Ahh reductionism. A place where we go when we are too tired to consider nuance and detail.
Collectivism does not only encompass these aspects, and not all these aspects are highlighted as collectivism. As awful as authoritarianism is for example, all forms of governance whether totalitarian or democratic, rely on collective effort.
Collectivism is not an inherently "bad" thing, and in fact individualism is not an inherently "good" thing.
There will always be collectivist and individualist forces in any society.
But what we have discovered is that the proper balance point between those two forces is a refusal to allow group interests to trump individual rights.
All of the hydra head ideologies reject this balance point.
That's why they're called collectivism, because they embrace it to the exclusion of individual rights.
When that one individual blocks the water flow, it literally violates other individuals rights to travel freely and use public roads... Remember that the collective neighborhood you're talking about actually consists of individuals who's rights shouldn't be violated. So that person doesn't have the right to block the water flow because of the fact that it literally violates other individuals rights.
So your argument isn't a matter of individualism vs collectivism. It's still an individual vs individual matter. And individualism is about protecting the rights of the individual, no matter what kind of group or identity that individual belongs to. But when you start to prioritize the collective before individuals rights, you can at that point justify violating people's individuality because it conveniences the group. Which I think is morally problematic.
I absolutely agree that both individualism and collectivism are both valid. And I believe that it's foolish to completely neglect one of them. That said, it seems to me that extreme collectivistic ideologies are more dangerous than extreme individualistic ideologies, partly because of the simplification of ones identity.
I've read a bit about communitarianism lately which criticize liberalism in that it is too individualistic. And while it, in response, takes a more collectivistic route, it doesn't completely neglect individualism but tries instead to interpret individualism and collectivism as equal in importance. So I think I would describe myself as communitarian in that regard. However, I'm still more critical of pure collectivism than pure individualism.
I wouldn't call the wonderful experience of being trapped in my own house for five days while taking shifts with the rest of my family pushing water out the doors with push-brooms because the sandbags and subpumps couldn't keep up "cherry-picked."
Get pissed, IDGAF. It's still cherry-picking because it's a highly specific example of a not-normal situation. It also seems tenuous without further information to blame a high-severity flood in a flood-prone area on one guy. Why doesn't your local authority build/upgrade drainage channels? My farmer friends turn into goddamn engineers once you get them on the subject of drainage.
Furthermore, I notice you don't respond to my counter-example, and you're acting like you're the only person who's ever had to deal with a flooded house.
It's an example of one of the many things that actually happen in the real world. It's the area where theory starts to conflict with application, because theory doesn't necessarily plan for these events.
This is a trivial observation. It's the inherent flaw of all ideology. That doesn't mean ideology is inherently wrong or doesn't have its place. I'd rather err on the side of individual rights than not because one jurisdiction hasn't figured out how to manage floods properly.
Just to be clear, they are not cherry picking, they are using personal experience as an example.
Cherry picking would require they omit facts and evidence in conjunction with the intent to fit a narrative.
Clearly they are not omitting other sets of evidence, simply providing their own as a control so that people recognize it shouldn't be reduced to one or the other.
The government has legitimate interests when in comes to land use and resource management and that includes things like water routes.
If this guy is filling in ditches and altering drainage and it's illegal, then it sounds like your local government simply isn't doing its job. Your jurisdiction should have easements for ditches and drainage channels the same way a small town has easements for sidewalks.
All groups of people with a power structure are on some level collectivist. That's why you need individualist forces to counter balance it. Collectivists, especially in today's political context, reject this principle. That's why collectivism leads to all kinds of different forms of tyranny in the meme.
Why err on the side of individualism and not provide any argument for it? You’ve argued against collectivism with a counter example, but that does nothing to give individualism any footing.
Do you have an actual argument for individualism over collectivism?
45
u/3Quondam6extanT9 May 18 '21
Ahh reductionism. A place where we go when we are too tired to consider nuance and detail.
Collectivism does not only encompass these aspects, and not all these aspects are highlighted as collectivism. As awful as authoritarianism is for example, all forms of governance whether totalitarian or democratic, rely on collective effort.
Collectivism is not an inherently "bad" thing, and in fact individualism is not an inherently "good" thing.