Collective

Individual

collective

pursuing the interests of the collective seems to outweigh

but individual rights can act as a prerequisite to taht

Individual

Collective

It depends but more collective

I think collectivizing is necessary

It's not

Individualists are collectivists in their own right, one could argue

Collectivist in thought

Just not in ethnicity

You do not represent all of the millions of other whites for example, nor do they represent you

huwhite powah

Define 'represent,' because I don't claim that I do

Collective

individualist

@anonymous anonymous Depends on what, exactly?

if he can get some ebony

@Deleted User Well individual rights are a nice ideal but can be damaging, like a drug attic can say its my right to do that drug. Yes it is but that can affect other people there for it should be illegal. Because the damage ought weights the freedom.

But you could say the same about guns. But the right to defend ones self out weights the damage firearms make.

Individuals

Free speech

Wooh

whats that thing in your avi

ensuring the rights of the individual

Collective

It's rather self-evident that the interests of the collective should be prioritized over that of the individual. The near-extinction of smallpox, polio, etc from the general public were collective population-wide efforts that ended more human misery than any single advance in individual political rights ever has. Likewise one of the largest sources of misery in the public today is found in the unchecked consumption of processed foods and the resulting degradation of body, mind, and spirit- the only plausible solution to which involves collective efforts in constraining individuals. If individual rights are important at all they are only important as political tools toward collective ends, particularly as barriers towards the majority appropriating the resources of or otherwise arbitrarily oppressing the minority in ways that ultimately harm the collective.

It's also quite evident that almost every single society on the planet, even those who are supposedly committed to individual rights, is willing to jettison individual rights as seen necessary when push comes to shove during wartime in order to protect the continued existence of the collective.

Outside of a few fanatics very few people actually support individual rights in principle as terminal goods ('God Given', 'Liberty or Death' types) because doing so is fairly stupid. More often people uphold them either because they're foundational to the social order (ex: constitutional rights), because they broadly benefit them personally now and for the foreseeable future (see: the partisan shift on free speech in the past 30 years), or because they believe they are ultimately beneficial to the collective interests of their society and/or humanity (ex: justifying gun rights because it keeps the people from being shuttled into concentration camps by a tyrant).

@everyone 🔖 Daily Question

Do you believe that it is better for private companies to be in possession of your country's natural resources, or should they be in the hands of the state? Explain your reasoning.

that's a question with a lot of hypotheticals.

Hi

The State, they have to atleast pretend like they care about the integrity of the Nation and not destroy everything for shekels.

They should be in the hands of whomever gets them /shrug

INDIVIDUAL

commie

COLLECTIVE

commie