individualism > collectivism

Now I do believe that there was no intend of tricky play from your side, I have seen rebuttals only type of debating to many times, though that's was coming, I am pleased to say that it was a mistake on my behalf. For the future I would suggest going with opening positions in first or acceptance in first opening in 3th without rebuttals while opening. For this round I will try to advance my position further, answer your question and raised some questions on my own, will comment on your five major arguments as well. In regards of your question In short nothing, same applies for individuals as well, the question should be whatever that is (When using "that" I mean suggested action, not imply consequence.) beneficial to the collective as a whole first and foremost. Another thing that should be considered is that collectivism doesn't completely undermine individuals, only their supposed "rights" that would have negative effect for the collective are restricted, for example private ownership in Marxist sense of this term. You should not forget that collective is a unit created for the wellbeing of majority of individuals. So my point it, yeah there is nothing stopping this action, however there is no reason to take it as well. Comments on your arguments 1."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" leftist Collectivism doesn"t ask from those who can"t, only from those who would rather not to. 2.Modern democracy is a myth, just a race between the rich that can fund and sustain their campaigns, trying to choose lesser evil every time is not much of a privilege from my perspective. Whatever it should or should not be enforced is up for the state to decide really, it"s a freedom everyone gives away by being a citizen. 3.In the worst case scenario here you have rich state under collectivism or rich private property owners under individualism, difference is that collectivism has better options here, individuals, at least liberal one implies capitalism which makes it stuck at worst option as the only one. 4.Not true, even having a state is a form of collectivism in itself, which doesn"t have to lead to it. But I will go more into extremes here, self-proclaimed "Individualistic" countries can only live well when abusing others, whatever it"s for oil or cheap labor. Individualism always will work for few, for the so called lucky ones, while the rest will have to suffer. 5.Now that"s a big claim, so what is this nature of mankind and what arguments would prove it? Is it static, how do we know if it"s static? I am only getting my feet wet here, point is I would like for you to expand on your points, since none of them seem to stand on their own in my view. I would also like to hear what problems you might see with the general form of my argument, I will try to restate it here more in detail, to give you more to work with. My position 1.Politics is the art of government of collective unit, usually similar to a nation in it's essential qualities;. 2.Every ideology that is superior in political sense acquires this superiority by being beneficial for a collective which it governs; 3.For something to be beneficial for a collective it has to be beneficial for majority of its parts, in this case individuals; 4.Individual freedoms and wishes are not always in line with what's beneficial for a collective; 5.Individual freedoms and wishes are not always in line with freedoms and wishes of other individuals; 6.Collectivism by definition always try to achieve what is beneficial for a collective; 7.Hence collectivism is in line with the function of politics while individualism doesn't have a stable position in this regard. Even more than this, collectivism is beneficial to most individuals, while individualism is beneficial for the powerful few. P.S. Sorry if there are any grammatical mistakes, I"m in a rush today so had to type this down quickly.