment, except when you say that everything except a few things aren't regulated or banned.
What about things such as marijuana legalisation? It would rake in more taxes for the government, and also would not harm the collective/society's goals due to marijuana not being that harmful of a drug.
I know I just said I'm a Traditionalist Conservative, and here I am advocating marijuana legalisation, but it's hard to argue with scientific evidence.
But yes, murder, rape, and all crimes that involve a victim (yes, this includes heroin and cocaine use because you have multiple victims due to the robbery employed by addicts to make money, and the addict themselves risking overdose) should be banned for the good of society. Of course, the black market will still exist but at least the rate will decrease.
>>69732234
>everything except a few things aren't regulated or banned.
No I meant that the axiom would be applied to almost everything, not that everything would be regulated heavily or even at all. The vast majority of things wouldn't be, or would be very light. Apply it to the color of your car for instance: unless the color of your car is "printed picture of gay porn", it wouldn't have a reason to be regulated at all.
>What about things such as marijuana legalisation?
So that would be when I mentioned Realpolitik earlier, which is making decisions based on circumstances and evidence rather than ideology. You wouldn't ban weed merely because drugs are bad, rather you would ask the question, "Is the legalization of weed along with the tax revenue and personal liberty benefits worth the cost of increased rate of drop-outs, potheads and car accidents?"
I'm not going to get into specifics because it's largely irrelevant, but the central point you would consider is that the freedom of an individual in a certain situation is also a benefit to the collective as a whole, as it increases the overall happiness and satisfaction. Ergo, when banning or legalizing weed, from the collective standpoint it's no different than making a purchase or investment decision as to what provides maximum benefit to the group. Basically what I think I'm arguing is that saying either "muh freedoms" or "muh equality" for their own sake is stupid, and that a certain amount of infringement upon both, depending on the circumstance, can more often then not be beneficial.
I'm not even sure I'm making sense to myself at this point but im going to post this anyway since I spent the time to type it out.
>>69734022
I think I understand what you're arguing here, anon.
To simplify and break down your argument, you're saying that a certain amount of individual liberties are needed in order to get the individual to comply to the overall goals of the collective, correct? Basically, anything that does not harm the collective in a significant way and allows us to work towards our goals at the same time is necessary to appease the individual and persuade him/her to do his/her best to comply to the collective's demands, right?
If that's what you're arguing, I agree 100%.
>>69734902
You got it friendo.
It a shame people would rather post pepe memes then actual discourse sometimes cause the actual useful threads die off :(
>>69735326
I know, man. There's way too much shitposting on /pol/. You don't see this kind of stuff on /sci/ for science and maths related stuff.
There's a reason we have a reputation for being an alt-right hugbox, which I resent because I don't think the alt-right needs safe spaces. We can argue our point perfectly well.
>>69726128
Individualism should be the basis of collectivism because collectivism is designed to benefit multiple indivudals.
liberal mentality has it the other way around.
>>69726128
fascism
>>69728517
>>69729112
Democracy would be collective if the elected officials actually followed trough with their promises.
I have been an individualist and now am i am believing in socialism :)
>>69727536
Hahaha man you sound like a retard trying to figure out arguments.
>>69726128
Today's world caters towards individualism. Selfie culture is evidence enough of that.
Collectivism is dying, which is a bit of a problem since individualism can only exist on the solid foundation of a secure collective.
>>69726128
Groups survive and individuals die. We must be collectivist becuaae or enemies are and it's the only way to ensure they don't outlast us.
>>69737980
>Today's world caters towards individualism
No, not at all. We are headin g towards collectivization. And fast
>Selfie culture is evidence enough of that.
That is narcissism
>>69738374
You couldn't be any more wrong. While it is narcissism, this outlook is held by the majority. We're so plugged that while, on the surface it may look like collectivization, everyone is in it for themselves and themselves alone.
No longer do you see people forming families or reproducing, instead you get MGTOW and spinsters. When you opt out of societal expectations, and many others follow suit, shit will hit the fan pretty damn fast.
>>69726128
>when you are part of a collective anyway, with or without your consent? Therefore, you have a responsibility to contribute to that collective,
This does not follow. When something is done without your consent, how can it possibly be said that you have a responsibility to that? If I rape you in the ass, do you become my gay wife and suddenly have responsibility to me?
On what grounds do you completely reject consent as being necessary for human interaction?
