Without the trappings of more palatable rhetoric, all political questions ultimately have as their answer an application of survivalism, collectivism or some combination of the two. There need not be a global crisis for the dilemma of the individual versus the group to arise. When crises small and large occur, as they inevitably do, we are faced with a choice between working together as a group or taking care of ourselves. Taken to its ultimate extreme, survivalism would preclude a collective mentality even among friends and family, while in turn, extreme collectivism implies that the individual exists for the group and so, in this view, some individuals are seen as expendable. I think that all political issues are variations of the conflict between cooperation and self-sufficiency- ultimately between competing human instincts. I would be interested in discussing the potential applications of these two competing viewpoints on specific issues, and I would also like to know which ideology you are more inclined towards. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I tend to think the best system is one which can create the perfect balance. That's probably what most people think, but that perfect balance is hard to define. No one really wants to see a divided society of selfish independents with no regard for consensus, and no one wants to see a society without individual freedom or where individuals are expendable. The extremists that favor one of those systems tend to downplay the sense that they are like that. For instance, socialists tend to claim that individuals will still have freedom and laissez-faire types always claim that people will work together out of self-interest or for joy.
I think it is best to aim toward individualism. Individualism is a requirement for a society to see worth in people other than their use for the group and is thus the origin of human rights. I think people will have a natural claim, based on the necessity of compromise, to use collectivist measures when individualism gets out of hand. The reverse is only true if the society has a history and acceptance of individualism.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

As an expert on sociology, do you think that humans are naturally individualists, collectivists or some combination of the two? In other words, are we naturally like animals that stake out individual territories or like animals that share everything collectively- or are we somewhere in between? I think this sort of thing really does come down to instinct.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Most evidence from the sociology camp suggests that humans have little in the way of a hard-wired nature. People can be socialized as individualists or collectivists. Generally we are hard-wired for survival, but the definition of survival is given to us through our experiences and upbringing. Understanding language is understanding humanity. We are creatures capable of adapting our internal instincts in a wide variety of manners.
There is a certain nature of loyalty to one's family unit, though family itself is a malleable concept. For us, it is a nuclear family. For others it is a clan, religious group, or larger family unit. The central unit that plays the role of family is a universal and even "selfish" individuals will go through great trouble for the good, honor, and respect of the family.
I suppose the exception is sociopaths. Sociopaths are stuck in a point of moral development that keeps them from taking the role of the other. They tend to view other humans as objects for manipulation rather than with empathy. The strange part is that as very small children, we are all sociopaths. But human interaction naturally turns most of us into decent human beings.
The fear we might have for the future is the increasing compartmentalization of society, which has the potential of creating a society of sociopaths. Individualism and the shrinking of the world can produce two results: either that society of sociopaths or a world in which individuals are chosen for relations based completely on merit and personality traits rather than ascription. But it is always likely that individuals will be a lot like their parents and choose to be near people like them. The biggest worry is the collapse of the family unit, not by silly taboos like gay marriage or single parents, but by the lack of interpersonal relations at an early age due to both parents working too much and kids spending more time on a computer or with a TV than amongst peers.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

From what I see of the world, in spite of studies that claim that 1-5% of people are sociopaths, I am inclined to think the true number is much higher. I don't go as far as S-S and claim that everyone is completely selfish, but it seems to me that most people are overwhelmingly selfish (you're not, though) and that perhaps something like 20-25% of people are fully sociopathic, though that is just a wild guess. I'm becoming a bitter misanthrope.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

It is reasonable to suspect that a larger number of people are becoming sociopaths for the very reason that our society is becoming more compartmentalized. But I doubt it's that high.
What is more chilling, though I've not seen much on the subject, is the numbers some people have claiming people in power are more likely to be sociopaths. It makes sense since such a state makes one more likely to succeed by learning to use people as tools, create false guises of emotion, and do whatever it takes to get into power. I'm not sure how accurate it is though. First of all, how many sociopaths are there? Second, how many are so skilled as to learn that manipulation so well? I only know one person who is a sociopath and he is not going anywhere as far as I can tell.
Though how many sociopaths have I met that I simply can't detect?

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

I'm so angry at most of humanity that frankly survivalism appeals to me on some level, especially since I don't have a family to take care of. However, to take a survivalist view, I would be a terrible hypocrite, since I am about to turn 21 but I am an undereducated misfit with no job still living with my parents, a veritable symbol of dependence. I suppose my bitterness towards the majority of the human race and my guilt over being so dependent on my parents and the conflicting ideologies that they form in my mind account for many of my rapid changes in opinion.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Unfortunately your draw toward individualism is the negative approach, so I would suggest you lean toward your collectivist side despite its slight negative implications. Being individualistic on the basis of misanthropy will result in behaviors similar to that of a sociopath. Unfortunately I think this kind of thought is on the rise. That is why I frequently attack those who speak badly of the poor and disadvantaged, even when their political agenda is similar to my own. I view such talk as counterproductive and negative toward the appreciation of human life that individualism should encourage. Individualism is only partially about running one's own destiny. Part of it is in seeing the potential of others and thus having a certain collectivist leaning.
That is what I mean by the two possible directions. I see an individualsim that involves seeing the potential of others and seeing a certain pleasure in helping others to meet that potential. Some see individualism in a Social Darwinistic fashion. I feel that view is destructive and will actually eventually lead to a relapse into a very non-individualistic society (ie fascism).
It is important as an individualist to maintain faith in humanity, to see one's individual state as being integrated with other individuals, to feel sadness at the failure of other individuals and joy at their success. I see thus a certain type of collectivism as being important to the maintenance of individualism and the avoidance of what you call survivalism (Social Darwinism).

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Actually, one of the things that makes me lose my faith in humanity is that so many people despise the poor as though they were by definition horrendous criminals or simply an unfit class of subhumans. If I try experimenting with collectivist ideologies, I am attacked as un-American, accused of discounting hard work and insulted in a variety of ways. It seems that Social Darwinism is now viewed as a virtue. Well, I knew a beggar well and saw the people around him. I think most other people have seen such suffering as well, but most other people, it seems, could step over their corpses on the street and only be annoyed at the inconvenience. If I seem bitter, it is because I am. If I try to stand up for the poor, I'm seen as attacking something sacred (though I'll never figure out what). To me, survivalism would be a reluctant acceptance of the current paradigm. In other words, it would be a bitter acknowledgement that, in the words of Thomas Hobbes, this world really is just "a war of all against all".

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

There is also a selfish component in my bitterness. I'm in so much emotional pain so much of the time and I can only blame myself for so long. I feel completely powerless, which is why I tend to be authoritarian. It is a petty feeling, but I feel like taking out my problems on someone, and I suppose universal misanthropy is more nearly fair than hating a particular group the way Shamgar does. I am powerless to change my life for the better, so I feel as though someone, somewhere must be holding me back. That is probably just paranoia, though.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)