Individualism is societally destructive

I would like to start off by quoting Margret Thatcher "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!' or 'I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!' 'I am homeless, the Government must house me!' and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first" In other words, without individuals, there is no society. Society is just an aggregated group of individuals. By promoting the General Welfare of every individual within the community, you will generate more prosperity than if you focus on the Collective Welfare of the aggregated community. Relative Individualism Individualism can be relative. Favoring the local government over the central government is individualist, but favoring the local government over its citizens is collectivist. (Collective) International < Union State < Member State < Municipality < Citizen (individual) Collectivism and Individualism can be separated into 3 categories; 1.) The Policy of the State 2.) The Sovereignty of the State 3.) The Sovereignty over the State In regards to the policy of the state, the most collectivist would be nationalism and socialism, and the most individualist would be classic liberalism and anarchism. In regards to the sovereignty of the state, the most collectivist would be a unitary state, and the most individualist would be a confederation of states. In regards to the sovereignty over the state, the most collectivist would be monarchies and tyrannies, and the most individualist would be republics and democracies. Statism Tu quoque Pro makes an appeal to hypocrisy by claiming that since individualist revolutions lead to collectivist regimes, and collectivism is bad, that invidualism is bad. Slippery Slope Fallacy Pro claims that individualism is bad because it might cause a chain of events leading to a collectivist state. This is fallacious because the rise of a collectivist state can be prevented. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Pro claims that because the French Revolution occurred, than the Reign of Terror occurred, that the Reign of Terror was caused by the French Revolution. In reality the Reign of Terror was caused by numerous factors. The 2 largest factors were; 1.) The Jacobins controlled the government. 2.) Most of Europe declared war on France The Jacobins were Radical (left wing) Unitary Republicans, led by Robespierre. Unlike the Whigs of the American Revolution, the Jacobins favored collectivist sovereignty of the state, and they usually advocated collectivist policies; they were only individualist when it comes to sovereignty over the state. Through the Committee of Public Safety the Jacobins attempted to purge the revolution in order to unify France both morally and politically. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Fascism Fascism does not advocate individualism, it advocates collectivism. The basis of Fascism is National Syndicalism and/or National Socialism. Nationalism is a collectivist policy, where the good of the nation is put above anything else. A Nation is any aggregate of people sharing a common cultural identity. A Nation could be a race, a religion, or the citizens of a geographical location. National Syndicalism advocates organizing society into National Unions and Guilds; such as the German Labour Front. Through the Unions and Guilds the Fascist state was able to control and direct the economy. Communism Communism is not individualist. Communism is by definition its very definition a collectivist policy. A communist revolution is not an individualist revolution. Family Family > Municipality > State Pro talks about collectivism as if it was absolute. The more collectivist an organization is, the less it represents its individual members. Parents tend to have different methods for raising their children, and depending on the child’s personality they may require different parenting methods. If the municipality tries to implement communal parenting, they would find that their uniform parenting methods would not be as effective. Likewise, if the state took on the duties of the municipalities, some municipalities may become less efficient, whole others become more efficient. The relativity of collectivism can be demonstrated by the Protective tariffs imposed by Economic Collectivists; while the protective tariffs benefited the industrial north, it hurt the agricultural south. Clans When Clans are collectivist, following a family patriarch, the result can be disastrous. One of the best examples would be the feud between the Hatfields and Mccoys. The feud dates back to the civil war, when the Logan Wildcats killed Asa McCoy for joining the Union Army. Asa was the brother of the McCoy Patriarch, Old Ranel McCoy. Devil Anse, the Hatfield patriarch, was a member of the Logan Wildcats; as were many Hatfields. The Hatfield and McCoy feud could have been avoided, if the members did not put their Clan above its individual members. In a way, it could be considered a form of nationalism. http://www.history.com... Rural vs Urban Diversity vs individualism My opponent tries to claim that rural locations are more collectivist and cities are more individualist, but this is not the case. Pro confuses diversity with individualism. Cities are more diverse than rural areas, with greater variances in wealth, culture, and ethnicity, but rural areas are more individualist. If you look at the agreed upon definition, Individualism is “a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount". In other words individualists put the needs of each individual within the community over that of the aggregated community, and collectivists put the needs of the aggregated community over that each individual within the community. The larger and more diverse a population, the more decentralized the government should be. The smaller and less diverse a population, the more centralized the government should be. The reason cities are more corrupt than rural areas is because they are less efficient in representing the individuals within the community. Cities tend to have stricter and more collectivist laws, due to the greater population density, and they tend to have more crime, due to the inefficiency caused by diversity. http://www.fao.org... Economics Macroeconomics vs Microeconomics If you look at economics, macroeconomics would be impossible without microeconomics. Macroeconomics deals with the study of aggregated economic behavior, while Microeconomics deals with the study of the individual economic behavior. Without understanding microeconomics, you cannot understand macroeconomics. If you don’t understand the economic behavior of the individuals within the community, you cannot hope to understand the behavior of the aggregated community. The invisible hand The invisible hand is a great example of this. When each individual acts in their own interest, they inadvertently act in the interest of the entire community; through the invisible hand individuals benefit aggregated community, by maximizing the prosperity of the individuals that make up the community. When macroeconomic policies disregard microeconomics, it results in a deadweight loss to the economy. Price Floors, price ceilings, minimum wage, and over taxation, are all examples of this; each results in a deadweight loss to the economy, in the name of prosperity. The invisible hand does not only apply to economics, but it applies to individualism in general. http://www.investopedia.com...