how do we stop the evils of collectivism?

>>2745252
>except when it's done by the chosenites and Israel

why does it matter if she said that? it's about the philosophy not the speaker itself

>>2745270
>i cant read
typical stormnigger collectivist parasite

>>2745270
>bringing up multiculturalism for no reason
out of the question, stormshill. It's about the individual not other collectivist hokum

>>2745279
>t. parasite who doesn't have a job and is into race """"""politics"""""
stupid LARPer get a job

File: Molotov Ribbentrop.png (161KB, 752x613px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 752x613px

>>2745243
>evils

ummm.. try again sweetie.

>>2745243
>how do we stop the evils of collectivism?
Historically, the answer has been "guns and bombs"

File: 1486432144268.jpg (38KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x480px

>>2745243
the second amendment is there for a reason bud

collectivism is the future and was also what made humans the sole rulers of this planet
individualism is cancer
>if you think you are a monkey, then you are a monkey!
>dont share things! only you matter, work harder for yourself goyim!
>your countrymen dont matter either, embrace no border! (but i will live in a gated community far away from foreigners)

cancer, individualism is absolute cancer
it makes ppl selfish, and against human nature

File: 1489545565845.jpg (29KB, 331x334px)

29KB, 331x334px

>>2745452
Is this why individualism and industrialism went hand in hand? First you /pol/ and strawman, then you say individualism is a cancer. It's a cancer on what? Society? You are so obviously begging the question it's clear you have no rational grounds to value collectivism a priori. I probably don't even need to post the image but I will.

>>2745603
>Is this why individualism and industrialism went hand in hand?
They didn't. Collectivist countries historically industrialized in shorter amount of time than individualist ones.

>>2745452

100 xDd dem evul ppl

Want sum nwspk?

>>2745608

You mean after individualist countries pionered it?

>>2745608
>Collectivist countries historically industrialized in shorter amount of time than individualist ones
Oh really? Prove to me that the United States, Britain, and Germany were collectivist when compared to China. Enlightenment ideas were integral to industrialism and they were overwhelmingly liberal. The division of labor was proposed from an individualist frame. Why did state run industrialization programs in China such as the Great Leap Forwarf fail until there were personal incentives to become more wealthy? I think your mouth is on the other side of the body dude, that would explain why you're saying such stupid things.

>how do we stop the evils of collectivism?
>we
Umm sweetie, no

>>2745641
>We, the individualists, have unified and cooperated to protest against individuals who support collectivism!

>>2745603
>frogposter
>le individualism made industrialism

you are one retarded kid
>>2745633
>germany and britain were liberal

i dont know what amerishart stinkhole you crawled out of, but its time to go back

File: 1486260888063.jpg (34KB, 628x356px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 628x356px

>>2745646
>>We, the individualists, have unified and cooperated to protest against individuals who support collectivism!

This

>>2745654
>germany and britain were liberal

Bad strawman, since your didn't even quote anything from my post where I say that. I would argue that they were more individualist. Also, whenever you see these inventions crucial to indistrialization they were patented for a profit. The people who revolutionized these fields were overwhelmingly self-interested capitalists and the countries they hailed from areas that disproportionately accepted enlightenment ideals. (While France is a notable exception, the only significant independent variable here is that France was an absolutist monarchy, supporting my argument that individualism led to these developments rather than collectivism/subordination to the state).

>>2745654
>you are one retarded kid
>>2745693
Forgot to refute your other incredible counterargument
>>>/pol/
>>>/hm/
Pick one and leave

>>2745699
To be fair Rand is consistent with her viewpoint, not to say that I 100% agree with her.

>>2745693
go die in a fire
>say something
>what you said is retarded
>oh haha you are strawmanning what i really mean is...

>>2745736
No, I never said those countries were liberal in my post. I said the Enlightenment was and that those countries were significantly affected by the enlightenment. Fuck off kiddie this board should be locked off from mouth breathers like you.

>>2745243
By destroying individualism so that collectivism becomes the norm and no longer needs a name to define itself.

>>2745748
I'm off to bed, so if I stop replying I don't want you to feel a false sense of victory.

>>2745243
Now we're suggesting that good and evil can be so apparent with regards to such intangible subjects.

As a libertarian, I would largely agree with Rand's statement, however it is naive to suggests that collectivism in itself is necessarily evil. To certain extents, collectivism is necessary for the formation of civilization. For instance, the basic unit of society, the family, is a collectivist unit. The individualist tendencies of the child are limited by the authority of the parents.

Now, upon extrapolating this and applying it to greater society, then collectivism is but the violation of individual rights outside the authority of the family unit.

Now when judging the value of collectivism vs individualism, we should look at it in a cost/benefit analysis approach. Are some collectivist institutions provide a service to society that outweighs the net cost? Do these institutions carry any unintended consequences? Can they only be funded by a central authority?

Here is where I believe collectivism is necessary to a degree. Military, law and other similar municipalities.

Military is a necessary collective good. Without it, external collectivist societies will only be able to prey upon an individualist society and force that latter society into even greater collectivism and tyranny. The state is the unfortunate, yet necessary, conclusion to game theory.

>>2745764
Once we've established that collectivism is necessary to a minimal degree, what form of government would best ensure its own restraint? As of now, the optimal choice would be the democratic Republic with strict checks and balances until anything better is developed.

But of course, history tells us that these democratic Republics tend to lead to tyranny anyways.

But in the name of preserving the values for which this republic is founded upon, there should further exist a strict form of collectivism in the form of strong borders. Open borders, while ideal in an economic vacuum, is disastrous politically. A society that values individualism within a democratic republic should not expect to maintain their own liberties so long as they allow the open immigration of foreigners from collectivist societies.

tl;dr
In order to ensure the preservation of an optimal individualist society, a minimized state, such a society must respect the certain benefits of limited collectivism.

>>2745243
>we
Good start.

>>2745270
Did she ever say she wants an ethnostate for jews but multiculturalism for everyone else? Not saying she didn't, just wondering.

>>2745243

I don't understand how these anti-semantic conspiracies are supposed to work. Jews are communists while simultaneously also being the same wealthy, successful bankers that communists hate?

>>2745395
honestly even with the liberal leanings I have and even as much as I don't like many of their policies, if /pol/ and /leftypol/ types could get together on things, I think it could be a beautiful and fruitful marriage

File: IMG_0452.jpg (54KB, 777x437px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 777x437px

Shut the fuck up, I know what's best for you.

>>2745243
Stop thinking in terms of "we".

File: 9 of Thermidor.jpg (33KB, 251x363px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 251x363px

>>2746643
>Jews are communists while simultaneously also being the same wealthy, successful bankers that communists hate?
>be me
>grow up arround jews

Until you're around them you'll never really understand just how ethnocentric and neurotic they are about almost anything. A lot of jewish communists were former bankers, and many jewish communists were also zionists (they wanted to maintain a state of Israel while being anti-capitalist). Einstein was a marxist and a zionist for example, in fact he was even offered to be the president of Israel. Jews are a very diverse group of people as a result of being diaspora, they had a massive hand in investing in the industrial revolution being the go to people for banking as a result of usury being outlawed in europe.

They were both capitalists, marxists, and zionist. The nazis hated all of those which is where their concept of "international jewry" comes from.

File: 1482188259176.jpg (164KB, 684x676px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 684x676px

>>2745395
great pic

>>2748334
>both capitalists, marxists, and zionist

All capitalists, marxists, and zionists. In differing degrees.

>>2745243
Obvious American detected.

>>2745407
Dis true

>>2745243
Ayn Rand's so called "Objectivism" is an awful way of avoiding collectivism. Basically she argues that common people shouldn't even have access to things other than basic needs because they will just "waste" them and make things more difficult for her privileged class. So really things her way are no different from communism when you look at the end state. The only difference is the path that is taken to reach that end (i.e. confiscating private property and redistributing it vs withholding certain property from certain classes of society).

>>2745264
Even if that's true it never hurts to point out blatant hypocrisy.

>>2745603
>Is this why individualism and industrialism went hand in hand?

Couldn't you argue that industrialism achieved the exact opposite? It seems to me people were more individualistic when everyone owned their own farm and lived a dozen miles away from the nearest settlement.

How do we stop the evils of people posting content on /his/ that belongs on other boards?

>>2750007
>Couldn't you argue that industrialism achieved the exact opposite? It seems to me people were more individualistic when everyone owned their own farm and lived a dozen miles away from the nearest settlement.
>owned their own farm
>a dozen miles away from the nearest settlement

Peasant culture usually revloved around villages and kinship groups, with land often owned by Emperors, Lords, Kings and Dukes. These kinship gropus were as far away from individualistic as imaginable. They were essentially Maoists of necessity. Integration is not antithetical to individualism. Just because we buy things from other people doesn't strip us of agency to produce for ourselves if we wish. 1st worlders have more freedom of action than ever before, which I would argue is the true test of Individualism. When you do things because you fundamentally want to and refuse subordination to an external body I would argue individualism has been achieved.