Individualism vs. Collectivism – Learn Liberty
Articles Blog

Individualism vs. Collectivism – Learn Liberty

January 18, 2020


One of the defining characteristics of philosophical
liberalism is the idea of individualism. Each person is an autonomous individual deserving
of respect and dignity equal to that of all others, which entails the freedom to pursue
ends of his or her own design provided that this doesn’t abrogate the similar freedom
of others. But aren’t we social creatures? Don’t
we need community in order to flourish? And if the answer is yes, does that mean that
individual rights are a big mistake? Actually it’s true that we’re social creatures,
but this doesn’t imply that individualism is a mistake. Karl Marx claimed that our identities
are constituted entirely by our socioeconomic class and that autonomy was an illusion. The
prevailing economic system determines how you think. The liberal project was flawed,
Marx said, because it caused people to have false ideas about labor, capital, society,
even our own selves. Mussolini also claimed that the liberal project was flawed because
it caused people to have false ideas about labor, capital, society, and our own selves,
but his claim was that our identity was constituted and determined not by class but by our ethnicity. These days few defend these claims, but it’s
a lot more common to claim that the community determines our identity, and that liberalism
is a flawed project. This is sometimes called the communitarian argument against liberal
individualism. But what is the community? We’re all members of many different communities
simultaneously: family, town, ethnicity, region, nation, religion. In addition to these, we
become members of communities through our interests and affiliations, professions, hobbies,
sports loyalties, and other manifestations of our preferences. To be sure, all these
things play a role in helping shape who we become. But it’s a stretch to say that any
of them trumps any of the others or that the process is deterministic. Communitarianism seems to elide the distinction
between influencing and determining. We still make choices about our values and actions
despite there being many influences on our thinking. If you had to do everything yourself,
you’d never get anything done. Being part of a community allows us to divide labor and
benefit from specialization in trade. Besides the economic benefits of social living,
we also need friendships and culture and entertainment. But we get these benefits from social living
because we’re individuals. One reason society has so much to offer is that we’re all a
little different. The great diversity of human interests and talents and preferences is a
testimony to our individualism, and society just is the manifestation of these differences
as they’re brought together. If everyone thought the same way and liked all the same
things, society would be a much less interesting place. So the idea that to protect community
we need to stop thinking of people as autonomous individuals is getting it backwards. If we
really care about the wellbeing of communities and preserving the way that society contributes
to human flourishing, we ought to keep in mind the unique and autonomous individuals
that make it up.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. In a Libertarian society there is no regulation of economic activity. A parent's responsibility to a child is as much an economic arrangement as anything else, and in most societies in the past selling children into indenture/slavery has proven to be a chosen way to pay debt in solidly free market societies. If people are free to make any economic arrangement they choose, why not sell their kids to pay off the house ? Why are libertarians so unwilling to consider these things ?

  4. 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!"

  5. 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.

  6. Now to clarify, what I mean by free market is a society where there is little or no regulation of economic activity apart from taxation. One of the most libertarian socieites on Earth today is Dominican Republic, and it has plenty of cases where parents traffick their kids. Somalia is an anarchy, and it has child trafficking. Where regulation is removed, the slavers move in. You many not consider parent-child relationships to be economic, but that doesn't mean you're correct.

  7. Consider if you will, that money is merely a symbol for individual freedom, as it allows one to do as one pleases. Doesn't a bad debtor effectively deprive the creditor of part of their freedom ? Isn't freedom a basic right ? So shouldn't someone who deprives another of their freedom find their own freedom forfeit and their debts be recovered ?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Money is only a symbol, but what that symbol represents is very real. It is a symbol of labor that the deserving recipient performed and the value that labor is worth to the community at large. What you are advocating is that a person who doesn't return value for value should receive no penalty. That is a recipe for the collapse of civilization for it destroys the trust we have in currency and by extension, our trust in the system and in each other. Criminals must be punished.

  11. 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

  12. We have made money a commodity and a law unto itself. Money is transcendent. It is a symbol that is to all intents and purposes a reality.

    You say garnishing wages, but what if the person will never repay their debt at their current rate of income if they gave up all their wages every week for 200 years ? This is all-too-common a phenomenon.

    Some crimes cannot be corrected, they can only be punished to deter others from a similar course. Freedom is ultimately about responsibility.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. "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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. So how do you manage to recoup debts from people who lack the ability to pay ? Or do you think that a plague of con artists is desirable ?

  22. 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.

  23. It isn't a silly notion at all to suppose that parents who own the legal right to guardianship of their children cannot sell that right to an individual or corporation. If the corporation's idea of guardianship is to work the children to death, that is too bad for the kid in Libertarian system. Similarly, it is far easier to turn a bad debtor into a slave… What can I say ? Libertarianism will eventually endorse slavery as a free market solution to many problems.

  24. It's not only silly, it's stupid. Parents have legal guardianship, not ownership of children. And no, libertarians will never endorse slavery because it's predicated upon liberty and nonaggression. If you come here just to make up absurdities and hate, then you're sick in the head. It's obvious that you understand very little about libertarianism.

  25. 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.

  26. Legal Guardianship. But without a fixed notion of Law provided by the state and the political process, that is all up for grabs in the Libertarian future, isn't it ? Who are you to say what other people's moral and financial decisions will be ? Surely a parent with bad debts could be persuaded to release their parental rights to a corporation as a valid Libertarian decision of individual economic choice ? Humanity itself will be reduced to a financial transaction.

  27. No, you just don't like hearing how the entire arc of human civilization has been to avoid the horrors that the chaos that "Libertarianism" inflicts on real people's lives. The Mafia is a good example of what Libertarianism looks like in the real world. So are periods of horror and anarchy such as are taking place in Somalia right now. As to the example of people selling their kids, that is a reality of the unrestricted free market playing out in the 3rd World today. No jokes.

  28. You're a mental midget. The non-coercion policy is at the heart of libertarianism, so the "Mafia" can't be libertarian, Charley. And the idea behind anarchy isn't chaos, the idea is that civilized people don't need a nanny state to cope with reality and other civilized people.

  29. MY point is that the idea of non-coercion has never worked, will never work and indeed cannot work. Without a threat of coercive force there is no way to stop crime. Without a powerful independent arbiter of law that can exercise coercive force, crime becomes subjective, crime becomes in the eye of the beholder, as does property. Ultimately crime becomes what the leader of the most dangerous armed gang says it is. That is the truth of Libertarianism in the real world.

  30. 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.

  31. If non-coercion policy is the heart of Libertarianism then Libertarianism is broken at its core. Without coercion there can be no law, and without law there is no respect for personal property, or persons for that matter.

  32. Prohibition without a coercive threat is meaningless. It is almost an enticement to break the prohibition. Grief, Communism is a completely stupid and unworkable ideology, but next to Libertarianism it looks like the wisdom of the ages. You guys fail most outrageously at understanding human nature.

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

  34. I am not a troll, the trolling here is the idea that Libertarianism is somehow a credible approach to managing a society. Libertarianism has no grasp of how people actually behave when they are allowed to negotiate their own financial destiny without social sanction or coercion. The answer is robbery, slavery, armed gangs, and corpses in the streets. People will not just accept a prohibition that lacks any credible teeth any more than an industry will meaningfully self regulate.

  35. [[I am not a troll,]]

    Of course you are a troll. You continue to portray libertarians as something they're not, and contrive strawman arguments based on these idiotic falsehoods. You're the poster-child of TROLL.

  36. Contrived arguments be damned. You are using ad hominem here, you aren't answering my points, you're attacking the person. That is because Libertarianism's argument is total bullshit and you know it. You can't defend it, because it is indefensible, so you have to attack the man who points out its implausibility.

  37. You are ducking the truth. How can you seriously convince yourself that Libertarianism would be anything other than a total unmitigated criminal disaster if implemented ? Oh wait, if laws are voluntary, then who is truly a criminal ? It's a recipe for a nightmare !

  38. Still not addressing the points made. Putting your fingers in your ears and going "lalala" is not going to magically make Libertarianism true, it's just going to keep YOU ignorant. You haven't made a single comment to try to credibly address the holes in Libertarian theory I have pointed out. People will not magically become nice in a Libertarian world, and your system relies on that happening. It's a stupid ideology.

  39. 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?

  40. Not quite, what I am saying that in the absence of socially agreed laws backed by coercive means (not necessarily used, but definitely present), people have a record of running amok, and that is a bad thing. When I speak about human nature it is to point out that a toothless "prohibition" is no disincentive, and will be ignored or mocked. People have a record of self regulating only as much as they NEED to, not as much as is actually responsible. It can't be relied upon.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. I think you are right. I find it impossible to divorce government and society, but then I come from a country where we lack the paranoid Border Scottish mindset that fears all government that is so prevalent in the USA. I have always regarded a working government to be a natural extension of the society and values that elect it. I see the real danger is that concentration of wealth by and unregulated free market will undermine government through bribery and install an aristocracy.

  44. 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.

  45. Collectivism says society solely controls you so lets have an organized control through totalitarianism to maximize society, aka progress society. Economic and social free markets vs centralized planned society is the heart of the political divide.

  46. The argument is choice vs slavery.

    In a mixed economy you have a choice for collectivism, in communist societies you are forced into collectivism for the wealth of the state.

  47. 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?

  48. 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?

  49. 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

  50. Individualism expresses the political nihilism disguised as economic freedom that entitles the privileged to take pleasure in viewing the spectacle of human misery imposed on those they view as moral inferiors. If you invert the world by peering thru the looking glass of Libertarian ideology you will find that it is servitude and humiliation for the many that raises the moral standing of those who profit from it.

  51. 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.

  52. I only distrust the American objectivist liberals because among them there are so many extreme right wingers, i. e. racists, homophobic, creationist, anti alcohol, anti tobacco, anti marihuana, anti gay marriage, anti immigration and poor literate.  

  53. THE DIRECTION OF AMERICA!  COLLECTIVISM!
    Collectivism is a political theory associated with communism. a moderate evolutionary form of Marxism a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. More broadly, it is the idea that people should prioritize the good of society over the welfare of the individual.
    Collectivism — so closely related to the word collection — has to do with political theories that put the group before the individual. In a collectivist system, power should be in the hands of the people as a whole, not in the hands of a few powerful folks. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Ideally, in a collectivist society, decisions benefit all the people. This is a difficult idea to put into practice, as seen in the attempted collectivist society of Soviet communism.
    Collectivism is a social psychological term that relates to the manner in which humans identify themselves and prioritize their goals. Collectivism, which is the opposite of individualism, focuses on the priorities of the group and not the individual. In a collectivist society, people identify themselves with the goals of the group much more so than the goals of individuals. Collectivism also focuses on things such as fitting into the group, behaving in ways that are line with social norms, group solidarity, and gaining a sense of identity from being part of the group. America is a more individualistic country (we do value individualism) whereas many Asian countries place a greater value on collectivism.

  54. Commentary on the current situation in Russia
    "I have been anticipating this moment for 27 years;

    that is, the moment when the Russians
    would pull off their democratic Halloween
    mask and reveal their totalitarian face.

    I have never had the illusion that America
    or the West would “wake up” before the
    Kremlin leaders had gained a critical advantage.

    At the same time I do not believe they will prevail in the end.

    When nearly everyone realizes what has
    happened the whole world will crave an accounting.

    What is written here is a small attempt toward that goal.

    It is not a matter of blaming anyone, but of
    pulling ideas and people together at the eleventh hour.

    Whatever disaster befalls us, we are better
    equipped to face the odds when we possess
    a clear picture of what went wrong.

    This picture must include a detailed account
    of that fatal and seductive optimism which even
    now prevents a full understanding of the problem we face.

    The leaders of the West could not change course
    because the logic of our civilization is the logic of
    economic optimism. Of course, economic optimism
    is itself necessary to economic success.

    Such optimism is generally good except
    it completely fails when confronting an enemy.

    The fiasco was a quarter of a century in the
    making, and now it is time to replace
    economic optimism with political realism.

    Do not be fooled by the apparent strength of the
    enemy; for just as the enemy’s weakness was a
    partial facade, so is the enemy’s current strength.

    Politically organized psychopaths,
    however clever or ruthless they might be,
    can only succeed if we surrender to them.

    And we must never do such a thing."

    Excerpted from an article by Jeff Nyquist

    http://www.jrnyquist.com/psychopath-part-3.html

    www.jrnyquist.com

  55. I think your viewers might be interested in my video "The Need for Individualism".  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp3eDa62nB4

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. Collectivism is just an expression of control forced upon the free by sociopaths.

    People who Believe they have an arbitrary right!, to literally own a portion of you, just because They say We.
    They Hate the idea of individuality, because it takes control of Your life from their hands, and gives it back to You.
    They usually come from privileged background's, with a very strong sense of entitlement.
    They are Entitled to a portion of your life simply because they included themselves to it. Rejection of their control over your life is seen as oppression.
    Collectivist indoctrination is predominantly self inflicted, you take kids from backgrounds, where they never knew want, and you sit them down and tell them their oppressed. You tell them that freedom can only be had by fallowing Group Think.
    And that anything less then strict adherence to left wing political dogma is oppression.

    There can be no case made for collectivism, without the collectivist in control of your life. It's as simple as that.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

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

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

  63. Individualism is a farce. Strong communities make strong individuals, and strong individuals are recognized and given meaning within the context of their collective identity. A strong collective beats a strong individual, and a great individual with no collective to draw recognition and identity from isn't even any good for himself.

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

  65. 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”

  66. Examples of collectivist societies; China, Japan, South Korea, Germany and to an extent, Australia. Collectivism is the idea that you should work for your people not yourself. In South Korea the people were starving, poor and badly educated but instead of being selfish and only caring for themselves, the people decided that they needed to make the lives of the next generation better, they worked endlessly for 40 years to give the next generation a better shot at life and now South Korea is one of the richest countries on Earth. Individualism is selfish while collectivism is selfless.

    Liberals want a world where they are able to anything they want even if it makes other people's lives horrible. So they talk about individual rights. In other words, Liberalism is equality of inequality. Freedom of speech allows the powerful to drown out the voices of the weak, a right to bear arms allows a select few to impede on others right to safety and a right to religion gives special privileges to a select few just because they believe in certain ideas. Collectivism is the Idea that you hurt one of us, you hurt all of us. Because nothing is weaker than the simple strength of one, but together we are strong!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *