This question has sparked debates across cultures and eras. Is personal freedom the cornerstone of a flourishing society, or does the well-being of the group take precedence? Share your thoughts on the balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities.
Which is more important, the front or the back of your hand?
A collection is just the totality of individuals. The distinction is usually only put forward by “individualists” when they want to justify giving extra privileges to some individuals at the expense of the rest. If we advocate for public housing or health care, or public ownership of enterprises, things which give more power to the overwhelming majority of individuals, it is only in those kinds of situations that you see people bring up the “individual vs collective” distinction to argue against that.
The distinction really makes no logical sense to describe oneself as an “individualist” yet oppose what is best for the overwhelming majority of individuals. So-called “individualism” is always manifestly anti-individualist in general, but rather it is pro-specific individuals, like oligarchs and landlords, at the expense of everyone else. “You will own nothing and be happy.” If you disagree with that motto, then you will be called a “collectivist” for questioning the “individual rights” of the tiny few who own everything.
What kind of “personal freedom” does a man possess who owns nothing?
It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment. Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.