|
I have noted in many political threads that some people like to assert that any of society's problems can only be, or perhaps best be solved by collective action. In their minds, the individual is secondary or powerless to the will of the majority, sometimes even rightly so, they say.
Here is an attempt to break that thought on a few deductive grounds.
First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist.
First I want to establish the basic notion of consciousness. This is a circular premise that requires you to believe in it for the rest to follow, so if you do not, I apologize and you may want to stop reading then. Individuals have consciousnesses. Therein resides its experiences, feelings, goals(ends), means for its ends, etc. Other than myself, I can't really prove nor disprove whether other people have a consciousness, whether animals do, plants, rocks, I really don't know for certain. But I'm going to assume that they do not. So then, only individuals have a consciousness. Groups of individuals have individual consciousnesses, but no new consciousness is born out of them just by assembling. That would make a good sci-fi movie, but I'm gonna assume it's impossible.
A second and perhaps more important concept is that you cannot get inside my head. I cannot get inside yours either, so anything you think you know about me is assumed by my actions, even that which I speak directly to you, is assumed to be true (or not). You nor anyone will know for sure what another person wants, thinks, dreams, etc. Should be obvious, shouldn't it.
There is no harm in assuming itself, thankfully. Harm can only be inflicted upon others by interpersonal actions. Me thinking that you're a threat to me won't make a gun fly off my hand and shoot you, unless I decide to act on that predicament. Which is my third point, man can only change anything in the universe through human action (edited, sry iNfuNdiBuLuM & twist), and only through other's actions can we assume things about our fellow men.
The three first points should be non-controversial, but the following may not. When man acts, (99% of the time being conscientiously as a small disclaimer), he acts to his best benefit, to the best of his knowledge. Given a choice between a certain set of circumstances, man will always choose that means which furthers his goal the best.
But duh, with this point, I've completely contradicted myself, for if man can be shown to act on that which is best for him, then we can *know* that whatever his action was, it was the best for him! So in fact, we know in retrospect what he wished to do at that moment in time - that which he just did! Well, yea, but that is only in hindsight. It is kinda worthless and somewhat common sense that whenever someone does something (conscientiously may I add, for the second time), it was because he chose to do it, that one thing, from many other choices at hand.
I think it's enough to elaborate on why collectivism is wrong with these... don't have to go that far into praxeology really.
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
#1 - Only individuals have consciousnesses
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
- Even if he was right in his assumptions, he could NEVER know if he was right unless he allows the man to act freely. (#3+#4)
Let me elaborate on that w\ a though experiment.
Imagine we were two on a room with an apple on top of a table.
I predicted that, among the many things you could do inside such room, the first and most important one for you would be to grab the apple and eat it. This is my assumption based on nothing. It could only be verified if you were to in fact freely grab and eat the apple. However, what if I were to pull a gun to your head and threaten you to shoot if you did not? Would you acting on distress be confirming my original hipothesis? Absolutely not, since the conditions where changed. You, acting man, were not choosing from eating the apple, dancing polka, doing any other type of activity or even leaving the room. You were choosing between eating the apple or potentially dying to my glock yo. My original assumption was never proved nor disproved.
Similarly, if government enacts a certain regulation obliging everyone to wear pink hats, it can never be proven that wearing pink hats was what everyone wanted to do all along, merely that, people prefer to wear pink hats than to face punishment for whatever it was stipulated.
- The collectivist will often concede the above points then proceed to claim that he knows whats best for the common good, a fictitious entity per #1
- The collectivist then keeps equivocating anyways, doing and saying whatever *he* feels like doing (according to premise #4 ofc). nothing particularly wrong w\ this, at least he's honest by then. (thug 4 lief)
So without getting into morals, (morals don't exist in reality btw I'll leave it at that, np) this is basically why thinking collectively even with the "best" (or should I say, altruistic) intentions never works, and as a rule of thumb, I suggest that whatever your assumptions on human behavior and societal organization are, do it voluntarily. If it's not voluntary, it's not worth it, and it will never prove anything. TY for reading.
The first one to pull an objective theory of value is gonna get austrianized, just saying.
edit 1: correction on #3
edit 2: missed a "he" on #3
edit 3: rewrote #1 to not intrude w\ emergence (sry/ty hefty)
|
What is essentially at the root of the problem with the issue of collectivism and individualism is this.
We know that individuals possess a common set of characteristics or nature that they exhibit. However, what individualizes man is his individual development in his/her particular environment. Thus, based on the value system and so forth, based on whatever kind of psychological, sociological and cultural upbringing a being had, such was their unique personal identity. However, at the root of that is a common nature that exists among a large collective of beings, that is one speculation on how collective theory arises.
Another idea we can posit is that individuals work based on their individual circumstances to derive certain conclusions and strive for certain goals based on, as we would like to say in our grossly individualist society, their self interest (not that it's wrong or whatever, just that it is). With this in mind we can posit that in certain common circumstances, like earthquake, global plague (to give obvious examples, but I say this just for the purpose of demonstrating the scenario) and so forth, there arises between certain collectives, or a general collective, to a common pursuit of goals.
So, I've demonstrated two examples in how pockets of individuals can congregate for whatever reason to form collectives in which they pursue a common set of ideals/goals/whatever. From here where can we go wrong?
Well, really I think what is the root of the problem is there can exist for whatever reason a disconnect between the individual and the collective. This can be for example, as generations are passed down you have people who are not educated/understand the collective as the original collective did (and thus why it formed the collective) or have different circumstances and are thus not motivated to fulfill the collectives ideals. The individual is thus no longer interested in the collective and if the collective does not fulfill the role of appealing to the reason of the individual (which is an example of an essential, objective trait of humanity, for, if reason were not objective, then this entire discussion is void of any credibility and necessity, as we are two individuals with inevitably different psychological, sociological and cultural upbringings but share a common understanding that only through reason can we communicate objective ideas that apply to all), then the individual will not be interested in being part of the collective. As we have seen throughout history, many collectives attempt to coerce the individual into molding to the collective ideals, and the disastrous results of such action, this however should not be the sole reason to dismiss collective ideals, because this is just the consequence of the abuse of collective authority.
The only way collectivism can work is through the appeal to the objective reason of the individual, through which the individual can only freely choose to act in.
So TLDR: You are right that you cannot ignore the individual in collective ideals, but to say that because certain collective ideals attempt to intrude upon the individuals freedom does not mean that collective behaviour, like altruism, is impossible or wrong.
Also, I can understand where you are coming from because really your view is coming from the reactionary understanding that, since we have so many numerous examples of authoritarianism, or the abuse of an institution as an authority, we should therefore dissolve such institutions and value individual freedom the most. The problem here is that you're analysis focuses on cherishing the self-interest of the individual, you even go as far as saying that morals don't exist outside of social construction, which means to say that if we are not part of the collective then really we make up our own morals, but if this is true then what restricts us from acting like animals and impeding upon other peoples freedoms?
I can talk about your misguided sense of freedom late but I will only deal with the improper, popular, understanding of the collective vs individualist argument for now.
|
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want
- Psychology is a highly respectable field of intellectual knowledge. Granted, to a T I may not be able to see directly into another person's mind; but I can get pretty damn close.
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions
- There is no *assume* about it. Psychologists apply the scientific method to their hypothesis. This is far more legitimate than a mere random die cast.
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
- I can't accept this one either. The passions of the human being cannot be denied. In a blind rage, any human could do any number of rational/irrational actions. You would ask me that I not take this into account, for this is not a human being in a natural state of mind. But what is more natural to a human than emotion? To lose oneself into a fully self-absorbed state is nothing new to the history of humanity.
OP, I liked what you had for a while. Thanks for sharing the philosophy. ;D
p.s. I haven't read the 2nd post. Haven't bothered, hope I haven't missed anything good.
|
The only way collectivism can work is through the appeal to the objective reason of the individual, through which the individual can only freely choose to act in. I'd like you to elaborate on what objective means in this instance.
|
good answers
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote:
What is essentially at the root of the problem with the issue of collectivism and individualism is this.
Good theories.
I tend to think more in a more evolutionary sense and say that collectivism has payed off a lot, but thugs have often taken advantage of a natural sense of empathy among most of the people and enslaved them, be it in a hunter-gatherer tribe, a traditional empire, monarchy, democracy, etc.
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote:
The only way collectivism can work is through the appeal to the objective reason of the individual, through which the individual can only freely choose to act in.
Can't be measured until we got brain scanners
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote:
So TLDR: You are right that you cannot ignore the individual in collective ideals, but to say that because certain collective ideals attempt to intrude upon the individuals freedom does not mean that collective behaviour, like altruism, is impossible or wrong.
I don't consider altruism to be collectivist since a total altruist will not force someone into doing something.
So he too respects individual rights the most.
In my view at least.
But if in yours he would, then well, he aint altruist to me. Semantics at that point of disagreement.
I could be using the word altruistic to mean something more than it is though, w/e idc
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote:
Also, I can understand where you are coming from because really your view is coming from the reactionary understanding that, since we have so many numerous examples of authoritarianism, or the abuse of an institution as an authority, we should therefore dissolve such institutions and value individual freedom the most.
Yes
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote: The problem here is that you're analysis focuses on cherishing the self-interest of the individual, you even go as far as saying that morals don't exist outside of social construction, which means to say that if we are not part of the collective then really we make up our own morals, but if this is true then what restricts us from acting like animals and impeding upon other peoples freedoms?
Ourselves.
Morals exist interpersonally, so nothing is stopping me from stabbing u, only that I've agreed (and perhaps u too) that killing is wrong
and stuff
some of it could be biological too, but regardless.
its ultimately a choice no different than eating chocolate or vanilla ice cream imo
but its k to disagree
On April 27 2010 13:35 oceanblack wrote:
I can talk about your misguided sense of freedom late but I will only deal with the improper, popular, understanding of the collective vs individualist argument for now.
k
|
On April 27 2010 14:10 L wrote:Show nested quote +The only way collectivism can work is through the appeal to the objective reason of the individual, through which the individual can only freely choose to act in. I'd like you to elaborate on what objective means in this instance.
I think he means like, if it were possible to objectively measure peoples thought processes
which would be quite a feat way far into the future
philosophies to this day don't even quite account for that possibility but
I think it's possible.
In fact, I think philosophy and ethics are just applied biology in that sense
I could be talking here all day about praxeology and how man acts, why does he choose what he chooses when in fact, there's a much more complex chemical chain of events that leads to everything I've said more or less
edit: or maybe I'm wrong and he didn't mean any of that, and I only wished he did because I had this totally cool answer ready for it
|
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed. Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head?
Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions
So all of that exists in his head.
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want
- Psychology is a highly respectable field of intellectual knowledge. Granted, to a T I may not be able to see directly into another person's mind; but I can get pretty damn close.
Psychology sucks balls I tell you truth.
And no you can't get close.
An actor could probably make you think he has two hundred different "disorders" imo
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions
- There is no *assume* about it. Psychologists apply the scientific method to their hypothesis. This is far more legitimate than a mere random die cast.
K.
Has there ever been a controlled experiment with any degree of accuracy as compared to a natural science?
I mean if you wanna believe in the social sciences be my guest I won't complain.
Philosophy and introspection are an alternative to that
GLHF
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
- I can't accept this one either. The passions of the human being cannot be denied. In a blind rage, any human could do any number of rational/irrational actions. You would ask me that I not take this into account, for this is not a human being in a natural state of mind. But what is more natural to a human than emotion? To lose oneself into a fully self-absorbed state is nothing new to the history of humanity.
Doesn't happen as often as you think
How did we live to make computers with all that drama?
We'd die to our own campfires till then imo
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
OP, I liked what you had for a while. Thanks for sharing the philosophy. ;D
p.s. I haven't read the 2nd post. Haven't bothered, hope I haven't missed anything good.
ur welcome.
Second post is fine
better than yours LOL jk
|
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals. However, the individual requires a voice and leadership to broadcast their common interest/goal/ideas. The individual supports the leadership and thus gives power to their movement. Without leadership and common goals, nothing is accomplished.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want. True, but communication allows thoughts and ideas to take shape. Two cannot share the same thought, but can share a common goal. Coming back to the apple on the table, if both wants to eat the apple, that's a common goal - why each wants it is different, but no less relevant (one might wants to know the taste, the other is just hungry). Each's desire are different. If they were in the same room and the apple was out of reach, they would have to cooperate and try to obtain the apple (whether they share it is a different matter again).
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions. It is always in human nature do distrust others since it is inbuilt in us to presume the worst in others. However, humans are also designed to move in groups and thus people will always congregate and form a collective to push their ideology. We will ignore potential problems if we can gain what we desire. Although this also makes us vulnerable to backstabbing, which happens when the goals are achieved.
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals. This is completely false! People have many choices as how to act in any given circumstance, but tends to choose the easy and fastest way to achieve their goal. If others are in the way of this goal, their removal and the means are considered. Sacrifices within the collective are often made to push the goals and benefit the majority.
So though I disagree with a lot of what you say because the collective has power whereas the individual doesn't. The Collective is essential in bring an ideology/plan/goal etc into effect. The Collective acts in favour of the majority if there is a common goal and sometimes sacrifices the individual within it. The Collective also requires leadership, but the reasons and desires of that leadership could be entirely different to each individual. However, underlying reasons and desires are irrelevant if the common goal can be achieved (this is why complications arise).
|
Political action is almost always achieved as a collective effort.
A ton of control is exerted over people by atomizing them, and keeping them from working together to solve commonly faced issues. Almost all major advances in the social order, including our wonderful American Revolution, have been a collective action.
Usually, clinging to individuality to try and solve problems that are shared by all of your neighbors and countrymen can be a hinderance to progress.
Try to focus more on what makes you the same as your neighbors, not what makes you different...
People often ask what can "I" do to make a differance? What can "I" as an individual do to make a change in socitey... the answer is often become part of a movement of people that share the same issues and work hard to get them addressed for the benefit of everyone.
|
Choice is an illusion. If you were someone else you would do exactly what they would and vice versa.
edit: I think the argument is that if everyone acted individually they would all have freedom to achieve their goals, but society would be conflicted. However, if everyone had a collective approach then although they would have greater collective power they would also have conflicting goals and therefore society would be conflicted.
I guess society is conflicted everywhere.
|
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals. However, the individual requires a voice and leadership to broadcast their common interest/goal/ideas. The individual supports the leadership and thus gives power to their movement. Without leadership and common goals, nothing is accomplished. Did you have to petition your neighborhood to make a post here?
No? Well then your post was a failure because you haven't accomplished anything LOL
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote:
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want. True, but communication allows thoughts and ideas to take shape. Two cannot share the same thought, but can share a common goal. Coming back to the apple on the table, if both wants to eat the apple, that's a common goal - why each wants it is different, but no less relevant (one might wants to know the taste, the other is just hungry). Each's desire are different. If they were in the same room and the apple was out of reach, they would have to cooperate and try to obtain the apple (whether they share it is a different matter again). Talking is also an action btw. You don't 100% know what people think just by what they speak, they could be lying, they could be acting, they could be cyborgs and you would never know.
And theres a hundred ways for settling property disputes on unowned resources. I don't know what else to say
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote:
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions. It is always in human nature do distrust others since it is inbuilt in us to presume the worst in others. However, humans are also designed to move in groups and thus people will always congregate and form a collective to push their ideology. We will ignore potential problems if we can gain what we desire. Although this also makes us vulnerable to backstabbing, which happens when the goals are achieved.
Perhaps
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote:
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals. This is completely false! People have many choices as how to act in any given circumstance, but tends to choose the easy and fastest way to achieve their goal. If others are in the way of this goal, their removal and the means are considered. Sacrifices within the collective are often made to push the goals and benefit the majority.
Then is it not the wish of the individual for a certain group to thrive?
It's still the individual's goal.
Premise unchanged
On April 27 2010 14:57 dtvu wrote:
So though I disagree with a lot of what you say because the collective has power whereas the individual doesn't. The Collective is essential in bring an ideology/plan/goal etc into effect. The Collective acts in favour of the majority if there is a common goal and sometimes sacrifices the individual within it. The Collective also requires leadership, but the reasons and desires of that leadership could be entirely different to each individual. However, underlying reasons and desires are irrelevant if the common goal can be achieved (this is why complications arise).
Tell me, how do you know what the goals of a collective are?
Only individuals have goals and means
It's not like people physically join their brains into a hivemind
That union itself, is in their heads. The collective is a concept and nothing more...
but I see that you said that "the collective requires leadership". Isn't that a cop out, because, then the "will" of the collective is really the will of the leader, is it not? The others are persuaded into following his orders "for their own good", which could mean a lot of things depending on the context.
|
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote:
wonderful American Revolution,
you like war I see.
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote:
Usually, clinging to individuality to try and solve problems that are shared by all of your neighbors and countrymen can be a hinderance to progress.
progress towards what goal
and who defines such goal?
hint: can't be a fictitious entity.
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote:
Try to focus more on what makes you the same as your neighbors, not what makes you different...
sure thing.
doesn't make us join together to form megatron tho
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote:
People often ask what can "I" do to make a differance? What can "I" as an individual do to make a change in socitey... the answer is often become part of a movement of people that share the same issues and work hard to get them addressed for the benefit of everyone.
so people individually want to help eachother out?
cool, how is that not individualistic?
I'm not denying helping others can be rewarding, that would be silly.
In fact I'm saying that people can best help others by being aware that everyone's an individual
and no such collective entity exists
so if "we" stop saying "we" I believe "we" can do a lot more "for the better good"
I put that in collective-speak 4 u
|
On April 27 2010 15:15 ShaperofDreams wrote:
Choice is an illusion. If you were someone else you would do exactly what they would and vice versa.
YES
yes yes yes
I agree my fellow determinist. It's by convention that I use the word "choice" or free will.
On April 27 2010 15:08 cursor wrote:
edit: I think the argument is that if everyone acted individually they would all have freedom to achieve their goals, but society would be conflicted. However, if everyone had a collective approach then although they would have greater collective power they would also have conflicting goals and therefore society would be conflicted.
I guess society is conflicted everywhere.
Society isn't conflicted when it is honest with itself.
It's conflicted when people want to tell eachother what to do 
|
You are what you are and if you do what is true to yourself then you are not in the wrong at least though perception. People have core principles they stand by some just have a different way of defending those principles. It is not always important how they act but what they act on and why. The rationalization is not too important to me at least.
It is what it is everything else is just clutter...
|
On April 27 2010 15:36 semantics wrote:
You are what you are and if you do what is true to yourself then you are not in the wrong at least though perception. People have core principles they stand by some just have a different way of defending those principles. It is not always important how they act but what they act on and why. The rationalization is not too important to me at least.
It is what it is everything else is just clutter...
what are your principles?
|
Do the cells in your body behave individually?
only that I've agreed (and perhaps u too) that killing is wrong
If its in your best interest for you to kill someone (and them, you) why shouldn't everyone kill each other...?
Even if its in your best interest to "pretend" to act collectively, you're still acting collectively.
|
I think that whatever the approach no real progress can be made without honesty.
As I said before both the individual as well as the collective are constantly in conflict.
|
On April 27 2010 15:50 gyth wrote:Do the cells in your body behave individually? If its in your best interest for you to kill someone (and them, you) why shouldn't everyone kill each other...? Even if its in your best interest to "pretend" to act collectively, you're still acting collectively.
People have a misconception about collectivism and individuality IMO. It isn't black and white:
Everybody "is": The Individual + Concessions & Compromises.
What we are arguing here is the degree of concessions & compromises
Of course every cell behaves individually, however because it lives within a certain system it MUST behave the way it does. The same applies to people.
When I was a child I wanted to fly. Gravity existed. I couldn't fly. Yes that is a gross simplification.
|
On April 27 2010 15:50 gyth wrote:
Do the cells in your body behave individually?
Good one and deserves attention
Indeed they do act individually
They have a set of inputs and outputs, and while they are extremely dependent on other cells from other tissues in your body to feed them with what they need to live, they can be seen that way, yes.
And you could further divide it into organelles, and then idk, atoms and shit
But in regards to human conscience, I don't think you can go any lower than an individual human being, because then you have no concept of goals, means, morals
then that talk loses any sense of the type of political talk I want to get at
it would be a science class
"should a cell be free to choose it's own organelles" makes no sense you see, because a cell does not have a conscience, therefore, no free will (even if figuratively which is another topic).
On April 27 2010 15:50 gyth wrote:If its in your best interest for you to kill someone (and them, you) why shouldn't everyone kill each other...? There are no shoulds in my view.
There are claims of rights.
I claim I have the right to my own body, a murderer would say I don't
sadly it may come down to a physical dispute in that case, but often times it does not, because people respect eachothers claims of rights.
and otherwise can defend themselves as well.
or at least retaliate enough so such actions are discouraged.
On April 27 2010 15:50 gyth wrote:
Even if its in your best interest to "pretend" to act collectively, you're still acting collectively.
It's not collectively if I'm doing on my self interest...
which then is voluntary may I add
Collective is bullying, forcing, petitioning, mandating, enslaving, etc.
but.. semantics maybe? idk, you try it.
|
On April 27 2010 15:51 ShaperofDreams wrote:
I think that whatever the approach no real progress can be made without honesty.
As I said before both the individual as well as the collective are constantly in conflict.
To be more technical, it is always individuals who are in conflict.
And some individuals claiming that they are backed by a collective
or sometimes even do having the legitimate backing of other voluntarily assembling individuals, certainly
But.. just like "corporations" or "government" (even though I use the concept quite often) aren't going to go out and beat you up, it's only those people within the collectivist groups who will.
So, individuals are in constant conflict should I say
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
