The Individual vs the Collective - both are not possible in democracy

You'll see a common theme among the more parasitical members of our society - most liberals, all welfare queens, social justice warriors (whether self-proclaimed or as defined by their actions) and so on.

The theme goes like this - they only can draw upon strength through numbers. This is because they, as an individual, are not capable of self-empowerment. Whether we're talking financially with regards to the welfare queens or Romney's infamous "47% who don't pay taxes" which, though largely true, lost him the election. Or whether we're talking about those whose primary ethical focus is on situational parity, where equality of outcome is emphasized (liberal/SJW ideology).

Let me phrase it another way. Humans are largely self-interested, or more specifically evolution has taught us to focus on our small unit or group (family/friends etc.). While the more successful members of our society generally focus on themselves and their immediate families, as evolution dictates, there appears to be a profound sickness among the weaker in our society that goes against that evolutionary tendency.

These people consider themselves the "disenfranchised" and the "destitute" in America - as if their quality of life weren't far greater than most living 50-100 years ago (when the above 2 captioned words actually had meaning) and as if their supposedly "oppressing" situations weren't far better than that of the average third-word citizen. For the majority of these people, who lean left or far-left, they look to a higher power/ideal as the resolution to their problems.

They generally don't turn to God in their thirst for a solution - because they view it as a tool of their "oppressors." Instead, they appeal to others in their conjured victimhood - the state is idolized as the most profound tool to achieve their aims, but really anything "group" rather than "individual" is emphasized. Yes, they tell others, I am oppressed, and you have a moral obligation to help me.

--------------------

The most ironic thing about the situation our society finds itself in, where the parasites actually get to dictate most of the terms of how we as a "collective" run things, is that it originally sourced from a flaw in democracy. It was a flaw the founding father could not have foreseen, and so they can be forgiven their lack of foresight.

The flaw is that collectively, these parasites hold more sway than any one individual. And individuals, by nature, do not seek to unite together; it goes against their very self-empowered nature. To the individual-oriented, there's no need to band together in an appeal for greater strength - they already have it in abundance internally. The parasite, on the other hand, needs that group to feed off of - financially or emotionally or both - and so it has adapted to become very good at keeping the group mentality together. If it wasn't good at this, it would quickly die off.

Indeed, our parasites' strategy is pathetic - who wants to forego having their destiny in their own hands rather than giving it away to the whims of the group? - but it is highly effective in democracy. And that's why democracy as we know it cannot last into the foreseeable future - whether it becomes un-recognizably corrupted by the group thinking of the left, or whether the individuals somehow band together, as a temporary means, realize the error of their ways, and rid themselves of the inherent burden of democracy.

As Nietzsche frequently alluded to even in his time over a century ago, a pure democracy allows the mentally frail in our society to dictate how the rest of us live. And it is a shame, really, that these people have ruined what was once a good ideal - equality of opportunity (not outcome) for all.

 

So what's your prescription, Dr. Troll?

A few thoughts of my own:
1) While your description is fairly accurate, I think it only applies to white, Anglo-Saxon, Teutonic, or Nordic nations. Other nations, even those white Romantic ones like France, Italy, and Spain, are all built on the collective and not the individual anyway.
2) Except for France, which somehow manages to survive repeated collapses of its government and perennially losing wars, any nation that becomes too overburdened by its welfare class will eventually collapse and be replaced by a nation that isn't.
3) Our founding fathers did indeed foresee this exact eventuality, which is why they established a republic and not a democracy; why the members of the Senate were originally chosen by the state governments and not by the people; why the vote was only extended to property owning males (extending the vote to males who didn't own property is exactly why we have the problems with the welfare state today; extending the vote to females just exacerbated the problem); and why it takes a 3/4 vote to change the Constitution.

 

I like how you mentioned the strength of looking out for the small group that you are involved with. A sort of individualism that uses a small collective to provide support. Otherwise known as the family.

The ridicule and delegitimization of the traditional family and family values from the left is one of the primary drivers of their disenfranchisement. What do most criminals have in common? A bad family life, or no family life at all. Why has black crime skyrocketed over the past century? A high rate of absentee fathers.

We are watching the left glorify single motherhood, demean the role of the house wife, and destroy traditional gender roles which all play a part in tearing apart the traditional nuclear family. This leaves the kids without a support system, and no way to take responsibility for their individualism and learn how to use it because there family doesn't set the example, and therefor they surrender themselves to the state.

They think "Whats the point of individualism if I'm perpetually alone in the world"

In some way, I do sympathize with them.

 

collectivism vs individualism is a stupidass dichotomy, and actually all dichotomies are stupidass but that one especially

 

I've always had an aversion to people who claim "Everything is stupid" and aren't interested in formulating a point.

 

Not to mention referring to people as parasites, and attempting to conjure a false, lost paradise of rugged individualism. Pure nonsense.

 

Welcome to the forum.

If you want to have good discussions on here, however, you have to come up with something more original than the million times repeated RW talking point that most liberals are welfare queens, as in your first sentence, then quickly degrading into the predictable rant about parasites.

Seems like you feel like a victim of all those parasites in your mind.

 

Welcome to the forum. But, where do you get the idea from that the left delegitimizes the family and family values? I consider myself slightly left of the center, have never been divorced, I'd do anything for my wife and children. Most liberals I know feel the same.

Divorce rates, etc. are no different between liberals and conservatives. Not even Christians have lower divorce rates. The conservatives always talk a good game about family values, but in real life, when comparing actual statistics, it means nothing. Do as I say, not as I do.

Just look at the recent fall of PA GOP congressman Tim Murphy. Staunch "family values" and anti-abortion guy, but then tried to force his mistress to have an abortion.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/gop-rep-tim-murphy-of-pennsylvania-caught-in-affai/

 

You can't have the individual without the group, and likewise you can't have the group without the individual. They exist together at the same time.

Also hello! Nice to meet you!

 

I think this is an important dichotomy. Communism always ends up the same. Dictators have absolute power over the collective. We always hear that communism hasn't been properly implemented, or that people don't know its true definition. Then we start to get lectures on all the "good" forms of socialism. If people are not treated as free individuals, then they are basically slaves.

 

I used to think very much like you, until I realized that radical individualism is something that your ideological opponents developed and sold to you in order to make you weak. There is strength in numbers. That's been the norm since the very beginning of humanity. Humans were not lone wolves wandering alone in the wilderness. They had tribes that they depended on. That's the natural order. We should be collectivists with our family and fellow tribesmen as much as possible. Can you imagine what would happen if white voters voted as tribally as other groups do? Even half as tribally? The left would never win again.

 

Collectivism or socialism NEVER works, because not all will work!!!!!!!!!!!! Never has never will.

 

Dictators had a really important role to play in Roman politics. This isn't about socialism, it's the concept of the group vs the individual. It's a stupid dichotomy but it has nothing to do with the left/right divide. Heck if we really wanted to get into it, conservatism is about the collective and liberalism the individual.

 

Individualism reached its peak in the U.S. in 1776.

Collectivism reached its peak in the USSR and China from the Russian Revolution until 1989.

I'll take the U.S. model in 1776.