Should the rights of groups supersede the rights of individuals?

Should the rights of groups supersede the rights of individuals?

Yes because in the grand scheme of things the group is vital to the survival of the individual

Always

Sauce please. Who is this Cum Queen?

no idiot

Do you think her father is proud of her?

No. Fuck off with your collectivism europoor.

Should a serial killer's desire to kill be superseded by other people's wish to live?

Might makes right and there is strength in numbers. You do the math.

MOM! GET THE CAMERA!

A LEAF MADE A GOOD POST!

FIRST POST TOO!

FUCK GROUPS. GET RICH, GET POWERFUL. BE TRUMP. GROUPS ARE LAZY COMMUNIST LEACHES LED BY FUCKING HILLARY CLINTON-ESQUE MONSTERS, EVERYTIME.

i didnt say i think so either, retards

ok so if you are a part of some group, but you disagree with most people in that group, you should just get fucked? your opinion on that particular matter should just be irrelevant?

some slut.... reverse google image should...Sierra Skye

>tfw you will never impregnate such a woman

tell that to communists

successful countries are the ones that protect the sanctimony of the individual, as it incentivizes obtaining personal wealth, thereby creating economic prosperity. collectivism always leads to economic stagnation, and therefore is inferior to individuality

No, but they inevitably will. Groups do not face pain, groups don't serve prison sentences. Only individuals do. Ask yourself genuinely if you would sacrifice yourself or a loved one just because your "group" saw that as a necessary price to pay. I wouldn't.

more then yours is of you

I'm pretty sure if you're here today it's because it worked in the past regardless of common opinions.
It is vital.

Do you obey traffic laws? Do you reduce speed when driving in a residential area vs a highway?
Then whether you believe in principle that individuals matter more than the group, you're still exercising value of the group in practice. You could claim that you only observe these laws to prevent getting fines or being arrested, but the law itself exists to protect the group, not the individual.

Yes, because he's probably the one who took her virginity

if there had never been individalism, canada would still be a part of france. USA would still be a part of england, and soforth. collectivism is the tyranny of the majority. i bet most french people thought canada should stay a part of the empire, and not secede. under that kind of a system, there is hardly any room for any kind of growth, as individual rights (and consequently property rights) are secondary to collectivist ideologies. and so any wealth you produce is not necessarily your own, and so you as an individual lack incentive to create wealth (i.e. invent shit that makes life better for everyone, and makes your country rich). this is evident in the fact that capitalist countries are consistently way fucking richer than communist/socialist (collectivist) states

>'high-test' fags favor giant misshapen booties over this

Should all decisions be reduced to either/or absolutes?

>Should the rights of groups supersede the rights of individuals?
The right of the White race to exist supersede's a person's beliefs that they should have the freedom to degenerate the White race.

what does that even mean?
who decides whats degenerate?
is anime degenerate? is weed degenerate? heroin? masturbation? foot-fetishes? some fucking weird fetish? necrophilia?

>not kidnapping a 10/10 and breeding with her a dozen times before dumping her body in the sea
never gonna make it, user

this bitch needs my dick in her life

>what does that even mean?
If your actions would cause harm to the White race as a whole, your actions should be illegal. Examples: homosexuality, race mixing, pornography, multiculturalism, diversity...

>who decides whats degenerate?
The pro-White government in control of the White-only, pro-White state.

>is anime degenerate?
Yes. It's a non-White artform that has no place in a White country.

> is weed degenerate? heroin?
Yes. Degenerates the body and mind.

>masturbation?
In excess.

> foot-fetishes? some fucking weird fetish? necrophilia?
Of course.

Now explain why any/all those things should be legal and promoted in a pro-White, White-only country.

They did not secede, we loose our american colonies during the seven years war

Ass of perfection.

...

Rights don't exist, neither for groups or individuals. Power is all there is. If an individual can hold off an entire group, then he doesn't have to give a shit about any group, if he can't, he better do what he can to survive without the group tearing him apart. No group will allow wayward individuals to sabotage the group, and no individual will sacrifice his own interests and ego for the sake of a group he doesn't care for. Unfortunately, individuals almost never can stand against groups, for now....

This is the end state of man, final and complete independence, where groups are formed out of choice and not necessity, where every man can take on the world by himself if he has to. This will be the true overman, no doubt.

FUCK NO! Groups are a hive mind. An individual thinks for himself. Fuck groups.

How does that have anything to do with Quebec
Individualism from what we're different groups.
I do not identify to frenchmen nor do I identify to English people so for the sake of my collectivity I would want sovereignty from them, not for the sake of my individuality.
The rest of your comment is based on this bogus claim so I will not elaborate for the rest.

so youre proposing a country where anime is illegal, drugs are illegal, having weird fetishes is illegal, and masturbating excessively is illegal?

lol you have got to be in the top 10 most retarded posters on pol ever. holy shit, my sides

ok well my point still stands. if majority rule always applied, there would never have been a chance for an american revolution. i could list other historical examples, but its just one angle on a larger point

The only good group is a gangbang.

>LEACHES

>The rest of your comment is based on this bogus claim so I will not elaborate for the rest.
no, its based on observable facts. economically prosperous states are the ones that protect individual rights, which include property rights. economically unsuccessful states largely do the opposite. these are not bogus claims, these are observable truths

>so youre proposing a country where anime is illegal, drugs are illegal, having weird fetishes is illegal, and masturbating excessively is illegal?
I'm proposing a country that is pro-White and exists to ensure the survival of the White race and ensure it thrives.

>lol you have got to be in the top 10 most retarded posters on pol ever. holy shit, my sides
Said the anti-White faggot that thinks being as anti-White as possible is a good thing.

I get it though...fapping to some anime dickgirl daily while you shoot up heroin is more important to you than the existence of the White race.

if national socialism is natural why has everybody done either tribes (primitive society) or feudalism (agricultural society) and it's only in modernity that nationalism and socialism have been invented.

makes you think...

You're mixing concepts. State sovereignty has very little to do with individualism.
Also, a capitalist society can very well be based around its identity. Germans were capitalists when it came to the economy. Same for China. (you did speak of economical incentives so I am speaking of economics)
Social =/= economics.

So that's what it feels like to debate destiny.

Very interesting thought, good post!

dude you are so far removed from any reality that i dont even know where to begin
i dont even like drugs or heroin, but a totalitarian state that illegalizes things that people do privately to themselves... youre basically a stalinist.

who the hell is destiny?

and when did this become a race thing? im just saying, when a state prioritizes protecting individual rights (crucially property rights) over group rights, the likelihood of economic prosperity increases. this is observably true, by the fact that all the successful nations since 1688 are the ones that have engaged in these kinds of policies

i still cant get over how retarded this post is

>dude you are so far removed from any reality that i dont even know where to begin
Said the person that thinks degeneracy should be a right in a pro-White, White-only society.

I bet you think non-Whites and Jews should be allowed in White countries too, don't you?

>i dont even like drugs or heroin,
Yet you think Whites should be allowed to destroy themselves with them?

>but a totalitarian state that illegalizes things that people do privately to themselves...
If everyone is shooting up drugs, that harms the race as a whole. Therefore, for the good of the race those things should be made illegal. And the people will benefit for those things being illegal and unavailable.

Pic related, it's you.

>youre basically a stalinist.
No, I'm a National Socialist. Big difference. Stalin was a Judeo Communist and Judeo Communism wants to obliterate the White race.

The pitfall of individualism is that only maybe 1 in 10 people even WANT to be individualistic. Individual liberty will inevitably be eclipsed by demands for increased security and regulation by the huddled masses who just want to glide through life in a pile of people exactly like themselves without ever being expected to overcome any sort of personal struggle whatsoever.

I for one am in favor of individualism, but am also a realist. Collectivism is inevitable, its only a matter of choosing your flavor. Left wing or right wing? I for one would prefer a fascist collectivized societey over a libtarded coddlefest. Atleast fascists have the balls to defend themselves and weed out the useless.

>i still cant get over how retarded this post is
Said the faggot that thinks being able to legally OD on heroin is a beneficial freedom.

Who is this qt 3.14?

Rights are an individual concept. There's no point toward them if you collective decides on every and what to do. Also a group is made up of individuals.

>Said the faggot that thinks being able to legally OD on heroin is a beneficial freedom.

Beneficial? No. But is it bad? No. Why do you care if someone OD's on heroin? Do you lament for someone who bathes with electrical appliances and ends up getting electrocuted? Do you lament for someone who attacks a police officer and gets shot? No, you probably say "they got what they deserved". Why then do you not say the same for those who use drugs?

Because the "race thing" implied that the state would enforce the race thing.
Which went against individual rights.
Doesn't meant you couldn't start compagny and be creative. It was good for the individual good and the common good.
Unlike the legalization of outbreeding, which might serve the individual good but never the common good.
The way you categorize things is awful.

Sierra Skye

socialism, communism, its all the same

but the thing is, most people prefer to live with freedom. the right to do things without fear of a totalitarian state attacking (imprisoning, etc) them.

also, you define this political entity very vaguely, and offer no reason as to why it would be benevolent. presumably, you will explain that "since its by whites for whites, it will take of everyone", but this is evidently untrue that this turns out to be the case. people do bad shit to members of their own race all the time

if you ever get the state you are suggesting, no one will want to live in it, and it does not contain the incentive-structure for economic prosperity to occur. why you would want to live in a poor country is beyond me.

FPBP

Groups can't have rights, only individuals have rights.

>It is okay to steal from the individual so long as the proceeds benefit the group as a whole

Sierra Skye, roastie supreme and queen slut of the universe. She doesn't even look like that anymore, she's had so much tanning, blonding, and facial shit done.

Jon Elway?

>Beneficial? No.
Then it should be illegal.

>But is it bad? No
Of course it is. Anyone who thinks OD'ing on drugs is a good thing is insane.

>Why do you care if someone OD's on heroin?
Because if it happens in large numbers it harms the people as a whole.

In other words, I care about more than myself.

>Do you lament for someone who bathes with electrical appliances and ends up getting electrocuted?
That absolutely sucks, yes. Obviously something drove that person to suicide and if it happens in great enough numbers steps should be taken to assist such people.

>Do you lament for someone who attacks a police officer and gets shot?
Depends on why the person attacked the officer. Generally if you attempt to harm a person with a firearm and you get shot that's your own fault.

>
Beneficial? No. But is it bad? No. Why do you care if someone OD's on heroin? Do you lament for someone who bathes with electrical appliances and ends up getting electrocuted? Do you lament for someone who attacks a police officer and gets shot?
No, I don't because I'm not a soulless faggot like you are.

>Why then do you not say the same for those who use drugs?
Because one can ban drugs as they're inherently harmful to the people.

>hurting the individual is good for the individual

walk me through this logic, my little leaf friend. because, from where I'm sitting, shit don't make no goddamn sense desusenpai

>The way you categorize things is awful.
?

how do i "categorize" things, and why is it awful? and who the hell is destiny?

theres a reason why the industrial revolution happened where it did, and when it did. its because in 1688, parliamentary (i.e. decentralized) government power was put into use, and so now people had their property rights protected from a totalitarian force. and so now, for the first time (with some exceptions, like Venice for a short while some decades earlier), people had a financial incentive to innovate. and they immediately did. its not that people had been too fucking stupid to invent "spinning jenny" for thousands of years. they just never had any reason to, until liberty was "invented"

i dont understand how its possible to "disagree" with this. im not offering opinions. this is just factual information

>most people would prefer to live with freedom
nope most people don't care about the freedom to destroy themselves with addictions. weed maybe, but that is dfferent

Collectivism is cancer.

sure, ill grant this. but that poster was proposing a state where seemingly everything is illegal, by some arbitrary 1984-esque standard. hes basically describing hillary clintons ideal america, and suggesting it as the ideal basis for a white ethnostate. and i think thats the most retarded thing i have ever heard

>socialism, communism, its all the same
Well, you're an idiot for believing that. National Socialism is not Communism.

>but the thing is, most people prefer to live with freedom.
And those same people are fine with restrictions on their "freedoms" for the good of society as a whole. Like murder being illegal for example.

>the right to do things without fear of a totalitarian state attacking (imprisoning, etc) them.
And you believe thanks to the anti-White brainwashing you've received that degeneracy should be legal.

>also, you define this political entity very vaguely, and offer no reason as to why it would be benevolent.
Because the state would exist to help the homogeneous people. Unlike with the current state that exists to destroy the people.

>people do bad shit to members of their own race all the time
Largely because of this immoral, soulless, anti-White society we live in.

>if you ever get the state you are suggesting, no one will want to live in it,
Because you don't care about the existence or survival of the White race.

>and it does not contain the incentive-structure for economic prosperity to occur.
You care more about shekels than the existence of the White race.

So if something doesn't benefit someone, it should be illegal? Should tripping on the sidewalk be illegal? Should being charged an overdraft fee for overdrawing your checking account be illegal? Who gets to decide who benefits me? You? Why?


>>Why do you care if someone OD's on heroin?
>Because if it happens in large numbers it harms the people as a whole.
>In other words, I care about more than myself.
Oh no, if all these nonproductive members of society die I'll have no one left to pay my taxes to!

>>Do you lament for someone who bathes with electrical appliances and ends up getting electrocuted?
>That absolutely sucks, yes. Obviously something drove that person to suicide and if it happens in great enough numbers steps should be taken to assist such people.
Why dont you go out of pocket for it then? Why do I have to because you want me to? If its such a great cause I'm sure you dont have to hold a gun to my head to get me to agree.

>>Why then do you not say the same for those who use drugs?
>Because one can ban drugs as they're inherently harmful to the people.
Again, I fail to follow why we just suddenly ban things just because they're bad for you? Should we ban more than the daily allotted sugar intake as well for ANY individual? Why not? Its not benefiting them? Whos going to pay for this Sugar Police?

>Then it should be illegal.

No, it shouldn't. First of all, who are you to decide what is good or bad? You are nobody and nothing. Second of all, not beneficial =/= bad.

>Of course it is. Anyone who thinks OD'ing on drugs is a good thing is insane.

Bad for the one who OD's. Good for everyone else. One less degenerate in the world. One more fool punished by his folly.

>Because if it happens in large numbers it harms the people as a whole.

If mass drug overdoses are happening, then you have a horribly degenerate society on your hands filled with disgusting human beings, and a process of natural selection is taking place right before your eyes. These people are cleansing themselves from the gene pool. This is a good thing.

>That absolutely sucks, yes. Obviously something drove that person to suicide and if it happens in great enough numbers steps should be taken to assist such people.

I wasn't referring to suicide, I was referring to someone bathing with appliances out of stupidity.

>No, I don't because I'm not a soulless faggot like you are.

I am not "soulless", that is a meaningless thing to say anyways. It's your own problem you care so much about degenerates, not mine. YOUR problem.

>Because one can ban drugs as they're inherently harmful to the people.

Those who use drugs deserve everything they get.

>but that poster was proposing a state where seemingly everything is illegal,
Not everything. Just everything that harms the homogeneous people. That which doesn't harm the people would be legal and endorsed.

> by some arbitrary 1984-esque standard.
Yeah...banning drugs is 1984esque.

>hes basically describing hillary clintons ideal america,
But Hillary Clinton is anti-White.

>and i think thats the most retarded thing i have ever heard
But you want to live in a country that endorses every degeneracy and will ultimately lead to White genocide.

Collectivism is just majoritarianism.

i explain to you that a totalitarian regime does not offer incentives for economic prosperity (which is observably true), and your only counterpoint is to call me a shill? that just proves how retarded & entirely devoid of logic you are. goddamn. what i wrote there is not an opinion, its not me agreeing or disagreeing, its just factual information. totalitarian states do not offer incentives for economic prosperity. and you are proposing a state more totalitarian than Mao's china, and somehow you expect it to be economically prosperous. how stupid are you

No, the rights of groups are merely reflections of the rights of a collection of individuals. An arbitrarily personified aggregate isn't entitled to anything more than what the individuals of which it is composed are.

People here will say yes but when their sociopathic leader asks them to murder their degenerate younger sister for the good of the white race they'll get all hesitant and start having regrets.

good double

If you're not a Utilitarian then no absolutely not.

I gave you two examples of how you wrongly categorize different things together to move on with your agument. It is awful because you then move with those categorization as premices. Which makes it a false argument and therefore not something worth the rest of my attention.

You are speaking out of comfort taken for granted, but he state of mind changes before and after taking a shit you'll see.
City pleb.

so your entire post is just calling me stupid, and not offering any counterarguments

alright then, thats fine with me

you are a victim of the just universe fallacy. does someone 'deserve' death just for getting drunk and walking in the road? of course not... people will have innate stupidity, the answer is to drive drugs out of society or have firm laws which deter use

>So if something doesn't benefit someone, it should be illegal?
If it doesn't benefit the people, yes.

>Should tripping on the sidewalk be illegal?
That's assault.

>Should being charged an overdraft fee for overdrawing your checking account be illegal?
Usury should be illegal.

>Who gets to decide who benefits me? You? Why?
The pro-White government for the benefit of the people.

>Oh no, if all these nonproductive members of society die I'll have no one left to pay my taxes to!
And imagine how low those bills would be if welfare and unemployment wasn't needed...

>If its such a great cause I'm sure you dont have to hold a gun to my head to get me to agree.
No one is forcing you to live there.

>Again, I fail to follow why we just suddenly ban things just because they're bad for you?
Because certain things should be illegal for the benefit of the people.

> Should we ban more than the daily allotted sugar intake as well for ANY individual?
Nah. But people should be taught personal responsibility to not turn into fat pieces of shit.

Because without the collective to ensure your individual rights you get no individual rights.

>>Should tripping on the sidewalk be illegal?
>That's assault.
pfff hahah what
WHO assaults someone there? who should we send to the gulag there, glorious leader?

Canada did not secede from France... the English kicked the shit out of the French and took it. Except the English never deported the frogs back to France to our eternal fucking misery.

CATEGORIZE
You cannot say it applies to everything 10 time out of 10
In the example you gave. We could say that it served once again both the individual good and the common good.
Such policies exist too.
But as a whole. You need to favor the common good and the vital matters before the hedonistic freedoms.
There is a line and liberals are good with slippery slopes

>First of all, who are you to decide what is good or bad?
I'm the one attempting to save the White race. you're the only attempting to destroy it.

>One less degenerate in the world.
And one less White person who could've been saved.

>If mass drug overdoses are happening, then you have a horribly degenerate society on your hands filled with disgusting human beings,
Which wouldn't happen in a pro-White society.

>I was referring to someone bathing with appliances out of stupidity.
Should've been clearer then.

>I am not "soulless",
You clearly aren't pro-White.

> that is a meaningless thing to say anyways.
You're anti-White, how about that?

>Those who use drugs deserve everything they get.
And yet you oppose attempting to fix society so that those who use drugs are practically non-existent.

shouldve let us go. we gave you the Trudeaus

and with the collective to infringe on my individual rights I get my individual rights?

>i explain to you that a totalitarian regime does not offer incentives for economic prosperity
Of course it does. Just not at the expense of the people.

>and your only counterpoint is to call me a shill?
You're not a shill. You're anti-White.

>its just factual information.
No, it's your opinion you're touting as fact.

> totalitarian states do not offer incentives for economic prosperity.
And again, you care more about shekels than the existence of the White race. If someone can make money by harming the people, you're fine with it.

>and you are proposing a state more totalitarian than Mao's china
Why? Because you won't be able to fap to anime or fuck niggers?

>and somehow you expect it to be economically prosperous.
It would be because it wouldn't be tied to the system of usury alone.

>In the example you gave. We could say that it served once again both the individual good and the common good.
>Such policies exist too.
well yes, i agree, because i think individual rights are synonymous with "common good". when individual liberty is ensured, economic prosperity follows. you can see this with every country starting, again, at around 1688. every country today that is economically prosperous is either currently ensuring liberty for individuals, or is still riding on the wave of previously having done so for a long time.

ok mr tripping on the sidewalk is assault hahah

>pfff hahah what
If you trip someone and they fall and harm themselves in the fall, that's assault.

What? You think assault is only someone punching or kicking another person?

How fucking delusional are you?

no. under no circumstance

Who else here /orc/?!

>You're not a shill. You're anti-White.
how am i anti-white? of every post i have written in this thread, give me ONE single thing i have said that is anti-white. just one evidence to show that youre not just a moron who makes up shit because you dont have an intellectual argument

>It would be because it wouldn't be tied to the system of usury alone.
you honestly should read up on economics

yes absolutely that is the foundation of society

did you actually think he meant someone tripping someone else on the sidewalk? do you not understand what "tripping on the sidewalk" means? lol hahahah jesus fucking christ

this is glorious. please dont stop posting

We could even say that the monarchies going against it were the individualistic ones who didn't care for the common good.
Though at the same time.
Is comfort an ultimate good.
The monarchies couldn't be bought back then and they still had to awnser to their people to a certain degree, unlike the multinationals of today.

>when individual liberty is ensured, economic prosperity follows. you can see this with every country starting, again, at around 1688. every country today that is economically prosperous is either currently ensuring liberty for individuals, or is still riding on the wave of previously having done so for a long time.
false cause

No.

Group rights = helicopter rights

killing is not a right, moron.
The question you're looking for is:
can we vote to kill and eat you because we're hungry?

What the fuck are you on about? What in my post would lead you to believe that I believe in just universe nonsense? All I am saying is that actions have consequences, and those who don't understand this deserve to suffer those consequences, i.e "I don't have sympathy for them and do not want to help them".

>I'm the one attempting to save the White race. you're the only attempting to destroy it.

Drug addled retards do not deserve to be saved. You are engaging in dysgenics. Why do you want to save subhumans just because they are the same race as you?

>And one less White person who could've been saved.

Fucking hell, this is how absolutely braindead collectivists are. You care about a complete stranger, JUST because they are in the same ethnic group as you, even if they are utterly and completely subhuman otherwise. You are a fucking retard.

>Which wouldn't happen in a pro-White society.

Not sure what you mean here.

>You clearly aren't pro-White.

Not an argument. I am certainly not anti white.

>You're anti-White, how about that?

Wrong.

>And yet you oppose attempting to fix society so that those who use drugs are practically non-existent.

Degenerates don't cease to exist just because you've taken away their drugs. They will still exist. If you want to fight drugs, there are TWO very simple steps:

1.) Let all druggies die
2.) Teach children from a very early age that drugs are degenerate and that anyone who takes drugs deserves no sympathy and no help, and anyone who dies from drug use deserves no sympathy and deserves what they got.

Bitcoin sucks

Read Machiaveli and notice how he warns the prince to never get the pleb hating him. Even favoriting the pleb to the army in some cases.
I think under the right rulers monarchies were some of the best political system.

>how am i anti-white?
You don't care about the existence or survival of the White race.
You support the beliefs and policies that will cause the extinction/genocide of the White race.

>give me ONE single thing i have said that is anti-white.
You support multiculturalism.

>did you actually think he meant someone tripping someone else on the sidewalk?
Yes.

Because claiming that tripping on a crack or such on the sidewalk being illegal makes literally no sense.