Essential nature of the conflict between collectivism and individualism

Opinion, by Greg Cooper, June 2011

Individualism minimizes taking resources without owner's permission

Most people don't like individualism, as it sounds too selfish, so you will never convince them that it is better. Just reading the above comparison shows so many more services that people get from collectivism, which can improve their quality of life. For example, in individualism, the government will only protect you from harm from others, but in collectivism the government will give you comprehensive protection, care and attention throughout your life, from child care assistance to police protection to medical care and education to old age security.

But how are government benefits paid for? Whether it be individualism or collectivism, the reader should understand from where the government gets the resources that it allocates, and whether the taking of these resources by government is a moral act. These resources must come from somewhere. The government gets the resources it allocates mainly by:

1) taking them from the population, as in taxation, and

2) borrowing them, using the country's assets and its power to tax as security for the loan.

When resources are borrowed now, they must be paid back from funds taken in the future. And if this normal payback becomes unforeseeable or impossible, as it has done for some modern governments, payback must be made in a different way - by the delinquent government forfeiting assets or even giving up political power to the lender. So payback in one way or another cannot be escaped by defaulting.

So, it is established that the government needs to take, whether from the people now or from future generations, in order to provide. Forcibly taking money from people, without their consent, is a serious matter, which may be considered immoral, particularly when many people don't want many of the government services. Therefore, the individualist believes that this taking is justified only when used to provide the most essential function of government, which is protection of life, liberty and property. Under individualism, the government would take only the minimum amount of resources from the people, just enough to protect the people, and other services would be funded separately and voluntarily by the population.

________________________________________________________________

Individualism provides services more efficiently

Another reason individualists believe that resources taken from the population should not be used for services like education, health care, care for the poor and mail delivery is that those services are provided more efficiently by non-government entities, such as private schools and hospitals, churches, non-profits and businesses.

These competitive organizations feel vitality, pride, and indispensability which are not felt by their counterparts in the non-competitive, tax-dependent atmosphere of a government. It is like the sense of urgency and excitement shared by a football team - quite a contrast to the somber duty of the referee. Try to imagine winning the game if the team had the temperament of the referee. Then you can see how private businesses create a level of productivity not attainable by a government.

______________________________________________________________

In both systems, individualism and collectivism, a handful of people, elected by the population, make any laws for the whole population. Initially, this might seem sensible, but you don't have to think too deeply to understand that if unchecked, it can lead to 'lynch mob mentality', where any law is acceptable, simply because it has been made by a government elected by a majority.

Upon reflection, most people will agree that, in any government, a greater number of supporters does not guarantee moral action and certain constraints need to exist upon the will of the majority. By prioritizing the inherent rights of individuals to life, liberty and property, regardless of the number individuals affected by a decision, individualism insures that the will of the majority cannot trample on those individual rights.

_______________________________________________________________

Is there another reason, besides number of members, that a large group should have more rights than a small group? A seasoned collectivist might say it's not just the quantity of people represented that make a country more important than an individual or small group, but also it's that within a country, the individuals interact and inspire each other, creating a vast new set of productive relationships, not found in isolated individuals or smaller groups. These relationships make a country something 'more', not just in quantity, but also in quality, than if each of its citizens were considered alone or in a smaller group. This concept is expressed by the well-known truism, "The whole is more than the sum of its parts".

The greater quantity of individuals in a country, combined with the useful qualities of their interactions, give the country characteristics not found in separate individuals or smaller groups - the elusive 'whole that is more than the sum of the parts'. The collectivist believes these characteristics entitle the majority of individuals in a country to certain rights not deserved by a smaller group of individuals. Hence, collectivist leaders of countries make arbitrary decisions about individuals' rights, including serious decisions where individual lives are sacrificed for the benefit of the country.

We can see this when America allowed the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, so that America could justify getting into WW II, and in the long run, end the war earlier, saving more American individuals than were allowed to die at Pearl Harbor. This is a justification for collectivism, where the rights of the country, the larger group, supercede the rights of the individual or smaller group.

To the collectivist, it is sound reasoning - to the individualist it is severely flawed. In the individualist ideology, even if it were true that fewer lives were lost by allowing the Pearl Harbor attack, no individual or group, whether they be elected leaders of a country, a city or a state, has the right to force one law-abiding group, to give up their life, liberty or property for the benefit of a larger group.

__________________________________________________________________

Due to higher taxation under collectivism, productive individuals are rewarded less in direct earnings from their business than those individuals would be under individualism. On the other hand, un-productive individuals are rewarded more in collectivism, through, for example, welfare and medicare benefits.

__________________________________________________________________

In collectivism, productive individuals have found a way to receive additional rewards, above and beyond what they can earn directly from their private business. Though paying more taxes under collectivism, the productive individuals often receive lucrative appointments to lead regulatory departments in the collectivist government administration.

This well known process has earned the name The revolving door, because the productive individuals often move in and out between their positions in business and government. When in government, they administer laws regulating their field of expertise in their business.

The laws may offer protection to the public, but they often limit competition and tend to favor the businesses which the productive individuals have ties to. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, with members tied to the largest drug companies, consistently makes laws and regulations that restrict natural medicine and natural food production.

Also under individualism, the enforcement function of the FDA is replaced by ordinary law enforcement, where government resources are exclusively devoted to protecting individuals from harm by food and drug manufacturers. For example, if a drug company were to sell a drug that it knew may be harmful, this action would violate the right to life of the buyer, and an individualist ideology would support the government prosecuting the drug company.

_________________________________________________________________

Individualism offers more choices and responsibility -

As noted above, under individualism government limits itself to protection, so this ideology carries with it a higher degree of responsibility by the citizens for the other aspects of their lives. The government makes fewer laws and regulations to follow, and hence there are more choices for the citizens to make. The government is less involved in mediating the interactions individuals have with each other, so individuals feel the rewards or penalties of their actions quicker and they learn faster.

With this increased freedom in individualism, citizens are held more accountable for their actions. The results of their actions are not so much buffered by government (as for example by industry bail-outs or by government employment insurance) as they are in collectivism.

_____________________________________________________________

Bottom line:

Individualism is the superior ideology because it works, while collectivism doesn't work.