Individualism is societally destructive

Relative individualism Yes, I brought up relative individualism to clarify my argument. Society vs Government Pro claims that society can exist without government, but this is not true. Society can exist without the state, but it cannot exist without the government. There is a major difference; the State is a government with executive powers, but not all governments are states. A confederation has a central government but lacks a union state; for example, the United States in Congress Assembled was a Confederation. The Oxford dictionary defines a Society as “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” In other words, a society requires organization. Additionally, without such organization, individualism is unavoidable. Collectivism requires organization, even if the organizing body lacks executive authority. An anarchist society would have a government, but the executives would be each individual within the community; much like the decentralized executive powers of a confederation. Communitarianism Pro clarifies that he is advocating communitarianism, which is an ideology advocating individualist sovereignty of the state, with collectivist state policies. So pro is basically arguing in favor of collectivist policies, rather than collectivist sovereignty. Economics Micro vs Macro Pro cedes my point about Micro vs Macroeconomics, but claims it is only relevant to economic policies. Economics is a study of human behavior patterns, and the principles of economics can be applied to noneconomic situations. For example; an increase in the demand for murder would result in increased murders and an increase in price/consequences. An increase in the supply/opportunity to commit murder would result in increased murders and a decrease in the consequences. A price/consequence floor would result in a decrease in the demand for murders, and an increase in the opportunities to commit murders. A consequence ceiling would be any law designed to increase the consequences of murder. Wrong direction Individuals make up the community, so it is individuals who determine the wants and needs of the community. If a majority of the individuals within the community share similar wants and needs, than the minority may or may not be influenced by the majority. The probability that an individual will be influenced is unique to the individual’s personality. The invisible hand Again, economic theories are transferable to social science. “He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” ~ Adam Smith on the invisible hand http://www.investopedia.com... The rich would not be rich if they put the community above themselves, and it follows that they would lose their power to benefit society. If a business decided to help their employees by paying higher wages, it would result in an increase in unemployment, a decrease in output, and an increase in prices. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it is by taking care of ourselves first and the community second, that the general welfare of the community is maximized. If every individual put the community above their own needs, the needs of the individuals would not be met, and it would follow that the community’s welfare would suffer. Statism Red Herring Pro claims I didn’t touch his argument that the destruction of individualist local authorities leads to collectivist centralized authority. This is a red herring, as my arguments indirectly addressed this claim unnecessary. Once again, local authorities are individualist, so I whole heartedly agree, as it supports my stance. Tu quoque Pro does not refute the appeal to hypocrisy; he just states that he is not advocating collectivism, which is not only false, but irrelevant to the claim. Semantics Pro claims that he is not advocating collectivism, he is advocating communitarianism. This is a semantic argument, as communitarianism is a form of collectivism. If you are arguing against individualism, you are arguing in favor of collectivism. Attacking the words used does not refute the premise. Slippery Slope Pro claims I was unclear on how his claim was a slippery slope fallacy. The American Revolution was individualist, but unlike the French revolution, did not result in the reign of terror. Some members of the military urged Washington to overthrow congress, and institute a monarchy, but he chose not to. Hence, the slippery slope fallacy; the rise of dictator can be preventing during the process. Re Tu quoque Pro makes another appeal to hypocrisy by claiming that in the name of individualism, the Jacobins instituted collectivist policies. This is not reflective of individualism, it is reflective of collectivism. Faux strawman Pro claims that I was straw manning him about the Nazis and Communists being individualists, yet it was Pro who claimed that the rise of the Nazis and Communists were “All, initially, in the name of individualism”. Family Clans As stated before, loyalty to a clan is like loyalty to a nation; the blind loyalty of nationalism is dangerous. A clan is a group of interrelated families. Clans are similar to gangs; which is why the KKK called themselves the Klan and why the Italian mob was organized into families. Clan feuds start the same way gang wars start; the family was threatened or disrespected, and out of loyalty to their family the clan retaliated. Pro claims that the Hatfields and McCoys were famous because it feuds were rare, but in actuality feuds were common after the civil war, because the war pitted neighbor against neighbor. The feud made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which brought media attention to the feud. Entitlement Pro claims that the individualism caused people to be self-centered. In reality, it was collectivism. The sense of entitlement, that is so widespread in today’s generation, is due to a collectivist mindset. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Parenting Pro claims that it takes a community to raise a child, but that is not the case. In 1996 there was an incident in Texas where security guards physically disciplined a group of children who broke into the mall; as can be expected, the parents were furious. The security guards justified their actions with the “it takes a village” proverb, but it didn’t fly. http://www.helium.com... Communal parenting is a mistake, because every child is different. One parenting technique might be good for one kid, while being counterproductive for another. Parenting should be unique to the child; therefore the best person to raise a child is their parent or guardian, because the parent knows their child best. http://www.allaboutparenting.org... Cities Crime Pro falsely claims that I did not explain how diversity causes crime. As I have already stated, the more diverse a community the more individualism is required. When a collectivist society is too diverse, the inefficacy hurts the welfare of the community, causing an increase in crime. Pro has mistaken this diversity for individualism. Rural Areas Pro claims rural areas are collectivist, but in actuality they are individualist. I live in a rural community, and the main reason I moved here is because it is individualist. People of rural communities are more self-reliant than people in cities. Yes people in rural communities are friendlier, and are more likely to help one another, but they always put themselves before the community. Urban communities have always favored collectivism and rural communities have always favored individualism.