Where do you draw the line between individualism and collectivism?

Most people would agree that you don't want either complete anarchy or excessive and totalitarian central planning, but where do you draw the line between the two?

With my dick

Every individual has their natural rights, and collectivism that doesn't infringe on those rights is fine.

why don't other animals respect other animal's natural rights?

I'll answer it because rights are the creation of man therefore it is not in the sphere of Nature,

No individual has rights he must fight and struggle and assert his dominance over others then he can create his own rights

Stupid ancaps and their rights.

Everyone should be purely for individualism.
individuals can make their own decisions as to what they want to do, whether it is to help others, or help themselves.

>why don't other animals respect other animal's natural rights?
Animals can't think rationally; they live on instinct and primal urges. If you think men should be primitive, more power to you.

Small government most of the time, only go full authoritarian when physically removing leftists.

But we can't entirely think rationally either.

At the US constitution

At Kenyes.

But we are capable of rational thought at least most/part of the time, so you're comment doesn't really mean anything.

actually hot musclefus are top tier

The U.S constitution Guarantees Rights but who will back it up, not the politicians. not the liberals. Not the republicans and their fire power. its a piece paper that gives the illusion of civility and order. we live in a state of controlled chaos.

Or harm others

Rational thought has nothing to do with the morals and philosophy behind concepts like "natural rights"

In the past yes, but I highly doubt that now. like I said the concept of rights is a creation of man and in no way does it fall in the realm of nature.

i would destroy her

My problem with extreme collectivism is that it often opts to throw out empathy altogether in order to create an ideal society. And by that I mean purging, either by exile or execution, those deemed to be defective, weak, or useless to the society. Are we not supposed to love our own? What happens when your own child is the "defective" one?

The only natural concept is that me and my kin has to survive and if you are in the way you have to be removed, so you are no longer a threat to the social cohesion and health of my Tribe/Clan/Nation the same goes for a dissident member of said tribe/clan/ etc..

You are a part of the universe, you are a part of nature

What happens to defective creature in nature?

>Anonymous
>appeal to nature
>compares himself to mere beasts
>calls ancaps stupid
Following your "logic", It's no wonder you're a collectivist.

We're not animals you morally deficient fuck.

Post moar of this semen demon

If you can't rationalize why you have rights to other people, will they respect your rights?

Collectivism happens when the elite considers their subordinates as mere cogs in the state machinery whose function is to serve them. Its true for NatSoc and for communism.

>excessive collectivism

You are gay if you like women who look like men.

Get of your horse, my morals are radically different but that doesn't mean they are wrong.

draw the line for everyone where you would draw it for yourself. If you want more liberty and security of your property, then grant the same to everyone.

>that
>looking like a male
you are a degenerate insecure cuck if you don't find her hot as fuck

animals don't go to school... or eat with forks...or develop medicines to live longer...or walk on their hind legs. I guess we have all been living wrong.

Empathy isn't just something you can ignore. Doing so would be a total undermining of human nature. All humans experience it against their own will, except maybe autists. Which would explain why there's so many wannabe fascists on Sup Forums.

Full individualism.
I would kill all of world's population if it would give me one more year of life

Youre strawmanning. You can recognize man is both semi rational and semi irrational, and that even our most logically derived ideas often stem from a real need to increase survivability

You have a moral responsibility to take care of the people you love. The problem with individualism is that it neglects this.
You have a moral responsibility to take care of your own life. The problem with collectivism is that it neglects this.

Both are ways to escape your responsibilities.

I would also like to add that I wasn't arguing that rational thought is what gives us rights; I was arguing that animals don't respect rights because they live only on instinct.

I do have empathy, I would like help bring in a world where no child has to be born with down syndrome, or having to be born with ichthyosis or being born with a conditions that robs you of a full life.

No line needs to be drawn. the goal of the collective should be the benefit of the individual. and the goal of the individual should be the benefit of the collective. if everyone does what is best for others, everyone will receive the greatest possible benefit, making this behavior in the best interest of every individual. No force can make this happen. must be totally voluntary. this is the only way to true peace and prosperity.

Thats precisely what differentiates man from beast. Animals live a ruthless life subject to the predations of one another constantly fighting for survival because... well, they are animals. They are not sapient and dont know any better.

But we are not beasts. We can organize societies in such a way that benefits the majority without subjecting people to outright predation of others.

Fascists and commie fucks might pull off some bullshit argument about how "nations are living organisms constantly eating each other" or how "capitalism predates on the working class" because they need a common enemy to rally people around them and make them appear somewhat useful.

Sure, but you do not live in a vacuum. Individualism is what makes pensioned boomers waste all the remains of their money because their grandchildren will always be provided for by the safety-net of the welfare state.

Individualism is what logically makes sense but individuals have never accomplished anything ever.

All of human history has been made by groups of people working together. They may not all agree but if they agree on enough then they change things.

To make this clear. Isaac Newton may have shut himself off and is a key example of someone with genuine individualistic tendencies. But Newton didn't publish his findings by himself, there was an entire system established by a collection of people that evaluated, accepted and disseminated his work. His basis for his work was built off the findings of those who came before him. He existed in a society made up of people.

Individualism accomplishes nothing. If people don't form a collective then the property that do form the collective while enforce what they want. Might makes right.

You need your individual rights to not forfeit your collective/national responsabilities.
You also need your collective/national responsabilities to not jeopardize your individual rights.

If you can reach that balance, that's where the good shit is at.

I can't criticize captialism because I have no alternative to it.

I was mocking the suggestion that we should govern men on the systems of nature. Men are NOT animals...or perhaps one would prefer to say that men are unique animals. As you say, men are both rational and irrational. If we were all rational we would not need governance. If we were all irrational then no governance would work. Great thinkers have come before us - the Greeks, Romans, American founders, and even today we have many inspirational thinkers. But 4chaners do not read. Most here probably don't even know who Thomas Sowell is

She'd probably destroy you!

>individuals have never accomplished anything ever

Free enterprise built America. As a whole (overall) they are not such a shit nation, wouldnt you agree?

The same way the mercantile class surpassed the old aristocracy at some point. So much for absolute monarchies. That doesnt mean though that we should all be ancap assholes living in Somalia or 1980's Robocops Detroit. It requires some balance.

And do you see me blame any other race,ethnicity,peoples,group,clique. or are you stamping me a stereotypical goosestepping fatass with steel toe boots and lether jacket.

Yes.
Otherwise they wouldn't still be a thing in our societies.

I guess I need to learn what you define as "defective". Is having opinions that differ from the societal norm defective? What about being gay? Or contracting diabetes or some other incurable illness? To what extent would you punish people for being "defective"?

>All of human history has been made by groups of people working together
Individuals work together. Try and do a complicated task as a group. It is nearly impossible. What groups do is delegate tasks to individuals.

I agree but when will that ever happen? Outside of a tribal govt

Being born with a genetic condition is punishment enough and frankly don't give a shit about gays. there are more important things then giving a shit about who you like to fuck.

these femdom fetishes are so laughable when you're 3 times larger than most beta cuck boys

On diabetes, its your fault if you contracted it, don't blame society for your weak will.

Pre-civil war America (before federalism picked up) was pretty shit.

They work together to decide what to delegate, no?
Complicated tasks are what move us forward, but the general functions that keep society whole are very much a collective effort.

interesting point. But you start out talking about accomplishments, by which I assume, you mean productivity. Then at the end you shift to security and loosely connect the two. Both points are true. Society advances by the voluntary cooperation of many. It is made possible by the members agreeing to be governed by the same set of rules.

Individualism is cancer and is the sole responsible factor for the decay and collapse of modern society. It's an American principle and completely unEuropean, enforced on us after decades of US occupation.

defective to me means that you are so incredibly mentaly physically crippled that keeping you alive is burdensome

So what do you suppose we do to those who can't support themselves, for some reason or another? Do we develop safety nets to take care of them, or do we let them wither away and die? It seems like the former would be impossible in a truly collectivist society.

Get off the high horse. Most know who Sowell is but play dumb. What we suggest is recognizing what aspects of our lives are dominates by naturalistic incentives, such as breeding patterns and in-group preference. If your rational system doesnt take our animal side into consideration, then its NOT rational, its utopian and deadly

The individualist only seeks to stimulate his own senses. The collectivist expect others to provide for that stimuli.

Isaac Newton was neither. He dedicated his life, not to himself, but to further civilization. He saw the responsibility to provide for others, but he did not expect anything in return. That is how civilizations are build; it is the result of individuals that leave behind more than they started with in life. There is no logical construction that creates civilized world, only great men that perused goals beyond their own human lives.

He might not really fall off from both. He could very well "stimulate his own senses" by "furthering civilization". If not him, at least others might.

>I honestly dont know his personal life though

There's not just one "line". There's line upon line upon line. Most people would probably agree that murder is a bad thing and should be illegal. Most people would probably agree that deception for the purpose of gaining/stealing money is a bad thing and should be illegal. On the other hand, what about drug/alcohol use? What about abortion? What about the death penalty? While murder and fraud would easily be agreed on by most, I'd wager most people would not be able to agree on all of the other tertiary issues like drugs, abortion, and the death penalty.

You are nature, dumb ass
you're built out of it
You are an animal, everyone is, the human kind

You are a hypocrite because you are on the internet benefiting from collectivist enabled platform, eating food you sure as fuck didn't farm yourself

I doubt your rules apply to yourself. You are an individual and will violently defend your rights to freely act as such. You do not want to be judged as a group, be forced to live with a group, be fed gruel like cattle on a farm, or be stripped of the individual freedoms, choices, or properties that you hold dear. You ARE what you claim to hate.

I think I'm talking more about individualism vs collectivism intellectually. Like free-thought vs parties.

The political concepts are different and I don't really care about that. The argument seems to be skewed against "collectivism" since it implies that it's some faceless group that's benefiting instead of people. Both idealogies believe they will benefit the individual more in the end just by some different means.

lets say a person who has become physically crippled on the job or in an accident or other wise.. then I agree with a safety net, but a person who had the opportunity to turn choose a different path such as Drug addicts, the obese, violent criminals none whats so ever. On the defective by birth like down sydrome or any other genetic defectiveness shouldn't even be born brutal but thats what i think.

It might be, but the point is really that individualism is selfish and irresponsible, and that collectivism is tyranny. You have a personal responsibility for yourself and the people you love, but your will should never stretch further than your fingertips.

Wrong on all aspects.

I think you are wrong. Most here are not well read. They are drooling apes too lazy to roll out of bed in the morning and selfish enough to think that they are entitled to free breakfast in bed. THAT is why freedom works. The lazy drooling apes get what they deserve

if it came to something like cancer that can be developed even if you were perfectly healthy when born should have a safety as well.

Again with the strawmen. All those of us with a balanced view want is a common shared identity that unites us against foes who would take our land or women, as has happened thru all of history. Tribes beat isolated individuals every time. Individual Rights and Collective Identity are not mutually exclusive. In fact they protect eachother from outside forces.

interesting point. The vagaries of this broad discussion make it difficult to detect the real outcome though. Collectivism is such a benign word. How does one collect people?

I think I misjudged you a bit; you're not as much of an extremist as I thought. My only fear with your line of thinking is that what's deemed as a genetic "defect" can be as arbitrary as you make it to be.

Soooo... you DO want to have your freedoms taken away? You WANT your property taken by the state? bullshite

This is precisely why the individualist vs collectivist argument seems to be misguided at best.

A truly collectivist society would not sponsor drains on their own society. A practical and logical collectivist society would eliminate this detrimental figure. You're looking at modern society today with their modern morals that justify the welfare states all across the west and project that onto any collectivist society.

The individualist society would be indifferent to this figure and they would suffer at the result of their own actions.

Your nihilistic, Darwin-esque idea of "freedom" isn't what the Founding Fathers believed.
Most knew that individual people or even separate groups of people weren't capable of functioning together without higher governance to dictate what they're allowed to do.
That's why they scrapped the Articles of Confederation.
and why the South was never gonna win the civil war.

if you cannot reproduce after adolescence because of genetics that is defective.

This is the problem of using these vague words. When you say collectivism you probably mean the voluntary coming together of individuals to achieve an end. But the National Bullshitevik was (I believe) advocating for state imposed collectivism. He suggested that American form of individuality was not a form of collectivism - which would no doubt be news for all the companies, universities, institutions, and clubs in the States.

Freedom to do what? For women to spend their years fucking around? For society to completely degenerate and for us to get taken over by gyppos? My country is an ex-communist one, and I can tell you, under communism things were way better, and people preferred it that way too. The only reason we fell is because of a CIA-imposed coup, something that has been well-documented. The same thing happened in Russia too. Yeltsin was forced through even though he only had a 4% approval rating while the communists were extremely popular.

>foes who would take our land or women

Who says anything is "yours".

You, sir, are a genius. I mean it. That is really the point. Take this British Hospital that is killing baby Charlie Gard. In a collectivist society that is acceptable. We are all property of the state and it would be poor governance for the state to allow the existance of this burdonsome bundle of cells. He costs too much. Why should the state pay so much for an unproductive member? Collectivism brought to its natural conclusion is just a fancy word for cattle farming.

If I had a genetic condition that rendered me inactive intellectually and physically then that would be defective, if it brought me a subpar standard of living that would be defective. if I was born a burden with no societal reward that would be defective.

Interesting comparison.
I didn't realize cattle get to freely elect their handlers.

not sure what in my words you think suggest otherwise. You said it very well. The Founding Fathers believed rightly that governments function was to protect the freedoms of the citizens. I agree

Leave it to a Bolshevik to call someone cattle.

MIRIN

"Functioning together" doesn't imply anything about the so-called freedoms of individual citizens.

>Collectivism brought to its natural conclusion is just a fancy word for cattle farming

But WHERE do you draw the line? On her face? her ass? His ass?

be honest. Under communism people were less productive, less responsible, and lived drab gray lives in drab gray apartment buildings. Your grandmother stood in food lines. Your grandfather bent under the whips of task masters (or perhaps he was one of the lucky task master lords). Communism was only paradise for the few at the top.

and this is why i have such disdain for materialist.

Why are you telling it to me? Reply to him.

The PEOPLE who actually LIVED during those times say otherwise. Accept that there's more than one way to look at things. Many societies willingly (and rightfully) brought in collectivism. Individualism was FORCED onto us by the USA.

The collective exists as a manifestation of individual capabilities, but it is a common resource that must be managed to avoid hedonistic exploitation. That is, those individuals whose actions would together destroy a nation, should be restrained or killed.

Individualism is the ideal, but collectivism is a must to provide stability for said individualism--look at how whites' pathological altruism (out-group, non-collective preference) and low group consciousness is working out now.

This is why I'm a National Socialist.

Communism ruined Russia.

t. ethnic Russian burger, grandma tried to join the Luftwaffe to fight you bastards

Although I agree with the principles of living light, I find that those who disdain materialism are often obsessed by it. Many don't really hate the concept of ownership, they just hate that others have more than they do. Not suggesting you are the same...just observing

Ethinic Russian Burger or Burgher

If bolsheviks didn't get rid of the Romanovs, Russia would be like the modern US and UK. Degenerate, hedonistic, overly individualistic. Romanovs themselves represented libertine culture.

HAHHAHHAHHAHAHA
GOMMIE RETARDS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
THIS
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH

good point, but obsession is not the right word to describe my troubles but it is decadence