Yes, it seems like a false dichotomy to me. Like you must choose individualism or collectivism. I think you can use either or depending on what goals or paradigms each is best suited for. So my objection is that you seem to be demanding a choice between the two, whereas I would prefer not to become beholden to a single tool so I can use the best tool for the job.

with one you’ll be violating someone’s rights while with the other you won’t.

Rights? As defined by what?

The freedoms we afford to other individuals.

with one you’ll be violating someone’s rights while with the other you won’t. — NOS4A2

Because the others have no rights or they have all rights?

Whose “we”?
Can “we” not choose when and where to afford these rights, or take them away? For example, if someone is jailed because they committed a crime, they lose their right to whatever restitutions (fine, jail etc) “we” have decided they lose.

“Collectivism demands that the individual subordinates himself to a group”

So another thread based on delusional assumptions. Sweet. :up:

Yes. Men afford others rights and they also take them away.

collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism

Ok, so sometimes we decide to take rights away and sometimes we do not. Sometimes we do collectivism and sometimes not, depends on whats best. This was what I meant by best tool for the job. I think my objection stands, I would not want to to restrict myself to one tool or solution (sort of has the stink of dogma doesnt it?) and instead use individualism or collectivism as the situation calls for.

Sometimes we do collectivism — DingoJones

Roads, for example. Each individual making their own roads according to their own standard would be confusing and lead to potential conflict at every crossing. We can come to some arrangement to share the roads, maybe. Agree to all drive on the right or something, might work ok most of the time, 'til someone wants to assert their individuality.

“What’s best” is what concerns me. For the individualist one would violate another’s rights if he violates the rights of an individual. For the collectivist one would violate another’s rights should he violate the rights of the group.

Rousseau suggests that the “general will” is paramount, and that the “will of all”, which is the sum total of particular wills, should conform to it. In order to determine what the general will is, though, Rousseau has to make absurd calculations in order to determine “what’s best”.

So “what’s best” in your eyes?

I agree, ”what is best” is the question. Just to reiterate my point one last time, what isn’t best is doing things only one way.
“Whats best” is going to depend on context. Gotta know the job to know which tools best. So thats a very robust question. I think whats best will depend in whats valued though so it depends on ones values. The tricky part is conflicting values, those must be balanced.
So I guess my quick and dirty general answer would be that whats best is a balanced, adaptable and non dogmatic approach. In the context of what I think youre getting at I would say its best to achieve a balance between individualism and collectivism
Based on your OP, I think we disagree? You would want individualism to take precedent whenever the two come into conflict?

Yeah. I think one satisfies the desires of both, while the other is incalculable, leads to factionalism, is self-contradictory and dangerous. One is just and the other isn’t. For these reasons I would choose one principle rather than the other, and I cannot see myself wavering between them.

Fair enough.

Are there any objections to this? — NOS4A2

I'm just not sure how this observation is significant. Maybe you could share what it means to you.

On the far end of the spectrum of individual freedom, we have, say, feudal Europe, where there aren't any cities to speak of. There are individual manors which are so isolated they're like tiny worlds until themselves. All industry takes place in these small holdings and there's little in the way of trade. Travel is so dangerous that you'll have to be armed. The only libraries are in monasteries, which have thick walls to withstand raiding.

You can see from this picture that a lack of any collectivism, or as you say, submission, means that might always makes right. There are no civil rights because there is no government capable of assuring them.

Collectivism comes to Europe in the 1000's. Trade routes open back up and communities of free tradesmen come into being. These communities build cathedrals, which stand as symbols of collectivism. The cathedral is the town hall, the university, the theatre, and of course, the house of God with windows that let light in from the outside world in a marked contrast to the dark, closed monasteries. Rule of law isn't here yet, but civil society has appeared which will act as the foundation for forms of government that can ensure rule of law and human rights.

The world we live in has both of these as its heritage. The pendulum keeps swinging.

It means to me that individualism is more inclusive, that it concerns itself with more human beings, even all human beings, whereas collectivism is exclusive, that it inevitably pits individuals against other individuals.

I cannot see from your picture that a lack of collectivism leads to might means right.

In this regard one could claim that collectivism is exclusive and individualism is inclusive. The former affords primacy to a faction while the latter affords it to each and every individual involved. This is true both in theory and in practice. — NOS4A2

If true, you should be able to give an example of this in practice.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "a collective", there are only conglomerates of individuals. "The collective" is simply a pretense of the individual to attempt to absolve themselves of their will to power over others by appealing to a higher authority - "the collective" - which by virtue of representing something greater than the individual supposedly may justly boss the individual around.

What we're left with is the same old all over again - individuals bossing other individuals around.

That the altruistic spiel that accompanies collectivist rhetoric is merely window dressing becomes apparent as soon as they are presented with a dissident. Their answer will always be the same: "If you don't like it, you may leave!"

It means to me that individualism is more inclusive, that it concerns itself with more human beings, even all human beings, whereas collectivism is exclusive, that it inevitably pits individuals against other individuals. — NOS4A2

Strictly speaking, no. A collective of some sort is required for the defense of civil rights.

Individualism demands that you be a selfish asshole who doesn’t give a damn about the world outside the self.

See Britannica.

Individualism demands that you be a selfish asshole who doesn’t give a damn about the world outside the self. — Mikie

Not really. A strong argument against collectivism is that information is used more effectively in a free market. Concern for the welfare of both individuals and society is in play in this theory.

Striking out against it as selfish assholedness is a waste of time. Counter the argument by pointing out why it's wrong, or even if it's right, why there's a better idea.

Strictly speaking, no. A collective of some sort is required for the defense of civil rights.

But collectivism isn’t.

But collectivism isn’t. — NOS4A2

How did we end up with a collective with no collectivism?

If true, you should be able to give an example of this in practice.

Chairman Mao makes this explicit in his diagnosis of The Party discipline, of which he sees the failure of the minority to submit to the majority as one of its primary defects. A minority is a faction. A majority is a faction. Either way the interests of each and all are subordinated to the interests of the Party.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_5.htm

I suspect through family and kinship.

I suspect through family and kinship. — NOS4A2

In a number of ways the English North American colonies were deeply divided and distrustful of one another. The South had a different type of economy from the North, along with slavery, the small colonies were defensive about being bullied by the larger ones, and for whatever reason, Massachusetts and NY just hated one another.

Family ties? No.

Not to mention the wars on the First Nations, colonialism, manifest destiny. Collectivism, through and through.

Not to mention the wars on the First Nations, colonialism, manifest destiny. Collectivism, through and through. — NOS4A2

American collectivism came originally from the need for defense.

I suppose that I should have specified that my interest is in an example of the inclusive practice of individualisms affording primacy to each and every individual.