Individualism vs. Collectivism - Learn Liberty

[@BadMouseProductions]

What I'd argue is that by giving people the ability to be Individuals, we eventually become social, create communities and help one another. We don't need to force one another to be social, it comes to us naturally.

[@steveryan1799]

***** Exactly. It's the beautiful balance of nature.

[@BiscuitDelivery]

+BadMouseProductions Forced friendships demean the value of a valid one.

[@steveryan1799]

Vengeful Spirit And the same goes for charity, aka the "social safety net".

[@BiscuitDelivery]

Steve Ryan Ever read Steinbeck's the Grapes of Wrath? In it, the corporations cannot feed the hungry with their crops because giving out free food would render the value they set on their produce obsolete. Rather than let the hungry eat it and devalue what they grow, they put it into massive piles and burned the excess while children starved hundreds of meters away. As a man who grew up in Kern County, I can say with complete honesty that this was true. I'm not saying that socialism is a good idea, but having no safety net whatsoever may not be the wisest thing, either. Balance.

[@steveryan1799]

Vengeful Spirit I have not read it but it is on my list. Thanks for the reminder.

[@museofchartreuse7966]

Well said, thank you. I completely agree! Also within a free society, individuals are permitted to form voluntary collectives, no one is stopping them.

[@apollon6870]

volunteers have nothing to do with collective identity

[@crazycasy]

great point, one you can have both and the other you can only have one, that's the deal breaker

[@johanisnotagamer]

Collectives used to be based on objective things, like nationality, gender, occupation and family. But now they're all subjective controlled collectives.

[@johngallagher8087]

There is no human collective without the human individuals

[@crazycasy]

Yup, a forest without the trees is no forest

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

That's why the whole debate for centuries has been a false dichotomy of self-destruction in both extremes.

[@ErikSchneiderUSA]

This video almost perfectly defines Liberalism in its classical and real sense

[@hellorhighwater8543]

This is great. There's such a turn against individualism at the moment but I believe that the term is often misused or collapsed with neo-liberalism and this explains it beautifully. Society can and must be formed around the it's constituent, autonomous, individuals. How can we talk about the emancipation of the collective without talking first about the freedom of the individuals that comprise it?

[@TheVideo5094]

You're right that you should think less about yourself, but collectivism NEVER works.

[@angus7278]

220,000 Covid deaths and rising. Thanks individualism!

[@abd-al-haqal-haqiqi6981]

individualism is the key to sucess even in a ruthless communist regim

[@esmaeiltayeby1935]

Communism is to do with community those individuals who kept the power for themselves weren't communist, they were hipocrte never understood socialism and need of society.

[@timeandattention3945]

@@esmaeiltayeby1935 it is centralized power that corrupts. No one should have that much power over individuals.

[@mjohnson1741]

@@esmaeiltayeby1935 Maybe he meant capitalist.

[@apollon6870]

communism is just one of the anti individualistic systems, there are also capitalist cultures with an strong collective identity such as muslims for example

[@wendellmcclore4733]

Thank you for this insightful explanation about collectivism and individualism. I believe they both have their advantages. It's about having a balance. It's good to acknowledge each other's talents, but not to the point of idol worship. 😀

[@autodidactusplaysjrpgs7614]

You can't have it both ways. Claiming its reductionistic to say that people's social conditions determine their mental conceptions, but then turning around and saying that our individualism determines our social conditions. Our individualists are going to have to establish individual choice as a final cause before making this claim.

[@colbalt95]

America was founded on individualism

[@autodidactusplaysjrpgs7614]

It was also founded on collectivism.

[@colbalt95]

Autodidactus Communitati The goal is to be together. Not the same

[@autodidactusplaysjrpgs7614]

colbalt95 go read the definition of collectivism before you express an opinion please.

[@autodidactusplaysjrpgs7614]

TimeWarp66 someone has to regulate the irrational behavior of the majority. The greedy, shortsighted, weak-minded majority needs authority, not freedom. Children aren't mature enough to be free, and neither is the majority.

[@autodidactusplaysjrpgs7614]

TimeWarp66 yes, but we need to created the illusion of freedom on your part so that you can live out your paltry existence while receiving a dose of what seems to be psychologically necessary autonomy. Only men with iqs above 140 are allowed freedom, and everyone else serves our wise and beautiful designs. Don't you see? We're creating a utopia here, and inferior men are getting in our way.

[@TheDragonAlduin]

People are too individualistic when they must gather together for greater goals but behave like herds of sheep when they must be individualistic.

[@wibiyoutube6173]

Beautifully articulated, thank you.

[@gustavalbericchidurocher9764]

one small big point: if we are so individual, it has to be respected that some will be more influenceable and that some will be able to influence more by all the tribes he sees/identifies himself in/at. mostly, i agree with everything else.

[@Stargazer88]

Humility is only a virtue if it is paired with a realistic view of ones self. If you are a great person and a leader among people, but you spend you time being humble and never working for yourself, the community will miss out on a brilliant leader and great wealth. As you would only be nuisance if you think to much of yourself and will only stand in the way of others if you gain power. It is here competition will divide the wheat from the chaff and let the talented and trustworthy rise.

[@LibertysetsquareJack]

@Laughingblades What you are talking about is voluntary association, which is within the realm of individualism, not collectivism. Here is a question: can the workers leave the cooperative if they want? Can they seek work somewhere else or can one of them decide to go and start another cooperative? If you answer to the affirmative, then you are talking about individualism. If not, then you are talking collectivism.

[@TheHollandHS]

What should be however be made clear in my opinion, is that Collectivism has many types and layers of Collectivism: family, organization, village, urban, regional, country, global etc. unlike Individualism which is just one type, the Individual. Some cultures emphasize certain group types more than other groups. Japan has a stronger company orientation and less on family compared to its neighbours. The Nazis focused everything on the Nation of course. And modern day globalism may be actually the start concept of global collectivism. All these types actually go all more or less together in life. none of these are focused on the Individual, but they affect the degree of Individual limitation based on how strong it is, what type it is and how it's combined to society. When Groups types are larger, it becomes more vague to focus or judge to an Individual. Powers and Responsibilities become more and more inequal to the members as group types become larger, so is emotional distance.

[@LucisFerre1]

"Humility" is self humiliation. It's self immolation, the opposite of a rational sense of pride for having achieved ones accomplishments. Humility is never a virtue, as the alternative to humility is NOT arrogance.

[@LucisFerre1]

Who owns your own life, you or someone else? If you own your own life, then that very fact necessitates rights. To own your own life today, tomorrow & next week, means that you also have the right to the furtherance of that life, to maintain your life, which means that you have the right to earn and keep as a means of survival, prosperity & happiness. Life is a process of self-sustaining & self generating action. The right to life means the right to engage in that action.

[@Damarcast]

I know it's an old comment and I hate it when people respond to stuff so old but I feel like I have comment. Your statement exactly sums up why you cannot take someone's freedom. Money is a symbol. It ends there. And even as a symbol, I wouldn't call it a symbol of freedom. It's a symbol of labor and value. The man should be required to pay the debt, but not at the direct cost of his freedom. Lines can be drawn, and besides, I don't know of anyone that advocates ONLY taxes for a society.

[@residentzombie]

Groups are just an abstraction of individuals and each individual has there own unique set of desires and goals in life.

[@2011is2012]

Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it is thinking of yourself less!!!!

[@stevefuller9272]

People don’t really understand individualism these days. The individualist at its true form is the transcendentalist...that’s the true justification of being an individual. That being said (in a nutshell), you’re not a true individual unless you’re on your way of becoming a transcendentalist...because your mind is indeed highly influenced by external forces. Ralph Emerson was saying just that...there needs to be a sense of understanding what an individual is...not just autonomy rubberish...The individual is about embracing one self, as well as learning, and understanding he/she fits into nature (not just society) The ‘individual’ is not the ‘opposite’ of ‘collectivism’. One of Emerson’s quote: “The Man who renounces himself, comes to himself”

[@crazycasy]

The Jungian explanation very similar, he calls it Individuation, the process of first finding ones Self and then integrating back into the collective, you go inner to get outer, the SELF becomes the portal to God/collective

[@trustyshellback]

Don't confuse "state capitalism" with free enterprise. These two paradigms are mutually exclusive in that state capitalism promotes collectivism, but free enterprise promotes individualism. 🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷 "The strongest argument for free enterprise is that it prevents anybody from having too much power." [Milton Friedman] 🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷 🇺🇸 Marc J. Metivier 🇺🇸

[@crazycasy]

Well said, as an individual you have the best of both worlds, if you want to be a communist or socialist, you cant get together and do it with other willing individuals, without forcing everyone else to go along..

[@theJMBgamer]

@Laughingblades You are correct in saying people are forced to earn a wage. However, they are not forced by other people or society, but by the laws of nature. Nature dictates that humans will die if they don't eat, and they must work to harvest food and other resources. No amount of force or coercion will rewrite the laws of nature, all it can do is change who does the work.

[@capefeather]

The difference between influence and determination is entirely in our heads. It's convenient for humans to look at each other and see "people" with "choices". However, humans are not exempt from the laws of nature. The rest is just playing with language. Of course, people will automatically take this to assume I'm an extreme collectivist.

[@madeline_parks]

It was more nation for Mussolini. Nation and ethnicity were seen as one in the same for Hitler but Mussolini didn't have as much emphasis on ethnicity as Hitler.

[@2011is2012]

Humility is a virtue.

[@jacsantacruz]

I thank you for a thoughtful and logical opinion that is hard to find. With that said what you are talking about with this person is Anarchy. I do understand that Libertarian Theory was born out of Anarchy but what is ignored by a lot of modern Libertarians and most Anarchist is the role society plays. This is to say that in a classic Libertarian mind government and society are not connected they are separate. In this way society will police itself through rules separate from the government.

[@calysagora3615]

"Society" is nothing but a nonsensical abstraction. It. Does. Not. Exist. Pure collectivist nonsense rhetoric. There are ONLY individuals, and groups of individuals can create their own societies on mutual grounds, but there exist no such all-encompassing thing as "the society". Nonsense abstractions can't play any role. Whatever you imagine sane people (individuals adhering to the non-aggression principle) is lacking, I'm just gonna assume that you are a statetheist who believe in the fictions of the state and the fictitious legitimacy of the criminal gang calling themselves "government". Just because we don't subscribe to the violence and rights-violations of the government solutions, doesn't mean we are against vast collaborations and actual real solutions to complex social issues. All it tells us is that statetheists has a boxed-in world view wherein only coerced collective actions can solve problems. And yes, naturally, we do NOT equate the evil, destructive death-cult religion of statetheism to the world of human existence, what collectivists often mis-characterize as "society", a word that actually means a closed group of people created from common interests under mutual consent. Statethsism is always big on Orwellian newspeak. SMH. Yes, society will, can, and are much better at self-rule without the church and mafia of government worship. That's ALL it is, a sick, insane, destructive , anti-human RELIGION, and us anarchists simply do not believe in your god. We are sociological atheists, if you will.

[@turgore]

So is collectivism like a huge stereotype ? Individualism is when your communities/ groups overlap.

[@donrutter6765]

Wikipedia search "limited power" and also the Magna Carta. This is right wing government, with Republicans being the "liberals" under Lincoln. Through years of propaganda, the left (increased power collectivist government) have adopted the term "liberalism" into their party. You cant have liberty under increased power government. Thats why about 90 years ago, they had to also propagandize Fascism as being "right wing" to build the "left right paradigm". Fascist leaders are increased power dictators and actually belong on the left wing (collectivism). Limited power doesnt have dictators, it has individualism like the framers intended for the people to control government.

[@uriituw]

Is there any reason for the caps?

[@LucisFerre1]

That's completely stupid. Libertarians know right well that there is no such thing as the right to violate rights because that contradiction would undermine the entire concept of rights. Since there is no such thing as the right to violate rights, then there can be no right to enslave.

[@jotnarringlefinch7742]

What you're basically saying is that since people are by human nature "not good", "bad", or "evil", we need Government to keep control over their negative actions right?

[@calysagora3615]

We certainly don't though.

[@jonathannelson1449]

I think the speaker is misunderstanding individuality as identity or a background. Of course everyone has a unique identity. Society would not flourish if everyone were the same race, wore the same clothes, had the same thoughts, etc. I think the bigger point needs to be on individuality as a philosophy and way of living. We act out of self-interest when we work, when we feed our families, when we travel, when we entertain. Seldom do we think about our neighbors down the street and whether they have enough food. Seldom do we walk to work anymore with hundreds of people on the streets. With the advent of suburbs, now we all travel autonomously to work in the cities in our own vehicles with little interaction with the outside world. It is this philosophy of individualism that needs to be contrasted with collectivism in order to properly critique the society we are becoming. A prevailing conservative view is that people in need must be left on their own to act out of self interest to become well-off again. We need to decide if that philosophy of individualism is applicable to society anymore. What about religious teachings of charity and community? What about the good ol' rustic rural america where everyone in the town knew each other? How many people today can honestly claim to know their neighbors like family?

[@RyanWilliams-lh7pr]

I think we’ve become too individualist, we should care about the welfare of our community far more than we do. I think groups (or communities) also constitute a type of meaning which sustains us, which is why I think depression has become so prevalent in the West, through lack of it.

[@csfischer007]

I don’t know about “too” individualistic, but your point is correct about us not understanding the importance of developing and maintaining relationships within those collectives that we individually value. These relationships are the ultimate tools to develop the self. The points of the video still stand 100%, in that the value of the individual must be paramount, and collectivism is extremely dangerous to the individual and ultimately to those other collectives that are trivialized and marginalized.

[@danielfazakerley709]

@@csfischer007 Collectivism is how human societies first worked together, we've only become more Individualistic through gains in material wealth and thus personal greed, I find Individualists are paranoid about not having 'complete automony' over every element of their lives, it's 100% a manifestation of selfishness in their personality. You can 100% build a society around Collectivist Values that serve society the best overall and make moral sense that (The Majority) of people will agree with, if you based moral values and cultural ethics around the 20% that will always disagree on things then everyone would just do the bad stuff without regard for family + community and everything would collapse. The best collectivist people are probably Muslims they've literally build a system of life round it and (mostly on the whole) kept to that system. There is no reason you can't have a strong collectivist structure in society first and then allow individual character and ideas to flow within, it's a Western Myth to think you can't !

[@csfischer007]

@@danielfazakerley709 You didn't watch the video, did you? You keep saying the word "society" as if all collectivist societies agree to the same paramount collective, or "common good". You also don't understand that when one collective is paramount, another (other) collective(s) is of lesser value; this is not even getting into the fact that the value of the individual is secondary, at best (different individual characteristics suffer more than others depending on the collective which is paramount). We've seen these clashes between collectives unfurl time and time again in the most egregious times in our history. Fascism, Communism, slavery, imperialism, colonialism, corporatism, etc. In all of these instances, a collective was paramount while other collectives (and the individuals within those collectives) suffered immensely. You're Muslim example is another example of this. What happens to the individuals that don't conform to the Muslim's idea of the "common good"? What happens between the differing Islamic schools and branches that can't agree to the same "common good"? Lots of evil has come of these dynamics. This is not due to Muslim societies nor Islam being evil or bad. This is due to the collectivist tensions between varying collectives.

[@baph0met]

We've become WAY too collectivist

[@crazycasy]

collectivism is actually an attack on the family, small business it always wishes to replace the family with the state, its creates dependency on it, but on a base level of helping others and being selfless i get your point, , welfare, forced taxing ,inflation equity, all can have a bad effect, when individuals can prosper they can have resources to lift each other up.. we live in a entitled ":what can you do for me society", but its more to blame on collectivism, if you given everything you don't learn how to earn it..

[@jacsantacruz]

I am sorry this will have to be two comments. Now I can understand the flaws in this idea especially if there is a well established government which adequately represents the people, in this way government should become an extension of society and not something completely separate. This to me is the ideology of the Social Libertarian. Society controls the Government and for this reason Society can create laws to rule itself but these laws must not infringe upon individual liberties.

[@GregoryTheGr8ster]

Could you give an example of a free market society that featured parents selling their children into slavery? I will bet that such a society is not free-market/libertarian. Liberty does not promote child slavery any more than it promotes child abuse or criminal neglect of one's children. Libertarians do consider such issues, and the parent-child relationship is not economic in nature.

[@Mijn24]

They say America is an individualist nation - I see otherwise

[@adrian6444]

It was founded on individualist philosophy but eventually grew into a more collectivist country because the federal government grew in power in the 1800s, for it to then become for the most part collectivist after the civil war. As of now whether its still collectivist or individualist is debatable but I'd say it has features of both but aligns more with collectivism. Whether you think thats a good or bad thing is also very debatable.

[@angus7278]

220,000 US Covid deaths and rising. Individualists refusing to protect their fellow citizens? I’d say so.

[@victorelehibiri9008]

wow, exceptionally, immensely and extremely helpful.

[@residentzombie]

Profit is not theft. Profit is why anyone does anything for others period. People only work for other people because they will profit from it. A society without profit would be life like the Amish. You work for you and your family and noone else. You work all day growing your food, raising your barns and homes from scratch, and not trading your production for the production of others. There is no community mind.

[@Damarcast]

I acknowledge and respect your opinion, however I disagree based on my responses previously. I don't feel the need to respond directly to your post except to say I agree with the sentiment, and to a large extent, but feel my objections and points have not been adequately addressed. It seems we are at an impasse, so I will bid you good day, sir.

[@residentzombie]

Then noone would provide those services for others, individuals would only provide those services for themselves and would have to since noone else would. People due things because it will benefit themselves and in the process of individual wealth will help others. The anti-ism argument is a stance that closed minded individuals make so that they don't have to seriously study the various philosophies. Ism is a word to describe a broader meaning.

[@bkw11]

In short: all people are both individualists and collectivists. You can't be purely one or the other. Deal with it.

[@Ddragon173]

No. There is a way to live in society without surrendering any of your freedoms to the collective - voluntary exchange of privately owned goods and services, aka capitalism.

[@angus7278]

220,000 Covid deaths and rising. Thanks individualism!

[@Ddragon173]

@@angus7278 Lol, another fucking lockdown totalitarian whacko... I'ts not my goddamn job to make sure people are safe - It's their job, so I'm not surrendering my freedom, fuck lockdowns, fuck mask mandates, period.

[@2011is2012]

Conformity is not humility. Work not for monetary reward, work for betterment of humanity as a reward. Contribute to better the human species, not feed off it.

[@lambdasun4520]

If everyone does what they want, the environment will be destroyed. Out of 1 million of people, how many are virtuous?

[@csfischer007]

Not if done through rational thought and an understanding that in order to act in a manner that is truly self-beneficial (as opposed to self-gratifying) one must develop, maintain, and protect one’s relationships within various collectives (i.e. family, communities, friendships, etc).

[@lambdasun4520]

@@csfischer007 bull****, most people are literally retarded and non-rational, imagine trying to convince them to care for the environment in a constructive way.

[@Hexilux]

Very well said

[@Anonyminded]

Well explained!

[@LucisFerre1]

This guy could have saved 3 minutes if he just said that individuals cooperating isn't the same thing as a collective or collectivism, and that voluntary trade and the division of labor are examples of individuals cooperating for self benefit as well as mutual benefit.

[@GregoryTheGr8ster]

Mr. Spock would say that your argument is illogical, especially your conclusion that a libertarian structure promotes child slavery. How would parents cause a corporation to be the legal guardian of their child? What regulation are parents free of?

[@LucisFerre1]

Well, throwing people in debtors prison won't recoup your finances. So there are other means of getting back what belongs to you. The best strategy is don't make loans to people with bad credit character. My prior comment was in reference to your silly notion about libertarians selling their children as slaves to corporations.

[@Mijn24]

Enlightenment values

[@prufenful]

what the hell is he arguing?

[@j.mccall4636]

good question. I don't usually use the word 'liberalism' and 'individualism' in the same sentence. Marx (et al) wanted a collective, not individualism. The title of the video (in description) says 'libertarianism,' not liberalism. Today's liberalism (which is not classical liberalism) = Leftism = Collectivism.

[@charlesdaloz2547]

@@j.mccall4636 what I don't get is how you can use the words "Karl Marx" and "liberalism" in (almost) the same sentence?? Also leftism = collectivism is huge bs

[@j.mccall4636]

@@charlesdaloz2547 Finally some engagement. :-) Well, firstly, the liberalism of today is not the classical liberalism of the 60s and 70s, which was all about free expression, free love, etc. Liberalism today has adopted the Leftist ideology (eg. antiFA/LABILTGQ). You know, the far left 'extremist' anti-capitalist colonizers terrorizing some of the major cities. There are videos online of them admitting they are Marxists. Lefties/Marxists are collectivists and examples abound online (i.e. antiFA, BLM). Maybe you should look into S.o.r.o.s. and where some of his $$ has gone. While your at it, look up Andy Ngo.

[@charlesdaloz2547]

@@j.mccall4636 well, I talk with far-left people all the time, and I can assure you that they don't identify as liberals (myself included). I don't live in the US but I know that the word liberal has essentially turned into a synonym for progressive, but at no point in my life have I seen an anti-capitalist liberal. I would say that those words are pretty contradictory, considering that economic liberalism is what led to laissez-faire capitalism. Anti-capitalist "colonizers"? Could you develop what you mean by that term? I call myself a communist (either Marxist or anarchist, not sure but it doesn't matter) and I strongly identify with the idea of political individualism, which is why I'm was little confused about your statement that Marxists are collectivists. I don't think Marxism is inherently collectivistic or individualistic.

[@j.mccall4636]

@@charlesdaloz2547 Hi Charles, apparantly, what/who people identify as these days when it comes to the Left 'changes' based on how one 'feels.' So I'm not sure using the word 'identify' is the correct choice of words. The Dems use the word 'progressive' so they sound appealing to the masses. As most of us wonder, progressing in what direction?? Classical liberalism and conservatism led to capitalism. If you are an individualist, I think that's great. We are all individuals before we are part of a group. I just don't know any people who consider themselves individualists and also agree with Marxist ideology. So, you're the first. As far as my statement about Marxists being collectivists, history has shown what happens when leaders accept Marxist ideology. Look at Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Hitler, Mao. All influenced by Marxist ideology. The state controls everything, including us. We will never accept that.

[@actwealthy]

Professor Aeon is Cool!

[@richardhill7050]

Individualism is important, but the idea of choice is just a fantasy. The argument in favor of a liberal concept of individualism is dependent upon free will, the idea that there is a conscious, non-deterministic source of human behavior. This is utterly incompatible with modern neurobiology or even honest subjective experience. In fact it's precisely because we can't choose who we are that individualism is important- we have a responsibility to express our individuality for the benefit of our community, and in return our community has a responsibility to provide us with the means to express our individuality to as great an extent as it can accommodate. Liberalism fails to provide either. Libertarian socialism affirms the importance of both.

[@2011is2012]

No but Humility is.

[@TopcatsLair]

YES

[@LucisFerre1]

Prohibition isn't coercion. Why am I still teaching you definitions?

[@calysagora3615]

How do you enforce prohibition? Why do I have to explain such simple basic shit to you?

[@LucisFerre1]

Collectivists erroneously confuse individualism with egoTism (as opposed to egoism), and that individualism is anti-cooperation. That's just ignorance.

[@angus7278]

220,000 US Covid deaths and rising. Thanks to un-cooperative individualism!

[@fernynandfer]

MONEY-printed matter of a value of PRINTED paper - IS A PROOF HOW JUST PIECE OF PAPER - WHEN ONLY - USED AS A PAYMENT FOR A REAL WORK BECOMES A REAL VALUE AND TO ME OF A LESSER VALUE THAN WRITTING "I OWE YOUS" ISSUED BY PERSON WITH INTEGRITY

[@GthemanTM]

Individualism and Collectivism are incorrectly put at odds. One cannot exist without the other, like freedom and equality. The most free society is one where one's liberty is only restricted by another's liberty, thus, everyone is equally free. At the same time, such a society would be based on voluntary associations, thus, everyone is freely equal. The most individualist social systems, namely, individualist anarchism, are socialistic in their nature. Mutualism, for example, is collectivist in the sense that all private property (the means of production) are commonly owned, but, at the same time, it is individualist in the sense that property still exists because individuals are entitled to all the products of their own labor and can trade those products on a free market. Radical individualism is necessarily collectivist, otherwise, it is just egoism, which creates hierarchy based on might, and that is not individualism, but further control of individuals. Individualism and collectivism are only at odds when people try to control them via the force of the state.

[@zazszdzfzgzhzjzkzlzx]

+Thought Criminal What if one of the products of your labour is a means of production, a factory, for example?

[@DennisForstner]

I don't think mutualism is at odds with capitalism either. Like you can have both in the sense that for some goods and services like roads, healthcare, defense, and security can be easier to afford if everyone voluntarily puts a portion of their income into a pool to buy these things. Market forces can work here as well since after the money is gathered it simply becomes a utilitarian choice as to which provider of services we won't, it's obvious that you would want the best provider for your budget. On a side note I believe the key difference between mutualism and socialism is that one is voluntary, mutualism, and the other isn't, socialism.

[@GthemanTM]

Dennis Forstner It is, by definition, at odds with capitalism, as mutualism seeks the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, the basis of a capitalist economy and all its ills (class society, the state, etc).

[@freedomwarrior7734]

+Thought Criminal You misunderstand the video. Voluntary association is not collectivism, since it is based on consent by individuals. Collectivism means that you force somebody to adhere to a certain collective.

[@GthemanTM]

Freedom Warrior Human biology forces people to adhere to collectives.

[@fullmetalfunk]

I am most definitely not a Libertarian but your argument is flawed. A parent selling their child into slavery would violate laws, not economic regulations.

[@tjhancock85]

right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...what is there to protect the people? what prevents me from taking from others to make my life more happy...nothing.... welcome to capitalist America...being poor in America is worse than being in prison....seriously...thats why so many people intentionally get locked up...remember the guy that robbed a bank for 1 dollar so he could get prison healthcare? or the homeless man that stole and got caught cuz it was cold outside?

[@VitaSineLibertatenih]

I second that

[@LucisFerre1]

How can you tell what libertarians fail at if you don't understand libertarianism? I'm going to stop feeding the troll now.

[@Damarcast]

Sure what the symbol represents is real, but that doesn't make in any way the symbol real aside from it being a real symbol. It's like confusing the map for the place. Not sure if you're trying to put words in my mouth, but I did not advocate no penalty. People with debt should be required to pay their debt, something like garnishing of wages of simple enough. Your choice of words concerns me. I think criminals need to be corrected. Punishment MAY be a part of it, but not the whole, nor the goal

[@5to22a]

Excellent

[@LucisFerre1]

Individualism is where the individual and individual rights are your primary value. Collectivism is where the collective is your primary value. Ergo in any collectivist system, there will be times when the collective or it's sundry leaders will want to sacrifice the individual and his rights for "the greater good" of the collective. Collectivism and individual rights are incompatible & irreconcilable. Time in the video would have been much better spent pointing this out.

[@BennoTheDutch]

Indeed - liberal still is right-wing over here though. We only have interventionists now...

[@EugeneAyindolmah]

We need conservative, collectivist, isolationist, nationalism

[@TheHollandHS]

Individualism and collectivism are two sides of a coin. Individualism can’t exist without collectivism, and collectivism can’t exist without individualism.

[@rash3158]

Look nice

[@wachyfanning]

Marx was not against individuals - the entire point was to allow free development of all individuals. Without being forced to sell your labour, you can choose whichever form of labour, whichever activity you want - engage in any community, or disassociate with any. The only "collectivist" aspect of it is that it would have the means of production be owned by all members of society, but that is the cost of individual freedom.

[@MegaTransfiguration]

In response to 'artbag'. Let's clarify a few things shall we. Individualism cannot be a myth because only the individual exists. I cannot breathe for you nor you for me. I cannot think for you nor you for me. I cannot walk upon you're legs nor you upon mine. I cannot live for you nor you for me. You stated: 'Why does an individual need a community'? Firstly, there is no such thing as a 'community'? The 'community' is a word concept; an image in the mind. The 'community' is not metaphysically real. The 'group' is not 'metaphysically real'. The 'Government' is not metaphysically real. The 'society' is not metaphysically real. ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL IS METAPHYSICALLY REAL. You cannot 'see' a 'community'. You cannot 'touch' a 'community'. The 'community' is an artificial construct. Put simply, it does not exist because the 'community' just renders itself down to the individual. In short, individuals voluntarily co-operate with one another in order to achieve common goals and purposes. For example, no single individual can build a skyscraper by themselves. It requires the voluntary co-operation of many individuals in order to achieve this common goal. But the point is this: the individual is not chained to collective action because he is free to walk away at any moment of his own choosing. The difference between individualism and collectivism is the difference between freedom and coercion. You cannot 'force' or 'threaten' an individual to make his contribution to the building of a skyscraper because you think that is what he should be doing. His own mind will do the working for him in this respect. This is why you are mistaken in you're belief that individualism is a myth. You are either free or you are not.

[@stuartdoyle4373]

I'm a staunch individualist, but this guy just doesn't make a good argument.

[@SL2797]

Care to explain?

[@stuartdoyle4373]

There's just literally not an argument here. He asserts that communities 'influence' rather than 'determine' our behavior. But causing behavior was never the main claim or argument of communitarians in the first place. Then he says 'we're all a little different' which again completely misses the communitarian's point. The parts of a whole can be different, but still exist fundamentally as parts, deriving their meaning from the whole. A good argument against communitarians exists, but not here.

[@asqirl8425]

@@stuartdoyle4373 Lark in Texas was interviewd yesterday about his opposition to Communitarianism by Lynn Davenport / Social Impact in Dalles Tx.

[@TheHollandHS]

Invidualism can't escape from collectivism, and collectivism can't escape from individualism.

[@LucisFerre1]

That's not initiation of force actually, and it's the same moral basis accepted worldwide and in most religions. And it's obvious that you don't know what coercion means. Go learn what libertarianism is actually about, then come back and talk to me, because now you're only qualified to be a troll.

[@handlecustom343]

LISTEN TO YOURSELF...YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE!!!

[@blazerider6]

Your example is flawed on the simple basis that you ignore the child's freedoms which are also guaranteed under Libertarian ideals. Try again.

[@yydd4954]

This should be the political spectrum No right left shit Simply collectivism and Individualism

[@baph0met]

It is that way

[@yydd4954]

@@baph0met nope nationalism is seen as right and it's collectivism

[@baph0met]

@@yydd4954 Who tf sees nationalism as a right or as being right?

[@yydd4954]

@@baph0met it is seen right Fascism and Nazism all are seen far right

[@yydd4954]

@@baph0met nationalist and leftist don't find much common ground but are simply collectivists

[@MikkelClairNissen]

Individualism and collectivism intertwine. However, individualism is not collectivism, yet individualism is always collectivistic. So your perception of individualism is deeply flawed.

[@GregoryTheGr8ster]

Husband: "Honey, I'm home! What's new today?" Wife: "I have good news, and I have better news!" Husband: "Awesome! Let's start with the good news." Wife: "Ok, I'm pregnant again." Husband: "Hurray! In 9 months, we will be able buy a new car. What relief these babies bring to our finances! Honey, I love your reproductive organs." Wife: "And don't forget the better news." Husband: "Oh my, that's right! Well, what is it?" Wife: "I'm having twins!" Husband: "The free market is the best!"

[@LucisFerre1]

Your post is devoid of facts and rife with well-poisoning. Can't you do better?

[@Artbag1]

Why does an individual need a community? Well look around you, did you build your house, if you did, did you make the bricks and mortar, did you build your car or do you drive the bus to work, did you grow your food and did you bring it to market? Being an individual is impossible. People need each other, you can't even start your own family as an individual. This notion of individualism is a myth

[@thejking]

You don't need community for getting things done. Yes people need each other but that doesn't mean they need to be in the same collective.

[@Artbag1]

thejking You must be very rich and powerful and in a position to exploit people. Because the only defence against exploitation of the wage slaves is collective power, what else do we have? If you can't see how beeing an isolated individual makes you a target for exploitation, then at some time in your live you will be exploited.

[@thejking]

Artbag1 Yes collective power is all there is. However i still see everyone in such a collective as an individual who might stand against others in the collective on other points. Making the collective not really a collective.

[@Artbag1]

yes like you said individuals might stand against each other, and they do to such an extent that people are isolated and powerless.

[@Artbag1]

thejking yes like you said individuals might stand against each other, and they do to such an extent that people are isolated and powerless.

[@stephenbailey9969]

Those are nonsense polarities. Every society is a mix of individual autonomy and collective action. Even the Right calls for collective action when it is in their interests to do so.

[@sand2698]

Bias

[@Sp4cemuffin]

69th comment

[@2011is2012]

Individualism is driven by monetary reward, Collectivism is driven by self reward. Collectivism promotes collective and individual greatness for the betterment of man kind not ones self.

[@Notsorandomnumbers]

why do i care about your individuality. if seizing the means of production is in my best interest, i will do it

[@MrE517]

+Dustin Sherwood You don't have to care about another person's individuality, but seizing the means of production is categorically not in your best interest. The extended order of decentralized means of production not only represents the free expression of the will of others, but also proportionately increases your own utility. Unless you assume your irrational, subjective, intransitive preferences, which change in time, are the premier factor in deciding what is best for you, always, then you have to conclude that a definitive increase in your utility/opportunity to fulfill your best interest is in your best interest. If you have an end that you wish to arrive at, the means to that end must follow a logically sound causal chain to get there, or you are definitively doing something other than what you set out to do. If what you set out to do was a supposed "best interest", then doing something else is not automatically in your best interest. In short, you don't know what you want, you're just destructively guessing.

[@mrsspidermonkey1691]

+Dustin Sherwood How did that work out for Venezuela?

[@ExtractEngineer]

This is the kind of question an actual sociopath would ask. Get help.

[@goblue2155]

Individualism puts us against each other in society

[@baph0met]

Correct, that's why it's great. Competition creates progress and wealth. Collectivism equals stagnation and poor society.

[@linusschmutz3985]

Thats why law and order and the golden rule are so important. Individualism turns into anarchy without it.

[@baph0met]

@@linusschmutz3985 Anarchy is the best system.

[@linusschmutz3985]

@@baph0met Induvidualism is good as long as the material property of your next is not harmed. But their has always to be the right to harm the spiritual thoughts of your next thats how it works.

[@baph0met]

@@linusschmutz3985 What?

[@LucisFerre1]

Troll.

[@SwampDonkey64]

Individualism is an ideology of collectivism. So safe to say that when their became more than one individual individualism ceased to exist. It's collaboration of the masses /collectivism that creates government. It is up to the ideology of that collectivism that determines individualism. Because individualism no longer existed and needed to be redefined. Because to be truly individual one would have to live in a world where there were no other individuals. So comparing collectivism to individualism is like comparing apples to oranges.

[@LamentationsEnd]

Capitalists arguing for individualism. Lol.

[@steveryan1799]

LamentationsEnd You mean Collectivists arguing for individualism? Man I wish you could use italics.

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

Capitalism is so much intertwined with individualism that its almost impossible to segregate the two. If you want to do the same.just for the sake of doing it, since its a futile exercise, then you have to go back to the days even beyond the Sumerian/Mesopotamian civilizations, in the days of barter economy. Because when money is removed as an intermediary from human interactions, what we all have left with is just moving men with men.

[@redwings02]

Poor sociology if you ask me.

[@aheetmopwho4180]

This garbage is wrong in so many ways