As a political philosophy, which is better, individualism

collectivism when country is in crisis, individualism during peace

Both has stregthens and weakness. We want individual freedom by nature but at the same time a group of collectionists with guns could fuck up an individualist

>>134464715
individualism always, have you seen how collectivism treated you in crisis?

Family first.

>>134464561
Collectivism, but only to an extent. If you reach the point where the people literally just become tools for the state to exploit then you have a problem.

>>134464913
That's literally what collectivism is you retard.

>>134464715
kill yourself

Collective individualism. Everybody individually does whatever the fuck they want, while also helping out neighbors and friends.

There are only individual people, different individual people with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. [...] Talk of an overall social good covers this up. (Intentionally?). To use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice [...].

—Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 33

>>134464755
elaborate please

>>134464561
>t. Faggot that cant form his own opinion

>>134465038
>while also helping out neighbors and friends, by force.

Kill yourself.

>>134464989
Collectivism easily becomes totalitarianism, which is what that Anon was describing. No need to get heated.
>>134465175
I just want to hear both sides.

>>134465199
I'm pretty sure you telling people to kill themselves is against NAP

>>134465136
wonderful collectivism came to your country from the east while it was in crisis because of muh leibensraum (collectivism because they wanted baltic germans back and some land for everybody) and that fucked your country which could be on par with western europe
once it ended, you caught up unbelievably fast

>>134465339
A synthesis. Individualism as an ideal but collectivism as a system for the perpetuation of a people.
So NatSoc.

>>134464561
both are shit
>what is better, caring about only yourself or caring about all of humanity (or some vast impersonal state) equally?
>what are small to midsized groups with shared values and culture
We are tribal apes, the correct answer is 'anything works at the correct scale'.

>>134464561
Individualism. Every man for himself is the way it is, Collectivism is innately against human nature. People are selfish, greedy, and are always looking to ensure they get the best. To deny this is to work counter to how humanity is, and is at best, unproductive, while at worst, destructive.

Just compare Capitalism to Communism. Which one works better? Judging by the success of the U.S. versus North Korea, or hell, any other Communist country, and there is little to no competition. While the Soviet Union was close to becoming a potential competitor, it's collapse signified that in the end, Communism (Collectivism) is simply not capable of standing toe to toe with Capitalism (Individualism).

>>134465339
Do you want to use force to benefit people you like at the expense of other people? Collectivism.

Do you want to respect that every person is living a distinct, unique life deserved of dignity and that this life is the only life they have to live? Individualism

Ideally laws of state would treat us as individuals. As individuals we choose to be a part of collectives. Like families.

>>134464561
Individualism because humans are inherently social, we don't need a bureaucratic system to enforce it

>>134464561
I would say individualism, with voluntary collectivism at the local scale.

>>134465499
>Individualism as an ideal but collectivism as a system for the perpetuation of a people.
What does it matter having individualism as an ideal if one is in a collectivist state?

>>134464561
Individualism is just like Communism: It sounds nice in theory, but is a failiure in practice

>>134464561
Choosing one is stupid. One should feed into the other.

We cannot have anything worth having except through the virtues of cooperation; we should strengthen the collective.

Nothing worth having can be properly used or enjoyed except by the individual; we should honor personal liberty.

>>134464561
Individualism with a heavy focus on benefiting the collective.

>>134465644
But wouldn't collectivism be more efficient?

>>134465822
Banal platitude + shallow consequentialism = not an argument.

>>134464561
Feudalism. Collectivism for idiots, individualism for actual thinking men.

>>134465963
More efficient at helping the people you like and hurting the people you don't like? Yes

More efficient at anything else? No

>>134465801
In other words, recognizing that collectivism--in the sense of explicitly defining group identity--is a necessity to preserve the white race from decay, but also aiming to achieve maximum individual freedom within that framework.

Sort of like how libertarians view government as a necessary evil for some things, like enforcement of contracts/rule of law, but prefer as much freedom as possible. I see collectivism--group policing of individual actions--as a necessary evil to prevent the collapse of a group by accumulation of shitty decisions.

>>134464561
Human is naturally a bit of both, a lone wolf born into a collective. Limit individual where collective begins and vice versa

>>134464561
Family is the basic foundation of society, the individual taking that role instead leads to the destruction of the society.

>>134466050
Wow, so it helps whites and hurts nonwhites in white areas. Thanks, you just proved my point. A degree of collectivism is a necessity to preserve my people.

File: 1500625702341.png (92KB, 500x344px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x344px

>>134464561
False dichotomy. Individualists are able to band together for common cause when necessary (defense, expulsion of commies).

>>134466260
"It's natural" is an empirical claim. It does not justify you stealing from other people normatively.

>>134466435
Most well-adjusted people think theft is wrong regardless of what race you are stealing from. Good luck trying to convince people that its okay to lynch niggers.

File: IMG_1207.gif (82KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 480x270px

>inb4 crypto pedo ancucks

>>134464561
Individualism, which leads towards individuals forming groups that agree with their views, then BAM, a homogenous society that produces a comfy culture.

>>134466565
>theft
>implying niggers in Europe aren't stealing white land

>>134464561
Yes.

>>134466509
"Collectivism" in OP's context is not referring to voluntarily joining an association, it's referring to using force against one person in order to benefit another person in pursuit of a "greater good"

>>134464561
Collectivism is literally subhuman tier

>>134465468
Yes, communism fucked everything, but thats because both their cultural and economic policies were retarded. Before that, during our war for independece, whole Latvian nation united and won against both commies supported by Russians and Tsarist LARPers supported by Germans.
Also during interwar period, Latvians were completly dived between various political parties, hell there was three languages spoken in Saiema. Then Kārlis Ulmanis came, executed coup, and united our people once again, and in couple of years, we were almost at Western European GDP per capita level.

>>134465499

nah we should be kangz and queenz an shiet

>>134466709
Exactly why I challenged the premise of the question.

False dichotomy is imprecise, but the usual objection to individualism is "you'll be overrun by a war-like collectivist society."

>Why the fuck has the CAPTCHA been so annoying lately?

Collectivism, but with the caveat that people who refuse to work at their full potential are shot, and resources should be redistributed within your local community only.

File: 1493861531561.jpg (166KB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1024x512px

Why not both. It propelled Germany to number one

>>134466690
The entirety of the continent of Europe does not belong to a specific group of genetically similar people just so you can fulfill your cringy LARPing fantasies of "m-muh Europa" and" m-muh norse gods". Where niggers have used violence to take someone's private property, it's fine to use self-defense against them. But previously unowned land that blacks now occupy does not beling to m-muh wypipo.

>>134466150
It seems to me you want to take away people's rights to choose their partners so as to protect an identity not all of them seem to care about the perpetuation of. Why? If an identity must force it's people to breed by coercion, does that identity deserve to exist? And how do you know this identity will decay anyway?
>>134466287
How so?

>>134465499
>>134466150
well said

>>134467004
"S-sure you can keep your private property rights, as long as you agree with every tenet of the Politiburo and give up 75% of your wages to these poor sub-100 IQ white factory workers."

Nazis have no respect for the individual.

>>134466565
>Implying that having a strong sense of collective is somehow stealing from others

I know that you burgers could never do a bit of collectivism right. Just do National Capitalism instead, lolberterianism is plebbit tier.

Plus I just showed you how it's natural. Evolutionary Psychology, humanis only happy when he is in his natural state, the way he was meant to be.

That natural state is a strong sense of collectivism with a lot of individuality. You need the collective to survive, whether the collective is your family, friends or nation.

A degree of both.

Collectivist in terms of being a member of a culture and racial history, individualist in terms of one's identity beyond that.

File: Alain de Benoist.jpg (187KB, 1280x832px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1280x832px

>>134464755
>>134465518
>>134465644
>>134465689
>>134465742
>>134465926
>>134466509
>>134466619
>>134466794
Racism is a form of collectivism you fucking retards. If you pre-judge someone for being black or jewish you are being a collectivist. If you are an alt-lite "colourblind" classical liberal who treats everyone the same, you're an individualist. Pick one.

Humans are successful because we have the ability to think in terms of the collective rather than being selfish niggers out to get everything they can.

>>134464561
Objectivism.

>>134467173
>implying there were high taxes in natsoc germany

you have no idea what you are talking about, don't you?

>>134467200
Using violent force against someone's personhood or property in order to benefit the "greater good of the collective" is theft or assault.

No libertarian objects to voluntary associations like families, churches, or clubs.

>>134464561
Individualitst collectivism, Christian moral, whatever you wanna call it: if it's better for everyone, it's better for me too

>>134466864
>Yes, communism fucked everything
You mean the Soviet autarky that had to develop every technology independently of the Western world?

It wasn't a battle of ideas, but of concrete systems. One system was afraid to undergo a communist change and imposed sanctions on another system. The Soviets planned to build communism on the basis of existing technologies by importing it, but instead had to develop everything from the scratch. It wasn't part of the plan. Nope.

>>134467342
I wish to exclude black people from my private property.

I don't want to use the force of government to steal private property from black people.

>>134464561
Individualism. It deals with an actual, tangible phenomenal entity: a person. Collectivism centers around a concept of group identity. This is something intangible and esoteric. One can be quantifiably improved while the other is subjective and open to interpretation. Almost any wrong can be justified for a collective.

>>134467009
The group has a will, as well, while you believe only individuals have valid concerns,despite individuals always defining themselves in the context of larger groups. We don't even agree on fundamental principles, so I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.
>>134467076
Tragedy of the Commons. Individual decisions have negligible impact, but they add up to the detriment of a common resource. In this case, white society. And don't you dare try to claim that whites gave up their identity on their own. We've had decades of constant brainwashing by our own governments, and in Europe, you will get thrown in jail for saying your group has the right to exist in its own homeland.
Reminder that when miscegenation was legalized by the Supreme Court in the 60s, over 90% of whites opposed miscegenation. But our (((government))) rammed it through nonetheless.

Also, I never said I want to force people to DO something. That's commie-tier bullshit. I want to force them NOT to do something. That's the fundamental difference between NatSoc and commie social policies.

>>134467468
>A or B?
>Yes!

Individualism. The collective doesn't exist.

>>134464715
>individualism in peace
The West has been individualistic since 1945, that's why we have all of our current problems.

>>134464561
Bait?

>>134467411
Who said anything about using violent force?
I was only saying that we are both collectivist and individualist, and to deny that is insanity.

EPIC STRAWMAN BREH.

>>134464758
/thread

>>134467498
It would have worked without the war and wasting all the resources on nukes.

File: join or die.jpg (287KB, 1280x923px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1280x923px

>>134464715
Basically this

>>134464755
>>134465000
Picture related

>>134467173
The only welfare that existed was in the form of workfare. Being a NEET would be categorically impossible unless your family gave you money, because the state wouldn't.

>>134467636
>being this dense

>>134464561
Humans are communal beings which means that they help each other out but is very different from communism

>>134467342
What about macro-scale racism instead of micro-scale?

EX: That black guy's pretty cool, but he doesn't justify black people

>>134467663
You have no knowledge of American history. The 20th century was split between
>m-muh progressivism
which was socialism-lite redistributing wealth from whites to blacks for a "collective greater good" and abolishing the private property right of exclusion with anti-discrimination laws

and
>m-muh conservatism
which was nazi-ism-lite trying to use force against individuals in order to prevent "m-muh degeneracy" and "m-muh familial and religious decay"

Both are collectivist.

>>134467649
It does, or surely we wouldn't be sitting here communicating across thousands of miles of land using systems that collective groups of humans developed.

>>134467726
The entire context of this thread is political. Collectivism means using GOVERNMENT to enforce a "greater good of the collective" and you Nazis obviously want to do exactly that.

>>134467522
>I wish to exclude black people from my private property.
So you think collectively

>I don't want to use the force of government to steal private property from black people.
Leave the ancuck debates to other threads. From what I've seen you autists get BTFO'd every time.

>>134467811
>voluntarily join, or die*

>>134468146
No libertarian opposes voluntary associations. You're retarded.

We oppose government mandated associations.

>>134468079
Collectivism definition:
"the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it"

I agree with this. Special snowflakes and nihilist autistic teens can get fucked.

>>134467610
You are trying to claim government is out to get white people, but isn't the government just a reflection of the people? Surely the supreme court would have gotten rid off interracial marriage eventually if people wanted it gone that badly. You try to claim the Jewish people want whites to perish, but why would they? Is it in their holy book?
>Also, I never said I want to force people to DO something. That's commie-tier bullshit. I want to force them NOT to do something. That's the fundamental difference between NatSoc and commie social policies.
Then are you fine with whites not breeding at all? Never having children?

>>134468079
No, collectivism means an individual feeling a strong sense of a collective. I have a feeling you feel for the

>national SOCIALISM is socialism
meme. If you did, just shows you are a beginner.

YOU PUT THE POST IN A CONTEXT WITHOUT OP'S PERMISSION. THAT IS A NAP VIOLATION, OUR TOMAHAWK MISSILE LAUNCHERS ARE GETTING PREPARED.

>>134464736
basically this.
no matter how great one person is, they will never be able to compete with a group of specialized individuals. people do great things when they work together, but they should never allow themselves to prop up a group that has nothing to offer them.

I will never support my government. Fuck them.

>>134464561
I would say individualism should be around with a hint of Nationalism (small limited collectivism to keep people from pushing for extreme foreign culture), in times of crisis collectivism on Military and first responders to react and make sure order is maintain and people saved.

>>134464561
You don't want to be a centrist when you are offered to eat all the shit or none of the shit, but sometimes centrist is the best option.

>>134468355
My point is going right over your head, you're that brainwashed by ancap cult propaganda.

By judging black people as a whole, you are judging them collectively. This has nothing to do with government. If you were a true individualist you'd judge everyone on their merits and completely ignore race. And collective judgement is a good thing because of patterns.

>>134468389
And the government should not hurt individuals in order to give priority to a group because:

There are only individual people, different individual people with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. [...] Talk of an overall social good covers this up. (Intentionally?). To use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice [...].

—Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 33

Individualism is better for the collective funnily enough, by prioritizing the individual everyone benefits.

Only the top few benefit from collectivism, as soviet union demonstrated. Communism fails.

>>134468457
Go LARP on stormfront. You have no arguments.

>>134467342
>If you pre-judge someone for being black or jewish you are being a collectivist.
I don't do that though.

>>134468559
>I would say individualism should be around with a hint of Nationalism (small limited collectivism to keep people from pushing for extreme foreign culture), in times of crisis collectivism on Military and first responders to react and make sure order is maintain and people saved.

So basically you can be an individualist, do what you want without regard for others, but people around you should be collectivist and think of you in their decisions like military, police and rescue risking themselves to save you.

Speaks volumes about you as a person.

>>134468635
>If you were a true individualist you'd judge everyone on their merits and completely ignore race
source? individualism is about YOU as the individual, not other people
If an individual wants to disassociate from all black people by saying no blacks in his store, who is the one to stop him?
the state? or "ancap cult propagandists"?

File: decay.jpg (201KB, 1024x925px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1024x925px

>>134464561
Individualism has destroyed my country

Voluntary collectives can do great things. When people are forced into a collective without their consent is when things get shitty imo.

So I would say a mix of individualism and collectivism where the only collectives that exist are voluntary.

>>134468718
I didn't reply to you, but yeah if you're a non-racist libertarian you can be an individualist without being hypocritical.

>>134464561
Why not both? You shit sitting and pee standing.

>>134468840
im pretty sure they're saying that everyone should first look out for themselves. but they should always keep in mind that they have a community which does benefit them. therefore, when that community is threatened everyone should work together to eliminate the threat before reverting back to more individualism.

>>134468710
>imblyign
pls shove the mammonistic beta ideology with no argumets except
>but muh self only is better than muh self + loving a nation, race and ancestors and having something to give your life for

...up your ass. Individualism ruined your great country.

>>134464561
Individualism
Every invention of mankind was made by individualists. Collectivist's main inventions are religion and witch hunt.

>>134468686
>Communism fails.
On one team you have Germany, France, Britain and the US. On another team you have fucking Russia. Alone.

Russia loses. How is it have to say something about communism?

>>134464561
>political philosophy
>flag
>not a retard

>>134468635
I judge black people collectively when it comes to excluding them from private property because they tend to be violent, rowdy brutes that would lower the value of my private property.

Government should not treat people as collectives because every person naturally possesses rights and duties, not because of any special traits but because of their humanity. Government is instituted among men to secure these rights. When government violates this purpose by protecting some human's rights at the expense of infringing on the rights of other humans, it should be abolished.

>>134469110
If it weren't for the collective, you wouldn't survive to type this.

>>134464561

Individual collectivism.

>>134467975
The overwhelming trend since the war has been toward liberalism and individualism on every scale. UBI is a hyper-individualistic atomizing policy, not a collectivist one.

>>134469056
>wahhhh im not allowed to steal private property from black people so that i can build statutes of m-muh Evola

>>134468442
> isn't the government just a reflection of the people?
AHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA
You see, this is why I hate (((democracy))). The government and corporations do watever the hell they want, but also devote resources to propaganda that convinces the people what they 'want,' and then they claim "the people have spoken." In an authoritarian state, if the leader is an asshole, you know exactly who to blame. In a Jewmocracy, the elites do the same shit, but shift the blame to a faceless mass of people that they nevertheless are manipulating. You tell me: how likely is it that a society against racemixing by an 80% margin 50 years ago, suddenly decided to support it by that same margin in that time? And the fact that interracial propaganda was being pumped out when opposition was still that strong?

If I tell a toddler that he can press one of two buttons, but also tell him that the red one will kill him, he will probably press the green one, even if he would get old lettuce from it as opposed to candy from the red.
He doesn't know what he is doing, and I am purposefully feeding him my agenda, so how does that in any way reflect "the will of the toddler"--the will of the people?
>Then are you fine with whites not breeding at all? Never having children?
I wouldn't rape women at gunpoint to have white babies, if that's what you're saying, but even leftists eventually have 1 kid. Si not really relevant.

collectivism is sociopathic
Ironically, collectivists think individualists are the anti-social ones...

>>134468974
This is true to a large extent. The jewish ideal is to turn everyone into a dumb individualistic consumer who cares more about getting the next fuck on tindr, updating their facebook status and buying the latest iphone than protecting their family and nation.

>>134464561
How about a sensible balance

>>134469129
I think you mean Capitalism vs Communism of the cold war era. History has shown the winner in that.
Russia of today is very much in the capitalist corner.

>>134469284
>UBI is a hyper-individualistic atomizing policy, not a collectivist one.

Holy fucking shit how retarded can you be?

Stealing money from rich people in order to give to poor people is collectivist because it discards the rights and dignity of the individual rich people in favor of a "collective greater good" of poor people not starving.

test

File: 1500337140505.jpg (368KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 894x894px

>>134469397
>implying that extremes are bad
sweetie, don't you know that you always have to pick a side in politics

>>134469397
They're antithetical concepts, in the political context.

>>134464561
Collectivism but on a racial basis

>>134464561
Individualism, 100%. Because if you find out that individualism isn't working out, you can switch to collectivism. Collectivism does not allow you to opt out if collectivism isn't working for you.

>>134469179
>If it weren't for the collective
So, which thing I used to write this message was created by collectivist? PC? Food? State? Pathetic. Most of them are products of individuals, who just hired other people. Even in politics countries need strong individual leadership, otherwise they will be turning into shitholes. That why most of countries have ONE main person, and everyone else is obey him.

>>134465509
The correct answer to all this is most any system works in an all white country

>>134469397
This
>>134469446
Russia is pretty much the Wild West right now

>>134468054
Yes, a group of individuals exist. But the concept of "the collective" is merely an abstraction used by smart individuals to make other individuals forfeit their rights and individuality for said smart individualist's own gain.

>>134469581
Worthless point. You can still have a balance of the two.

>>134468079
>Collectivism means using GOVERNMENT to enforce a "greater good of the collective"
no collectivism is a social outlook that emphasizes the group and its interests.
so if you think about what is the best think to do for you Family you are a collectivist

>>134464561
Individual cultural collectivism

>>134469397
Essentially, this is what I've been saying.
But if one or the other extreme is necessary, collectivism is better, because it at least preserves identity, while complete individualism results in the destruction of identity.
Post-commie Europe is overwhelmingly white (aside from Gypsies and Mudshits, who were already there), while """free""" western Europe is drowning in shitskins. Sure, the 'bastions of freedom' were temporarily more prosperous, but what use is temporary gain if you identity is lost for eternity? I'd rather have eternal white poverty than temporary brown wealth. Politics and economies can change, but identity is irrevocable.

>>134469325
You see, that's the problem. They never owned property here through history, and should have never been allowed to, for the only "justice" i care about is being just for my race. In nature the race sticks together. A nation (with or without govornment) will not survive being multiracial.

You really think niggers will allow you to say "No blacks on my property."? You will get lynched the fuck up, nap can't save you when you're dead.

>>134469651
>state is a product of individuals
Wut

>>134469581
How so? It's possible to have some of both.

A completely free market and a market entirely regulated by the state are antithetical, but we still manage to have something in between the two extremes.

>>134469163
>very person naturally possesses rights and duties,
nobody is born with rights , every right you have are granted to you by your goverment

>>134469893

you mean how most western countries operate right now and are doing perfectly fine?

NONSENSE BRO UR ALL THEORY LMAO THOSE R OPPOSITES THEY WOULD NEVER WORK HAHAAA IDIOT

>>134464561
Individualism iwth hints of traditionalism. Collectivism is retarded, it fails to understand the basic driving force of a society, the individual, and is constantly blaming foreigners for their troubles.
Individualism fails to see the societal mechanisms that help keep a working civilization that requires one to surrender their personal freedom. But that can be overcome by embracing traditional values and roles that have been proven to work throughout history.

File: 7705568_orig.png (251KB, 738x632px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 738x632px

>>134469856
Good morning

>>134467498
Even if that was the case, you can't deny that we dropped from Western-tier country to a Eastern European shithole during Soviet occupation

>>134464561
Individualism all the way fed up with the collectivist scum obsessed with race and class and making crazy generalisations. I am my own person, I judge those by their actions not by things they were born into.

"When the state does everything for you, it will soon take everything from you."
Margaret Thatcher

>>134469694
>But the concept of "the collective" is merely an abstraction used by smart individuals to make other individuals forfeit their rights and individuality for said smart individualist's own gain
Rights are exactly the same, created by a class of noblemen to steal power from the king, who himself had his own "rights".

File: 1500658127587.png (96KB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 2000x1200px

>>134467411
Only retards and niggers have a problem paying any sort of Taxes

>>134464561

This isn't really the question one should ask. The many led by the few is the best form of social organization.

What's more important is the motivations of the political/tribal/spiritual/etc. Leaders.

>>134469706
However you want to define it won't change that using the government to violate the rights of the individual in pursuit of a greater good is wrong.

>>134464561
individualism all the way

>>134470316
The only rights you have are those the granted by government, or force.

>>134470316
Rights are fashionable entitlements. The greater good is a concept that never changes.

>>134470048
rights are legal constructs necessary for government to secure in order for government to perform its only natural purpose: protecting the individual from mob rule

File: 1500659145751.gif (1KB, 324x216px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 324x216px

>>134469397
This guy
Where the fuck do you think you are

>>134469789
You're getting the same helicopter treatment just like every black socialist. The only color I see is red.

>>134464561
Neither:
Individualism = jungle law, being Jew. Fuck everybody.

Collectivism = the ones with more power it's Fucking those who cannot defend themselves. It just doesn't work with people.

>>134464561
moderation of both

>>134469342
>You tell me: how likely is it that a society against racemixing by an 80% margin 50 years ago, suddenly decided to support it by that same margin in that time?
They were persuaded otherwise?
>And the fact that interracial propaganda was being pumped out when opposition was still that strong?
I wouldn't exactly say it was being pumped out. Media is made by people, and some of those people are for interracial marriage.
>I wouldn't rape women at gunpoint to have white babies, if that's what you're saying, but even leftists eventually have 1 kid. Si not really relevant.
So you're fine if whites don't feel like having kids to the point of being below replacement rate?

>>134470278
Yet you're the one paying taxes (good little bootlicker) in order to keep those retards and niggers alive on welfare.

>>134470551
>>134470463
see
>>134470597

There are only individual people, different individual people with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. [...] Talk of an overall social good covers this up. (Intentionally?). To use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice [...].

—Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 33

>>134464561
Asking which is better completely misses the complexity and depth of the issue. You can't reduce such a complex topic to simple answers like that.

Too much of either is death.

>>134470551
hey dumb fuck, the "greater good" is always used as an excuse for the most depraved and onerous policies imaginable. Go to hell after kys.

this site is toast... f*llch*n is what this place used to be. Recommend going there.

>>134470733
> stepping over the weaker ones while you steal from them and give it to other stronger than you
That sounds like Corruption.

Legal/practical individualism + moral/cultural collectivism master race

File: thinking.jpg (76KB, 445x479px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 445x479px

>>134464561
prove me wrong

>>134464561
I'm very shy and reclusive, so I live a very individualist lifestyle. Apart from my family, I hardly speak to anyone.

>>134470153
I am not talking about rights in a legal sense. I'm talking about rights in the sense of 'the rights of my fist end at your face'. In order for a right to be logical it must apply to all equally. This is the only way a right can be applied universally, in all cases, to all people. If it would not fit the parameters of universality it is not a right, it is a mandate.

>>134470780
>They were persuaded otherwise?
(((persuaded)))
Yeah, sure. If government is representative of the people, then why was miscegenation legalised when an overwhelming majority opposed it? And why did that same government dedicate its resources, given to it by the people who opposed those measures, to (((convincing))) the taxpayers of another opinion?
>media is made of people
Lurk more faggot, it's dominated by leftist kikes.
>So you're fine if whites don't feel like having kids to the point of being below replacement rate?
Absolutely. Purity of blood is the most important thing. Infinite population growth is a meme.

>>134464561
Fascism

File: 1308984352736.png (8KB, 274x242px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 274x242px

>>134471190
Can't prove wrong a universal truth.

File: 1495411310615.png (249KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 480x480px

A soldier risking his life by running across the battefield under fire to help out a fellow soldier = collectivism

Shlomoberg Shekelstein issuing predatory sub-prime loans then selling them on to make profits for himself, fucking up the world economy in the process = individualism

I know which I'd choose.

>>134471244
>Shy and reclusive
That it is not to be individualistic, that is to be autistic.

>>134471190

/thread

Not only are you correct, you are correct in meme form.

>>134464715
so share the debts, and reap the benefits alone? fucking fabian socialists make me laugh

>"Individualists" ITT being racist when racism is inherently collectivist

Being racist is fine, but don't pretend to be hardcore about individualism when you judge individuals based on a group they're part of involuntarily.

>>134471190
>Individualism
>Helping others
America education everyone

Colectvism by far.
Indvidualism aka selfishness and the "i dont care what i do it dosent effect anyone else so who cares" mentality has led to a decline in moral depraviry and decadence among the west which has been detrimental to our survival.

Whereas collectvism on the other hand utlised in the right way without jewish internationalist egalitaranism is a force for good as it brings people together, and Creates a hive mindset for greatness that spreads among people and makes them stive for better by making people care for their peers and community instead of their greedy selves unlike that of indvidualism.

>>134471804
>Hurt Durr socialism is good, bring more rape monkeys
Kys welfare nigger

Depends on situation really.
I'm all for individualism but there's times when you just can't afford some little faggot opposing you.

Collectivism ultimately entails viewing every person as a statistic or probability rather than as a human. It may be practical, but it sounds like a miserable way to live. It can also be used to justify the murder of innocent people, which is why so many sociopaths seem to be drawn to it.

>>134471727
>prioritizing the ability for a person to act how they see fit precludes that person from choosing to help others

>>134471323
>If government is representative of the people, then why was miscegenation legalised when an overwhelming majority opposed it?
>>134468442
>And why did that same government dedicate its resources, given to it by the people who opposed those measures, to (((convincing))) the taxpayers of another opinion?
When did this happen?
>Lurk more faggot, it's dominated by leftist kikes.
Leftist Jews are people.
>Absolutely.
If Whites are below the replacement rate they will disappear, you know that right?

>>134470597
>government to perform its only natural purpose: protecting the individual from mob rule
but this is what you believe gov purpose is what makes you think you get to decide this after all you are just 1 guy

>>134470733
That doesn't work either, not long term.

The only thing that creates a livable system is constant, slow evolution. No ideology can tell you how to live-- the only way to figure that out is to test different things out, and gradually change things, over and over again, over hundreds of lifetimes, and extrapolate what works from who ends up the most successful.

The question isn't really answerable, even then-- all you can do is choose something that has a chance of making your life happy, worthwhile, creative, rich, or whatever other criteria you've decided to use to measure success. If you're more liberal, or radical, you can try something untested, but you can't force other people to change their sense of reality so that you're not a loser if you chose wrong.

And there's no guarantee that you'll end up successful, even if you do everything right. Some rogue circumstance can just shut you down.

Life is too hard for easy answers. At some point you just have to engage your common sense, your faith, intuition, or whatever, and choose. And there are no backsies if you aren't happy with your result.

>>134472106
>which is why so many sociopaths seem to be drawn to it

Sociopaths are hyper-individualists who value themselves over others. Such as most economy-wrecking bankers.

>>134464561
The collective only really holds power if the collective sees themselves as the source of power. Such as national socialism.

>>134472370
Yet they espouse the most hardcore collectivism.

>>134470940
>le centrist face xD

>there's no moral truths xD everyone can be right !! no opinion is right or wrong !!

>>134471804
It's so selfless to use violence against people you don't like to help people you do like.

You are so generous.

>>134464561
Collectivism creates shame culture and Marxism, so that's out

>>134472369
This is why, even if we have a collective structure to our society, we can never allow it to completely overpower individual rights. Just as you're never sure you're choosing right for yourself, you for damn sure don't know if you're choosing right for anyone else.

>>134464561
What would you define collectivism as?

Something like: the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.(Google)
?

Because hell the fuck no.

>>134472370
Economy-wrecking bankers are usually Jewish collectivists.

>>134468635
I see what you're saying and I see why you think you're right but that argument is terrible.

>you judge all ants as a nuisance therefore collectivist!

Individualism is about your rights. Freedom of association would be included in such rights.

Aside from that, discrimination is essential to freedom. Women are allowed to discriminate against ugly men and people are allowed to discriminate against certain sub species that are statistically more likely to kill you or for any reason at all. Otherwise you are arguing against the basic right to self preservation.

>>134472619
>shame culture
shame culture is good

>>134472279
Why institute government to leave anarchy? What is the benefit? The answer to that question is the purpose of government. In the state of nature or anarchy, a group of people can join together to kill, rape, enslave, torture, maim, and steal from weaker people. Most people don't want this to happen to them. Thus, people form government to stop this from happening.

>>134472677
>Something like: the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it
Yes

>>134472258
>When did this happen?
Oh, I don't know, when they pass law after law FORCING you to cater to niggers, importing nonwhites both internally and abroad via HUD and immigration, constantly speaking out against "racism," etc, etc.
>Leftist Jews are people
A different group of people. We're not all equal, you faggot nigger.
>If Whites are below the replacement rate they will disappear, you know that right?
Yes, and it's ridiculous to assume that these rates will continue indefinitely. Populations in Europe during the Renaissance were far lower, and Europe still flourished. The US has as many whites right now as old Europe did, but we have so many nonwhites and traitors that old Europe would be better. Homogeneity above all.

>>134472834
>Most people don't want this to happen to them.
Thus, people form government to stop this from happening
So, they form the government for the greater good? Why shouldn't they also form government to redistribute wealth, if most of this want this to happen?

>>134472717
>Individualism is about your rights
but what gives you these right?

>>134472631
Collectivism is born from the selfish mindset of "everyone has to be exactly like me, and if they're not, then too bad." Collectivists like to claim that individualists don't understand human nature, but they're really no better in that regard.

anyone who answers individualist unironically needs to leave /pol/

>>134472466
I'm no centrist-- in fact, I share your disdain for them. Most people who espouse "centrism" are morons. People without any real historical knowledge or intellectual talent who don't want to deal with the social consequences of choosing a side.

We're well fucking well beyond that now-- any sane solution to our problems is going to piss off everyone with a dog in the fight.

>>134472992
That's exactly what government is formed to stop from happening. That is no different than anarchy. By definition, it's not a government, thus it should be abolished and replaced with an actual government that defends the individual from mob rule.

>>134472016
>Making the mistake that i belive in welfare sytem of dependents who use it to cheat socitey while their are others working for their benifit.
as far as im concerned in regards to welfare it should be avaible to men who are struggling to feed their familes when out of work for a limited time until their is avaible work.

Anything other than that should be cut off, only to let natural selection take place and kill them off for being lazy sods who cant be arsed to work.

Collectivism is good for a homogeneous monolithic society.
Multicultural and multiracial society drives one to individualism.

i.e. in a perfect world, and a functioning society, we'd be collectivistic.

>>134465121
Gulag. Nao.

>>134467342
This is why I'll never be a racist. I grew up in an all-white community and they were all assholes. I was ostracized constantly. Why should I care about my clan?

>>134471727
google "division of labor"

>>134464561
The collective is an epiphenominal manifestation of the interactions of many individuals, so individualism. Collectivism hampers the growth of strong people, while individualism can promote it.

>>134467342
Individualism and self-centeredness are not the same thing you mongoloid.

The logical extension of the abolition of in-group preferences leading to collectivization is mass migration and the abolition of state borders. Seeing as how capitalism ultimately manifests itself as anarcho-capitalism because state interference violates the NAP and disrupts the free market, with the destruction of the state comes destruction of state borders. No border patrol, only private security guards patrolling your own private property. It is essentially abolishing any concept of the nation-state and allowing mass migration to occur, as the private owners will naturally prefer non-white labour that will out-compete whites, leading to white flight and, eventually, total white displacement.
The solution is syncretic politics, merging both while not abiding by either in absolute form.

>>134473363
>Collectivism is good for a homogeneous monolithic society.
Placing the collective over the individual means trampling over individual rights, regardless of how homogeneous your society is.

File: 1414873597337.jpg (102KB, 640x377px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 640x377px

if the collective claims credit for things the individuals do the individuals stop doing

murder some cult members children

>>134472980
This argument is going in circles and I have to make dinner. I'll continue if this thread is still up.

>100 individuals
>2 are goatfucker-spics.
>the two agree to work together
>one by one the 2 go to each of the 98 houses
>kill each individual in turn
>take their stuff
>rape their wives
>slaughter their children
>each individual stood strong though as no one will ever call them collectivists....or racists

It really does not matter which is "better" as individualism will always be suicidally weak to collectivists.

hey ancapbro,
Do you believe it is impossible for a collectivist society to have a better net outcome than an individualist one, all else equal? Or is it a moral stand against the wrongness of compulsion?

(capcha was a helicopter, i dont want a free ride...)

>>134472717
>you judge all ants as a nuisance therefore collectivist!

Individualism and Collectivism are anthropological terms so an insect analogy is rather silly.

>Individualism is about your rights. Freedom of association would be included in such rights.

Only in a specific political sense. In a broader sense it is a principle applicable to many things.

>>134473539
To expand on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy3fCvMz-8

>>134473554
Individualism leads to a disintegration of civil society to the point where one can barely have any rights at all.

>>134473648
>retards still conflating individualism and self-centeredness

>>134473648
That isn't how individualism works you dumbfuck. Individualists aren't disallowed from working together,

>>134473674
I think capitalism is the most utilitarian system most of the time. I don't think it is perfectly utilitarian. I don't think maximizing utility at the expense of the individual is moral. For me it is against the wrongness of compulsion, however I think socialism is still very inefficient.

>>134472569
Well when it comes to parasitic jews in international finance who bleed the country dry through usury they deseve to be physically removed whatever the cost even if it entails unwanted violence, desperate times call for desperate mesaures at the end of the day.

File: 1497856790560.jpg (283KB, 1446x2048px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1446x2048px

>>134464755
>>134465499
>>134465518
>>134465689
>>134465742
>>134465926
>>134466619
>>134467530
>>134467649
>>134467663
>>134468559
>>134468686
>>134468974
>>134469277
>>134469639
>>134470081
>>134470141
>>134470428
>>134470729
>>134471165
>>134472021
>they fell for the think only of yourself ego jew
>>134473136 (Listen to him)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uha7WWgoeX4&t

Genuine question: What does the individual do when the collective gangs up on him?

>>134473783
>that's not true individualism
Objectivists are the Commies of the right.

>>134473858
I'll make sure you're physically removed from my helicopter, Muhammad.

>>134473121
>Collectivism is born from the selfish mindset of "everyone has to be exactly like me, and if they're not, then too bad

That's not what collectivism is at all. I can't even think of a word for what you just described, when has any person in history demanded that everyone "be exactly like them" whatever that means?

File: trump-communications.jpg (29KB, 750x499px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 750x499px

individualism

duh

private property is civilization

when tribe can grab anythgni you make whiel producing nothign themselves u get africa

>>134473774
When taken to the extreme, sure, you get shit like anarcho-capitalism. Pretty much everything is shit in the extreme.

>>134473554
>Placing the collective over the individual means trampling over individual rights
but individual rights are granted to you by the collective ,

>>134473931
>collectivists are this stupid
individualism = a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
How does giving each person freedom to choose prevent them from choosing to form a defense league?

>>134473886
Nothing. Every society that has lacked in-group preferences has always failed. The individualists living on their own private property are only opportunistically individualist, as they will always cede the utility of identifying as a group.
It has already been demonstrated that ethno-centrism is one of the most, if not the most, efficient evolutionary strategies.
Source: jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

>>134473886
Get's a bunch of other individualists to help him.

>>134474027
A forced helicopter meme isn't an argument though. The point still stands on parasitical individuallistic jews wrecking the collective for personal gian.

File: p000005c0.jpg (82KB, 810x608px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 810x608px

>>134464561
Individualism.

>>134473774
It gives you what we have. A society of beggars willing to prosecute their neighbours and claiming for privileges.

>>134473635
cheers
I'm pretty hungry, too, desu.

>>134473886
asks or pays other individuals to help him

>>134474187
>Get's a bunch of other individualists to help him.

He'll have to pay them then, since the collective isn't ganging up on them it isn't in their personal interest to help him.

>>134474207
fuck your collective

personal gain is how the world prospers

google "division of labor" you illiterate commie

>>134474236
People who only care about themselves aren't individualists.

File: 1490818725112.gif (173KB, 518x509px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 518x509px

>>134473886
They do exactly what the jews done in germany and shout "muh anti semitism!"

>>134474331
>individualism requires you to ignore anything that's not your best interest
nice communist brainwashing you got in british "schools"

>>134474187
Uniting under a collective goal and a common denominator. Not very individualist.
>>134474027
Again, very funny to observe how an individualist may use hand-waving motions to explain how centralized authority utilized to remove members from society isn't acting in the benefits of the collective, or at least motivated by collective goals.

>>134474287
This is the correct answer.

Individualism because long-term prosperity can only be achieved through the spirit, which is difficult enough to cultivate in individual humans, let alone groups of them.

Under collectivism it becomes necessary to have a leader, or leaders, who unquestionably become corrupt and only serve to hinder mankind.

>>134473886
Gets cucked.
Also, this is why ancapism is not feasible.

>>134474331
>the collective isn't ganging up on them it isn't in their personal interest to help him.
Preserving individualism against collectivism is always in the interest of individualists.

Again, what you're talking about is self-centeredness, which is a corruption of individualism, in the same way that capitalism is the best economic model but can still be shit when done improperly.

>>134474331
Wrong. The rational individual recognizes other non-aggressor community members as valuable to the economy since they expand the voluntary association's production possibilities frontier through the division of labor. The individuals want to continue to trade with them to gain their unique products, gaining previously impossible wealth, thus they will form a voluntary militia to defend other peaceful, productive non-aggressors.

>>134467009
How can a goy be so good?

File: 1500504098966.png (171KB, 400x518px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 400x518px

>>134474027
Kek have fun dropping me out of your helicopter that you used jewish debt money to buy, which you will have to pay back for the price of 2 helicopters.

>>134474443
>Uniting under a collective goal and a common denominator. Not very individualist.
Individualism is about putting the individual above the collective, not abandoning the idea of groups.

>>134474660
The entire bedrock of a military is camaraderie and brotherhood, which is collective in nature. Operating for the good of the civilians who cannot defend themselves. Completely antithetical to individualism. The individualist rejects the draft, the collectivist realizes it is necessary to protect the group.

>>134474545
>Under collectivism it becomes necessary to have a leader, or leaders, who unquestionably become corrupt and only serve to hinder mankind.
but having a leader , under one unify common goal is what make the military so effective , so the problems is not in having leaders but making sure he is the right leader is the problem

>>134474789
The Founders understood that wherever their was a standing army, there was tyranny. The Founders envisioned a nation where there were no imperialistic wars of aggression, only voluntary self-defense of the homeland.

>>134473833

How does an individual select who he works with and does not work with?

If it is with only individuals then you are shit out of luck. You are no longer an individualist but a collectivist identitarian

If it is with both individuals and collectivists then any collectivist group will have a severe advantage over all the individualists.

All individuals will be selected against and eventually wiped out leaving only collectivist groups.

This is exactly the process that is happening in the US with all the white indivduals being shoved out by Kikes and spics.

This is also happening in Europe with all the individuals being shoved out by the goatfuckers and globalists.

>>134474605
>Again, what you're talking about is self-centeredness, which is a corruption of individualism,
so if it fails it is not real individualism?

>>134474776
>not abandoning the idea of groups.
Quite the opposite, the individualist is fundamentally independent and doesn't rely on groups at all. There is no co-operation or self-sacrifice for the majority. It is about keeping your own wealth and private property to yourself, not giving it up to the group in the nation.
There can be no groups in an individualist society. People will unite under commonalities, like race or language, but they will never allow those labels to define them and they will never fight to protect them as a group or offer a sacrificial offering in the form of their life, if need be. They are primarily independent.
>>134474929
Ethno-centrism is collectivism, by definition. The founding fathers were white nationalists, which is a collectivist ideology. The Naturalization act serves to protect the in-group from foreign entities. It is the epitome of the collective banding together to ostracize the out-group.

>>134464561
It's a false dichotomy. Whites (especially anglos) are the most individualistic people in existence, and it's led to great strength and success. HOWEVER, that does not mean you have to cast away your identity as a white man or polack or britbong or spaniard or whatever else.

The only way we can continue being individualistic is by keeping shitskins and kikes out.

>>134475039
>individualism seeks to maintain freedom for the individual
>this means each person must actively fuck over everyone around them and can never work in a team

>>134474929
>The Founders
the founder were idealistic idiots , there is a reason why Their vision failed

>>134474789
Individualism doesn't reject the concept of the collective. Militaries are a necessary collective, individualists don't just automatically want to get rid of them.
>Draft
Individual responsibility is half of individualism.

>>134470104
Lol yeah no you're an idiot

>>134474545
>Individualism because long-term prosperity can only be achieved through the spirit

Libertarianism/Liberalism is responsible for the despiritualisation of humans by turning them into materialistic beings with money-making as their highest goal. The highest manifestation of the spirit you speak of is found within the nation state.

>>134472106
>It can also be used to justify the murder of innocent people, which is why so many sociopaths seem to be drawn to it.

This would explain this board's love of killing.

>>134475274
Prove me wrong.

>>134473838
I'd say that its mostly undue size of a system that is inefficient, as both modern capitalism and socialism are dreadfully wasteful. Hard to say, though - not a lot of good counterexamples.

Also curious, is there a particular moral philosophy your opposition is rooted in?

>>134475009
wow you sure knocked the shit out of that straw man... Are you deliberately misrepresenting or are you too dumb to grasp the concept?

>>134475159
>this means each person must actively fuck over everyone around them and can never work in a team
you said that if individual fail to group up and protect themselves from collectivst then it is beacuse individualism was corrupted by self-centeredness aka no true individualism

>>134475204
you're the only person to refer to them as idealistic

every commie history professor called them pragmatists

>>134475118
Why do retards KEEP spouting this individualism is objectivism shit?
Just because you want to keep individual rights safe doesn't mean you have to be totally cut-off from anyone else

>>134475225
>Individualism doesn't reject the concept of the collective
It absolutely does. Taxation is an example of self-sacrifice that cannot coherently exist in an individualist mode of production (namely, capitalism). It is inherently anti-independence and is an arbitrary equalizer. It is sacrifice for the group at the expense of the individual.
>Militaries are a necessary collective
I reject the draft. Now what? You can't have half-measures when it comes to absolutes, like military or taxation. An independent individualist cannot exist alongside a forced institution like the military that drafts males at the age of, say, 18.
>Individual responsibility is half of individualism.
What responsibility does the independent land-owner have to the arbitrarily defined collective? none.

>>134464561
Individualism for economic matters, collectivism in social ones
The government should gas the kikes but I don't want to be forced to pay for it

>>134464561
False dichotomy.

>>134475118
>Ethno-centrism is collectivism, by definition. The founding fathers were white nationalists, which is a collectivist ideology. The Naturalization act serves to protect the in-group from foreign entities. It is the epitome of the collective banding together to ostracize the out-group.

Nothing in this post has anything to do with why we should have an army rather than a militia.

>>134474386
You're right. They're pains in the ass. And a society whose political debate revolves around every specific sexual practice or other private details will crumble and die. Look at the nonsense LGBTQ3ZS... it has no end.
I learned a few hours ago that now there are "gender budgets". Follow this path of nonsense, it leads to civil war.

>>134474207
I take sandnigger Moktar in my T34. Let's kick some kulak's asses.

>>134475526
At least the others attempted to argue in good faith. This is a really lazy attempt.
>Just because you want to keep individual rights safe doesn't mean you have to be totally cut-off from anyone else
You cannot allow self-sacrifice in the form of, say taxation, while also allowing the independent who don't require arbitrary financial equalizers to 'opt out'. You can either have full measures or half measures.

File: 1397012654022.jpg (57KB, 414x409px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 414x409px

You need to have your individual rights respected by the government and by other individuals, but you also need to be collective enough to be nationalistic and patriotic so that you defend the good system you live in that provides you this individuality.

>>134474351
Personal gain is how the world prospers.
Okay so lets skip foward in your (((lolbterian))) world 100 years from now.

>yay im a millionaire and can afford materialistic shit.
>im being swarmed by hoardes of third world savages
>whites are a minority in the USA and europe
>degeneracy is rampant, beastiallty and paedophilla is acceptable
>the jews control the world and their is a one world government
>so what i can buy that classic porsche 911 ive always wanted who cares about anything other than wealth?

>>134475624
Sorry Nazbol, I'm a fascist.

File: 1499935138772.jpg (183KB, 1400x989px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1400x989px

>>134464561
you can't ask questions like this with collectivism unless the answer to your question is collectivism.

does that answer your question faggot?

>>134475371
there's no such thing as a nation state

there are, however, billions of individuals each living a unique, distinct life

and you want to harm a fucking large portion of them just to bring about your LARPing fantasies of cringy marble statues

>>134475009
Everyone is an individual you dipshit.

Again, individualism is about putting the individual above the collective, not rejecting the concept of collectives entirely.

>>134475039
Individualism is about putting The Individual, as a concept, first. Self-centeredness is about putting yourself first. So no, it's not real individualism.

>>134475118
>Quite the opposite, the individualist is fundamentally independent and doesn't rely on groups at all.
An extremist, maybe.

>It is about keeping your own wealth and private property to yourself,
You're talking about self-centeredness again.

>not giving it up to the group in the nation.
Not putting the collective above the individual doesn't make you self-centered you fucking dipshit.

>>134474331
>it isn't in their personal interest to help him
This is objectivism (a small subset of individualism), not individualism in its entirety.

>>134475525
are you denying the founding fathers vision of america failed? and it failed beacuse it was impossible

>>134475596
why are there so many shitheads lately commenting with "NOT AN ARGUMENT" or "FALSE DICHOTOMY" as if that means or counters anything.

Half the time someone claims not an argument/false dichotomy they're wrong in that assessment anyway, it's fucking idiotic.

Explain WHY you think it's a false dichotomy and where you believe the overlaps are, or what the alternatives are, or else don't comment at all you fucking nigger

>>134475619
>Nothing in this post has anything to do with why we should have an army rather than a militia.
I was referencing the collectivist nature of ethno-centrism, a founding pillar of the USA.
The militia is voluntary, but if the masses are not united by, say, ethno-centric or some other factors, there will be no motivation or united front to defend the homeland. Armies are superior.

>>134475695
And you're still forcing the meme that all individualists are objectivists.

>>134474929
The founders forbade niggers spics goatfuckers anyone who was not white and Christian from becoming citizens.

The founders were racial cultural and religious identitarians.

ie collectivists.

You are confusing the government and system of checls and balances the founders made with some broader melting pot fantasy that kikes invented to subvert the west and America.

None of what the founders made work in a heterogeneous society.

An outside group will simply gather and organize and subvert those checks and balances to their own ends or simply vote them away.

>>134475204
>their vision fails
On what premiss?

File: Chaosundivided.png (15KB, 213x217px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 213x217px

>>134473866
>Chaos Undivided

LOL

>>134475844
>there's no such thing as a nation state
Demonstrably untrue. There is a common culture and language uniting masses who are of the same stock and blood, who elect a state to represent and defend them.
>there are, however, billions of individuals each living a unique, distinct life
Irrelevant to the question of a nation-state. The state exists, as does the nation united by common identifiers.

>>134475487
I hate consequentialism of all kind. I am vehemently deontological. I'm partial to classical liberal natural law but I'd say everything I believe is derived from valuing that each human lives a distinct, unique life and that life is the only life they have. I just think it's outright wrong to use violence against one person to benefit another. I don't know how to make others also value this axiom other than hoping that they know it's true also in their intuition.

>>134475911
>An extremist, maybe.
*Principled.
>You're talking about self-centeredness again.
An individualist is self-centred. They have no obligation to anybody but themselves and they will not be forced to do anything otherwise. This is what absolute individualism is about. You cannot be against coercion but support "a little taxation". That's a middle ground fallacy.
>Not putting the collective above the individual doesn't make you self-centered you fucking dipshit.
If you put the individual above the collective, then you are an individualist. If you choose both to some degree, you are neither. If you put independency above group sacrifice/loyalty, then you are, by definition, concerned with the self and not the whole.

>>134475911
>Individualism is about putting The Individual, as a concept, first. Self-centeredness is about putting yourself first. So no, it's not real individualism.
and communism is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,and the state. and if it fails and becomes a dictatorial shithole it wasnt really communism

>>134476017
Principled individualists, at least. You must either be entirely against/opposed to coercive institutions and push for their abolition, or not. Don't call yourself an independent individualist if you support taxation, as that puts the collective above the independent individual.

>>134464758
but family = patriarchy shitlord

>>134475954
I see your point, and lots of these posts are the dumb kind.

At what point do you draw the line on explaining simple shit? If someone is going on and on about how they know how to make a perpetual motion machine would you take the time to explain conservation of energy? Or say the equivalent to "not an argument/false dichotomy"?

>>134475951
There were lots of founding fathers with lots of different visions. They viewed America as an experiment in republican government to see if people could govern themselves. Their system lasted longer and created more prosperity than any other political system to ever live. It may be failing. It may just need to be tweaked and renewed. But it's surely better than any other political system ever tried.

>>134476350
>no TRUE individualist isn't objectivist!

>>134476032
the guy said that the founders envisioned a nation where there were no imperialistic wars of aggression, only voluntary self-defense of the homeland. and that vision failed

>>134475844
>and you want to harm a fucking large portion of them just to bring about your LARPing fantasies of cringy marble statues
Nation states brought about the greatest content and fulfullment for the most people of any idea that has ever existed.

>>134475507

I understand it perfectly.
What you are not able to grasp is simple game theory.

Unless a group forms mutual agreement to self preservation and actually has a way to identify who is part of that group and who is not (Culture race religion) it is forever exposed to the threat of another group killing them and taking all their shit.

>>134476019
>An outside group will simply gather and organize and subvert those checks and balances to their own ends or simply vote them away.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-10.php

Wrong.

>>134475560
>It absolutely does.
Nigger I'm telling you again that it doesn't. You can keep insisting that it does, but you're fucking wrong. Individualism is about placing THE INDIVIDUAL, as a FUCKING CONCEPT, above THE COLLECTIVE, as a FUCKING CONCEPT. It means believing that the individual is the fundamental of society, with collectives being the product of individual interaction, as opposed to collectivists, who believe that the collective is the fundamental component of society, with the individuals making it up being nothing more than components.

>>134475560
>I reject the draft. Now what?
Then you leave the fucking country. Living in society means a negotiation of the individual freedoms and responsibilities of everyone in the society. That's a fact of life, and the only people who think you can change it are anarcho-capitalists, and while they are individualists, they're concept of individualism and liberty is shit and overly simplistic.

>Arbitrarily defined collective
Collectives aren't arbitrary. He has many responsibility to the people in the society he lives in, because he gains benefits from living in society.

>>134475624
>Look at the nonsense LGBTQ3ZS... it has no end.
All of that shit is coming out of the progressives, who are neo-marxist and collectivist as fuck.

>>134476434
How can you support taxation or dependency/self-sacrifice to the collective while calling yourself a principled individualist concerned with the self and not the whole? It's called a middle ground fallacy, you can support personal liberties, but you refute your position when you espouse rhetoric enabling coercive institutions like the state to tax and restrict free movement.

>>134476399
>Their system lasted longer and created more prosperity than any other political system to ever live. It may be failing.
monarchism lasted longer and created a lot of prosperity to

>>134476061
Stop using violence to hurt innocent people you don't like.

Stop LARPing about m-muh Europa m-muh marble statues

>>134476662
Thing is, the "liberty for man" did not extend to niggers because they were not human. Founding fathers were racial collectivists, sorry.
>>134476759
Completely diverting the point I made regarding nation-states. I will take that as an admission that it is valid.

>>134476759
>Stop using violence to hurt innocent people you don't like.
what is wrong with violence ? i want somthing i take it what are you gonna do about it? why is you opinion about violence better than mine?

>>134464561
Individualism.

>>134475844
>there's no such thing as a nation state
>there are, however, billions of individuals each living a unique, distinct life

Fallacy of composition. I suppose you also believe there is no such thing as a car, only an assembled collection of parts?

The libertarian meme that humanity is merely a group of individualis living atomised lives is demonstrably false. Humans are born, raised, live, work, play and die in groups. And most importantly they defend their goals, ideals and interests in groups, groups which are more important than simply the sum of their parts. Humans owe their very existence to groups, down to the level of the pairing of a mother and father. This inherent, human behaviour is the reason why hermits are so incredibly rare, individual living is an extremely inneficient way to live hence why natural selection has weeded out those who practice it.

>>134476252
>If you put independency above group sacrifice/loyalty, then you are, by definition, concerned with the self and not the whole.
There is no "whole" in the way you're using it. Collectives are groups of individuals, and the only way to properly promote their interests is to place the individual above the collective.

>>134476288
The comment you're responding to is an explanation of why that analogy doesn't work.

>>134464561
The old world was collectivist.
You guys always think of it as communism but social hierarchy can be considered collectivism.
Though today we would segregate this with useful jobs thanks to the inherent materialism of liberal democracies. Where vanity is a greater incentive than actual interest.
I'm not a soldier but eg. the average citizen should not be allowed to raise the tone on a soldier, and the soldier should be allowed to reprimand him and even use violence if he doesn't behave civically, eg not holding the door.

That's more my kind of collectivism.

>>134476692
Do you consider yourself to be an individualist?

Collectivism.

Individualism leads to the degeneracy we suffer from today.

>>134477179
Accepting the existence of collectives =/= collectivism.

>>134476672
You will not break the shield that people like that have spent years building. Good points.

>>134476672
>Nigger I'm telling you again that it doesn't
Middle ground fallacy, sorry. "I am against rape", "I support it". "Guys, what about a little rape?"
>Individualism is about placing THE INDIVIDUAL, as a FUCKING CONCEPT, above THE COLLECTIVE, as a FUCKING CONCEPT.
They are entities that manifest themselves in reality, such as the taxpayer or the state.
Individualists cannot operate within groups that pit the greater good above the individual liberties. Fairly simple concept. Individualism MUST be independent, through and through, otherwise it falls right into the middle ground fallacy.
>Then you leave the fucking country.
Nope. Then, we will test your cognitive dissonance as you utilize collective authority at the expense of individual liberties. It is my freedom to refuse to engage in coercive/violent activities.
>it are anarcho-capitalists, and while they are individualists, they're concept of individualism and liberty is shit and overly simplistic.
What a weak ad hominem argument.
>Collectives aren't arbitrary. He has many responsibility to the people in the society he lives in, because he gains benefits from living in society.
To an individualist, they are nothing BUT arbitrary. Why should I pay taxes or have my liberties curbed in the name of some random disenfranchised group?

>>134477231
Collectivism is in and of itself degeneracy, and you cannot fight personal degeneracy through any way other than individual interaction. There are still gay people in the middle east, for fuck's sake. The only way to fight that type of degeneracy is to convince people not to do it.

>>134477147
>There is no "whole" in the way you're using it.
Yes, there is. The whole is the entirety of the nation and the community/society. There is no allegiance to that in an individualist system. Perhaps in a quasi-individualist "taxes are okay" society, but that is self-refuting.
>Collectives are groups of individuals, and the only way to properly promote their interests is to place the individual above the collective.
Correct. The collective has higher priority than the individual. The reverse is true with principled individualism. When you say "their", the subject of the sentence is 'collectives', but it isn't grammatically accurate to use 'their'. Elaborate on that point.

>>134477224
Appealing to my motivation won't change my points.

>>134475560
>>Militaries are a necessary collective
What about a volunteer military?

>>134476662

The federalist papers were written by White Christian Anglos for White Christian Anglos.

They were homogeneous.

They in no way would work in a society speckled with cultural marxists La Raza and Islam who not only have no interest in preserving any of the ideals contained within them but actively oppose them.

>>134477338
There is no "greater good" in a political sense other than ensuring individual liberty for all people.

>>134477486
>Y-you shouldn't force people to do anything
Fuck this laissez faire attitude. You want to live in society? You follow the guidelines of what's acceptable, otherwise you will be punished.

File: 1499276157138.jpg (101KB, 1046x496px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1046x496px

>>134477721
we keep trying to
unfortunately, the guideline of "dont steal" keeps gettin ignored by niggers and women

>>134477615
Self-refuting concept. How can you have a coherent and sturdy concept of camaraderie manifested in the representation of the nation (via military might) but have the institution be completely voluntary? This also presupposes maximum civil liberties, which will also necessitate the breakdown of arbitrary self-identifiers, like brotherhood or statehood. It is only the individual and his property, as he has no allegiance to the lower classes through taxation or anything of the sort. There is no ethnic brotherhood, either. If it is voluntary, why should I ever opt to engage in conflict of that sort? I will only take part if I am threatened, not my neighbour. However, this touches on the important point I raised here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy3fCvMz-8.
Groups will always triumph over individuals. Hence, the institution of the military MUST be forced in order to create a common bond to defend against enemy tribes that are united.

>>134464561

>this retarded false dichotomy

Collective morality is derived from the nature of the individual and vice versa. To don either as a political philosophy is vague, inevitably extremist, and gay as fuck.

>>134476392
Sure that's fair, and I don't really know the answer. The way I see it is that this is an anonymous, public message board, where there's no qualifications to comment or make arguments, so of course there's going to be a large amount of trash, but there's also a lot of civil and thought provoking conversation and debate that goes on, and I appreciate that people are generally quite blunt while still making their point, it cuts through some of the bullshit that way.

I suppose the problem is never knowing what someones intent is. You can't know if I'm just here for the lulz, to troll, or if I'm downplaying/overplaying my intelligence or knowledge, or what my motives are, so of course taking the time to explain something, especially to a complete stranger you'll likely never interact with again, can be daunting and often seem pointless.

Personally I feel my bullshit meter is usually fairly accurate, if I get the sense someone's trolling I will occasionally drop the "not an argument" thing and move on, but if I feel like someone's actually trying to have a discussion, and I have the time, I'll generally try to engage in a more serious and explanatory back-and-forth for the sake of both personal growth (is the hope) and to help others. I'm not adverse to having my own opinions changed, and generally try to give the benefit of the doubt to others and hope that they are equally open.

>>134477561
>The whole is the entirety of the nation and the community/society.
These things are epiphenomenal. They literally do not exist independent of the individual.

>>134477593
Then it shouldn't matter if you answer. Do you consider yourself to be an individualist?

>>134477684
>The federalist papers
The vast majority were written by Hamilton, who was an abolitionist.

>>134476759
Top kek the absoulte state of pacifist lolbertarians!
"Ooh i must not violate the NAP to cause violence against others it is agaisnt my cuck code."
>See's girlfreind get raped
Does nothing
>see's government take away rights
Does nothing
>see's government seize guns
Does nothing
>with freind who gets beaten up
Does nothing
>sees foreign country invade
Does nothing


And you lot keep calling commies cucks?
At least they fight back unlike 90% of you lolbetarian weaklings.