Individualism or Collectivism?

[Mensch]

If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?

 

[other]

Individualism, hands down.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?

You need to be more descriptive and define your terms, before I feel I can answer. Also, neither is an absolute; I doubt that there are many of any governments that do one or the other.

 

[Orion]

I think a mix of both would be the sound decision, since no society exists without the work of individuals, yet collective agreements must be set in order to maintain some kind of order and health.

 

[Mensch]

To make it more user-friendly, perhaps I should modify the poll to ask, which one would you prioritize over the other?

 

[Orion]

To make it more user-friendly, perhaps I should modify the poll to ask, which one would you prioritize over the other?

Still not that simple. It depends on what area of civilization you are talking about. Military? Health care? Education? Social spending? etc etc...

 

[Mensch]

Why can't one take precedence over another? The military is there to protect the collective good, but always must adhere to guidelines intended to protect the right of individuals. So, there's a mixture of both. But throughout history, there are no guesses. Regimes are often for one thing or the other. When they're for collective good, they almost inherently are totalitarian at the core, and the public good is just an excuse to control individuals. Far fewer are the regimes that strive to protect individual rights above all else, for the protection of these rights is the only protection from public tyranny.

 

[Orion]

The totalitarian regimes were trying to be completely collectivist, and failed. No one system in the developed world reigns supreme, but there's a mix. We don't have just free markets or just centralized economies, we have a mix of both because there are strengths and weaknesses to both.

 

[Mensch]

You know if you're too centrist, you end up doing a complete 360.

Ultimately, no one regime is completely centrist in this regard.

 

[tacomancer]

Neither one would work without elements of the other.

 

[samsmart]

If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?

One that provides a good balance of both so people can enjoy individual freedoms but maintain collective security.

 

[lizzie]

Come on guys- it was a very simple question.

If forced to choose one way or the other

 

[tacomancer]

Come on guys- it was a very simple question.

Are we talking absolutes? We have to choose either anarcho capitalism or communism? If I had to choose it would be communism because for all of its problems and death it would be responsible for, it wouldn't immediately deteriorate into feudalism or warlordism.

 

[lizzie]

Are we talking absolutes? We have to choose either anarcho capitalism or communism? If I had to choose it would be communism because for all of its problems and death it would be responsible for, it wouldn't immediately deteriorate into feudalism or warlordism.

Yeah, much better to have all that feudalism and warlordism all drawn out over the long term rather than immediately.

Now putting on my serious face-
The question was collectivism vs individualism as the basis for establishing the foundation for a government. If you have adequate laws to protect the rights of the individual and his property, individualism is far superior imo, for it allows greater individual freedom.

 

[tacomancer]

Yeah, much better to have all that feudalism and warlordism all drawn out over the long term rather than immediately.

I think it would do less harm and would be easier to recover from and have a government worth having. Russia has some issues but its less of a problem compared to somolia or other places with no government. They are also having a better time making a transition, even if it is problematic.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Are we talking absolutes? We have to choose either anarcho capitalism or communism? If I had to choose it would be communism because for all of its problems and death it would be responsible for, it wouldn't immediately deteriorate into feudalism or warlordism.

There's a valid answer. Of course most people want a mix, but that is completely missing the point of the question. For all those who are still whining about wanting a mix we get that but the point is if extremes are the only option which extreme do you choose?

 

[Ikari]

In general, it is best to follow the side of individualism. While realistically there is some need for understanding collective arguments and seeing how collectivism can be implemented on a limited scale, individualism should be touted as more important. For it is the individual whom possesses rights, not the collective.

 

[lizzie]

I think it would do less harm and would be easier to recover from and have a government worth having. Russia has some issues but its less of a problem compared to somolia or other places with no government. They are also having a better time making a transition, even if it is problematic.

That's because of the cultural makeup of the population which is Russia. In a country where the individuals are capable of self-governing without declining into destructiveness (due to education, culture, values etc), personal freedom facilitates success and personal/societal growth. It all depends on the population one has to work with.

 

[tacomancer]

In general, it is best to follow the side of individualism. While realistically there is some need for understanding collective arguments and seeing how collectivism can be implemented on a limited scale, individualism should be touted as more important. For it is the individual whom possesses rights, not the collective.

There's a valid answer. Of course most people want a mix, but that is completely missing the point of the question. For all those who are still whining about wanting a mix we get that but the point is if extremes are the only option which extreme do you choose?

In general, I agree that individualism should be the primary thing as I think people are sovereign. But you do need some sort of mix or else you have a horrible situation at either end. Maybe I don't understand the point of the thread?

 

[lizzie]

There's a valid answer. Of course most people want a mix, but that is completely missing the point of the question. For all those who are still whining about wanting a mix we get that but the point is if extremes are the only option which extreme do you choose?

Thanks. You said it much better than I.

 

[tacomancer]

That's because of the cultural makeup of the population which is Russia. In a country where the individuals are capable of self-governing without declining into destructiveness (due to education, culture, values etc), personal freedom facilitates success and personal/societal growth. It all depends on the population one has to work with.

Thats the same argument people make about communism (the marx kind, not the russian kind). All we need is better people.

 

[Redress]

If forced to choose one way or the other in establishing the primary foundation of a government, which one would you pick?

I think that picking one or the other is the wrong strategy in forming a government. You take what you need from both and don't worry about the label.

 

[Ikari]

In general, I agree that individualism should be the primary thing as I think people are sovereign. But you do need some sort of mix or else you have a horrible situation at either end. Maybe I don't understand the point of the thread?

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.

 

[lizzie]

Thats the same argument people make about communism (the marx kind, not the russian kind). All we need is better people.

Yes, but individualism allows for success and growth, whereas a Marxist mindset seems to encourage status quo and blind obedience. Success and growth is the very basis for the evolution of every living thing that we know of.

 

[tacomancer]

Yes, but individualism allows for success and growth, whereas a Marxist mindset seems to encourage status quo and blind obedience. Success and growth is the very basis for the evolution of every living thing that we know of.

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. Like I said, better people, in the sense that they are better than they could ever possibly be given human nature.