Message from @skreee
Discord ID: 474221615551348736
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 đź”– 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
I am a libertarian
he means libertarian (socialist)
Private ownership is best for resources
wew imagine someone unironically saying that
I am a libertarian
I'd say private for a general answer but really depends on the resource and situation in question
Private ownership of land and resources but only for individuals and companies native to the country. Free trade benefits us all, but we shouldn’t allow other nations to rob us of the fruits of our own lands. Take Romania for example. Germany is fucking the shit out of them. Germany has strict rules when it comes to cutting timber in Germany , so they just go to Romania, buy the land from poor farmers, and clear the forest out. It’s bull shit.
And Romania can’t do anything because the EU forces them to let Germany in.
abolish the EU