On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

a) Collectivist Societies The main and fundamental premise behind this first contention is that when a society is built off collectivism, everyone is pulled in into a collective society, which works towards a collective goal that might not be the consensual goal of all men. This attitude (i. e the attitude that men can all be collected and work on one fundamental goal through consent) should be called “societal altruism”. Societal altruism takes upon the presumption that societies are not ultimately modification of individuals, which are substances, but that individuals are modifications of societies, and societies can exist without individuals. These attitudes of “societal altruism” eventually create an attitude, a subliminal but interestingly complex one, of “collectivizing all men” in pursing the goals of the “majority”. A collectivist society, and collectivism as a socio-ethical system, meets this fallacy: the fallacy of bandwagon. Utilitarianism assumes that might is right; the majority may be for redistributing the money of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. However, this goes against the individual liberties that he has. This argument will be based upon the premise that the majority is not always correct, and that when men are collectivized, they are ultimately collectivized to follow one goal, one aim, which ultimately destroys their freedoms as this collectivization cannot be supremely consensual. This shall be demonstrated in the following syllogism: P1. All men are free P2. All free men are individuals with different wants C. All men are individuals with different wants From this conclusion, we can infer the following: P1. All collective societies are united in wants P2. All societies that are united in wants are non-plural in regards to other wants C. All collective societies are non-plural in regards to other wants The second conclusion ultimately contradicts the first conclusion that men comes up with. When societies are non-plural in regards of the desires of each other, they needlessly oppress. This oppression comes with a huge price for the liberties of the pepole. This quality, virtue, can be exemplified via fascism. The collectivism of National Socialism and Fascism led to the rise of the destructive states of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, responsible for killing at least 5 million people. The main logical structure behind these societies was an attempt in the creation of a sociological Absolute built upon nationhood; that a nation must be valued above life for it is the future of the race or the people etc. I quote from the Doctrine of Fascism: “Fascism has not only been a political revolt against weak and incapable governments… but also a spiritual revolt against old ideas which had corrupted the sacred principles of religion, of faith, of country…Never before have the peoples thirsted for authority, direction, order, as they do now” Henceforth, on the grounds of oppression, collectivism creates a society that does not consider the desires of others, and puts the state on as a sociological substance. b) Arguments from Evolution There are many arguments for evolution. The main arguments, however, imply the following premise; that individual sustainability is ultimately the most important thing that man must aspire for. The only way for human evolution to continue is via the virtue of self-sufficiency. Here, I am not arguing for overt selfishness, for such ethical demands would allow for society to be wrecked by "evolution" Ultimately, men aspire independence and individualism. Men are inherently individuals and requires independence to sustain themselves. Men are never identified as a societal unit. Individualism promotes evolution; in the past, food and many other vital supplies were scarce. In this, we take the position of Mr. Herbert Spencer. Via free-compeitition, and highly-individualistic compeitition, humans could get smarter, stronger. i. e "better" in this case. Humans will eventually become, via free-compeitition, "Ubermensch" or the super-man, a man who has a superior psychological and moral instinct. There are many exemplifications of this; if we observe society, we can ultimately see that societies where human freedom is worshipped, we can see that generally there are more scientific progress in such societies. An example of this is the United States of America. The United States of America has the second largest amounts of patents applications, despite their population being significantly smaller in respect of proprotion. Another example of this is Japan, which has the most patents in the world. Their society was built upon the principle of individual freedom and the respect of such concepts. [1] Mr. Spencer's predictions, that ultimately there must be as few artificial restrictions as possible for intellectual progress (and perhaps progress in general), is proven in this respect. c) Game Theoretical ArgumentsGame theory also applies to this argument. Let us take the Hawk-Dove Game as an example of this. This game originated from the thought of Mr. John Maynard Smith. This game in general is called the Chicken. It basically states that since the outcome is bad for both if both players do not yield, then it must henceforth be of personal interest for the players to yield. The basic description of this game is that there is a mutual conflict for food. The preliminary concepts of this is that x will act aggressive for the yield, whilst y will not. If x meets y, then there x takes all the yield. If x meets another x, then there is a fight over the means and a probability of 50% of x taking all the yields. If y meets y, then the yield shall be divided into two and henceforth, only half the yield is taken for each. If y meets x, then y takes no yields. The reward preliminary is W > T > L > X. Let us formalize the logical basis here; there is always a 1/2 chance of individualism yielding off results that are inherently beneficial for them. For if the hawk does not yield, then either the dove would get 1/2y (T basis). This Hawk-Dove game is also an exemplification of the fallacies of collectivism, for if the hawk yields and cooperates with the dove, then he would not get the yield that he ultimately deserves. This is the fallacious contention of capitalism; that everyone deserves the same amount of capitals. Apart from this game, there must also be another game considered; the Prisoner's Dillemma. This game is a cooperative game in which the solutions are inherently util, but the basis is much more individualistic than altruistic, as shall be proven here. This one advocates for the greater good, but in reality, what is behind it is not altruism, but individualism. For example, if it were really for the greater good, then the following would be the case: (a) the greator good states that if the other person is free, then ultimately their justice was served for you. For example, if x abstains, then y would inherently go free, henceforth util just. However, the conceived solution to this game is much more individualistic, for since x abstaining is util just, then absention would be ultimately anti-interests to do. d) Ends of Political Sciences The study of political science is ultimately aimed at creating a society that could balance the encroachments on the rights of man and still create a state in which law and order could be sustained. There are generally two ways of describing the rise of the government; one is government by necessity of commodity, and the other is government by necessity of liberty. Both focus upon the individual exclusively. The first way is a traditional way: an ancient materialistic theory. This theory states that societies as we know it today arises from the necessity of the organization of goods after the division of labor. This view can be said to be individualistic; ancient philosophers often described societies as a compound connection of individuals. For example, I quote Aristotle in his De Polis “ In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue…Out of these two relationships between man and woman…the first thing to arise is the family. .. . Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident…And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. ” Now, this doctrine places the state and society as tools of the individual, not vice-versa, as collectivism affirms. The second way is a more necessarily contract based way. This is called the social contract, which presents a more sociological origins towards socially coercive institution. This view also takes upon the premise that ultimately, all actions have an individualistic basis. Government was made via contract, and contract necessitates liberty, which is the ONLY benefit that men can gain from coercive power. I apologize for this hastily written case. This is all I could do in 1 hour. Resolution remains negated