Print Post Print Post

Collectivism Verses Individualism

Written by | March 7th, 2010

At the root of many of our political debates, in The United States, are two very fundamental differences: Collectivism vs. Individualism.

And while much has changed in our modern world; and while there is, and likely should be, some exceptions to the rules, the general premise of individualism applies today as much as it did when our nation was founded: 

Individualism, at it’s very core, gives individuals more freedom to make choices in their own lives – however, beyond that, if individuals, and individual entities, are to trip or fail, the effects on society should be reduced to the greatest extents possible. 

For example:

If a private company fails, they should be going through a bankruptcy procedure; likewise for individuals, and families who have over-extended their credit, or are no longer able to make ends meet. 

At the state-level:

If a program fails, at the individual state-level, it should not effect the other 49 states in The United States.

Conversely, collectivism presents systemic failures  at every turn: 

To name a few examples: 

• The federal  government owning over half of all mortgages in The United States, as opposed to individual banks assuming 100% of the risk, on all mortgages. (e.g. Fannie and Freddie, which were integral causes of our current, and severe, economic recession.) 

• Unfunded promises from federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare, are leaving our Federal Government with tremendous deficits; which will place tremendous burdens on all (tax-paying) United States’ citizens; which subsequently, and negatively, can place tremendous burdens on the entire economy as a result. 

In fact, in 1968, Fannie and Freddie were semi-privatized by The Federal Government because of the deficits they were placing on the budget of The Federal Government – thus facilitating, and opening up Pandora’s Box to the recklessness which followed. Had Congress never, presumptuously, created Fannie Mae as a government agency in 1938 – which allowed The Federal Government to buy government-insured mortgages from lenders, we would likely not be in the situation we are currently in today. Fannie and Freddie, today, are continuing to absorb billions in tax-payer dollars, just to keep them from collapsing. 

The federal government, or state governments, as far as I am concerned, should not be running any programs or services which can potentially put the tax-payers and overall economies at great risk. Of course, with state sovereignty, each state is free, by consensus of their voters, to enact any programs they see fit. 

Our founders, wisely, and deliberately, kept the powers of Congress limited to specific powers; sadly, many problems, as a result of excessive (unconstitutional) powers, exercised by our federal government over the years, are coming to fruition today. 

Furthermore, anyone who believes in our Republic, should be unified in de-centralizing an out of control federal government. Anyone who wants to increasingly give more power to our central government, can neither believe in Democracy or our Republic – as Democracy is either total rule by the citizens, or can be a representative form of government; however, many, especially on the left, claim to want more Democracy, yet they continue to vest more power into the federal government – which is essentially an Aristocracy, and the very concept upon which our founders fought to get away from. 

Individualism, not only promotes more freedom, but  for all practical matters, it safeguards our freedom, and the sovereignty of our country as a whole. And furthermore, in my opinion, anyone who espouses collectivist systems such as Socialism or Communism, are not only rejecting our free-market system of economics, but quite possibly, a representative form of government as well. In my opinion, all such systems are fundamentally un-American; and  by this country, should be rejected at all costs!

Like/Follow us
on Facebook

One thought on “Collectivism Verses Individualism

  1. gmeades

    "many, especially on the left, claim to want more Democracy, yet they continue to vest more power into the federal government; which is essentially an Aristocracy"

    Nicely explained, but they still won't get it, unfortunately… 

    Those on the left are so indoctrinated with the idea of achieving  short term "equality" "social justice" "environmental justice", etc. they are what the communists (now called "progressives") have long referred to as "useful idiots". 

    They only see the short term; only desire the immediate win; and for the most part are purely emotionally driven. 

    Facts are of no use to them unless those facts give them a weapon to win with, otherwise facts are not worth discussing or contemplating.

    For those on the left, "the ends justify the means" is their immoral stance and mode of operation, and they have no guilt or conscience regarding their actions, as "the ends justify the means", and they believe what is right is for them to win and for you to lose. 

    They do not care to reason, discuss or debate calmly to exchange information for the purpose of empowering both sides to a higher, more informed state. 

    They choose to believe your arguments are simply your opinions, as that is how they operate, and so they choose to argue, to ridicule, to mock, to marginalize, to vilify, to turn any type of discussion into a personal attack on their opponents person, intelligence, mannerisms, or anything else other than the issue itself. 

    If you manage to engage someone from the left who has a superior vocabulary and is willing to engage in discussion, they most often will chide their opponent, or badger them with interruptible verbiage as we so often see on CNN, MSNBC, far left radio, and so on…

    In any case, your article will be useful and understood by those on the right who are looking for education and facts to support their understanding of long term and unintended consequences.  It clarified the position of the government as having set itself up as an Aristocracy, which is kinder than the term I use which is Dictatorship; as it does what it wants and ignores the will of the greater majority.

    Those who agree with the dictatorship for whatever reason, don't recognize that the system is broken, the legal and ethical process has been subverted, because again, to them, "the ends justify the means" even if it means on a far greater governmental level.

    The immoral cannot recognize immorality, believing it is just if it gets them what they want.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook