Is an individualistic society the best?

Is an individualistic society the best?
Are ancaps right?

No. Individualists will always get subjugated by people with collective/tribal mindset, just look at Jews in America and Britain.

Nope, humans aren't individualistic.

Social atomization is bad

Individualists will always lose, just look at China and America, and Israel and America

How come countries like america and israel are doing so well then if individualism sucks?
Everyone even expects china another individualistic country to follow up on the US as the next world hegemon.

The tribalist (WASP, Jewish) upper class in America is doing well, while the individualist plebs are poor as dirt. Kick out your children when they're 18, have them live in 3rd world conditions with 5 roommates paying rent to Mr. Goldstein and take on hundreds of thousands in student debt. Meanwhile the tribalist upper class is looking after their ethnic kin and setting them up for live with trust funds and good jobs through nepotism.
And Israel is the opposite of an individualist country.

Plenty of millionaire goyims, moving their money off shore, with no loyalty to any nation or creed yet happy to influence and outright bribe governments.

Plenty of poor Jews who were willing to fight for the flag of their home country.

Individualism's fine as long as there's patriotism.

Obviously a certain amount of "individualism" is a good thing. It encourages entrepreneurship, innovation and personal responsibility. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea to let people forget that they owe a debt to their families and to the society and state that educated and protected them and that provides them with a market for their products.

I'm not trying to be a wishy-washy moderate and be all "muh middle ground", but it's a facile question. You only have to choose between an "individualistic society" and a "collectivist society" (or whatever) if you're a genuine AnCap or a hardcore Marxist-Leninist, in which case who cares, your only job is to shut up while the adults do the talking.

The people who rule are not individualists. Individualists are the ruled.

Marxism-Leninism failed partially because it was applied to a comically individualist society like Russia.

Individualists bombard bullshit at everyone else saying how stupid patriotism is while brown/yellow insect people willingly dive onto bayonets for their tyrannical corrupt governments.

>just look at the most powerful and simultaneously most individualistic country in the world vs these others
What's your point?

America is an individualist country ruled by a collectivist elite.

The country that gained its power when people weren't within it autistically spewing individualist abstractions and valued patriotism and then started getting usurped and manipulated by the other two once it gave up its collectivist principles?
What could the point possibly be I wonder

>China
>Individualistic
No

fake news

go back to /pol/

t. Schlomo

An individualistic society is fine, as said it is tremendous motivator. Without a sense of collective identity, none of these societies would have formed in the first place.

Followers of the Anne Rand brand of individualism should be shipped out to international waters -with their possessions if one is feeling particularly benevolent.

^ayn

>mfw getting both of these replies to the same post

/pol/ is JIDF

There are no individualistic society. There are individualistic people, who all die alone without support.

The real redpill is that /pol/ is a bunch of Anglos and people with Anglo values LARPing as NS Germans and thinking their Anglo faggotry actually represents or is compatible with NS. Germany for example has always been a collectivist society and the 3rd Reich is the epitome of it. But see what happens when a bunch of edgy lolbertarians from America and Bongistan try appropriating an ideology completely hostile to their kin.

>Plenty of poor Jews who were willing to fight for the flag of their home country.
>individualism

Fighting for your country is tribalism at its best.

>Is an individualistic society the best?
Yes, individualists question authority and we all have to cooperate out of necessity, so generally individualist societies have less demagogues and fanatics running things.
>Are ancaps right?
No. Ancaps are not the only individualists. Individualism is a separate thing from the ethics of applying force, an individualist need not respect the property rights of others for example.

It is not that individualism represents all that is good, rather collectivism is a flawed mindset.

Similar accusations could be levied against the "pure" collectivist, they would believe they are citizens of the world and don't owe anything to their tribe, kin or even their own children any more than they owe an Indian orphan.

In real life both individualists and collectivists rarely reach these extremes. Usually individualists see no reason to assist someone they have nothing in common with or have never met whereas the collectivist is willing to suspend this lack of reason in favor of whatever collectivist group they have been spooked into serving. Whether the individualist (or indeed the collectivist) sees reason to help their children is another matter.

You are universally better off not paying that debt to your society and state, also it is quite naive to have as much faith in those things as you would your own family. So all things considered you ought to heavily lean towards individualism. Obviously not to some extreme abstraction of course.

I think you confused individualists with hermits.

capitalism freedom individualism freedom capitalism individualism freedom good
collectivism unfreedom socialism and kings unfreedom ungood

Look at pictures of /pol/ meetups, most of the people there are non-white Mexicans and asians and various half-breeds. Don't pin this shit on Britfags

Saging a shit thread

I mean sure, they're non-white, but they're Americans and therefore have Anglo values. Muh freedumz, muh individualism, muh shitting on poor people. If you think you can evaluate a person in dollars then national socialism is not for you.

Individualism as long as power exists, will end in a system of subjugation

Declining solidarity and integration are not a good thing.
Radical libertarians shouldn't be taken seriously.

what do you mean?

...

You know what he means, it's been well elaborated on in this thread.

the fact is you can describe collectivist systems through anarchism but the reverse is not true

individualism describes the natural action and behaivour of humans, statism does not. it is an artifical construct that temporary holds up force on a constituted society.

you dont have to enfore individualism on someone, its the natural state of things
collectivism needs to be forced

Nobody said anything about statism.

If that's so why did people in the past live together in villages instead of making their farm 5 km apart from eachother and only seeing eachother for trade transactions?

Dude enforced collectivism on a reasonable scale is always healthy.
To work together as a unit is very powerfuly positive for most people.
Radical individualism is toxic and to work together for a better collective is healthy and positive.

i'm a brainlet and i don't get it, pls, help me out user.

Not only healthy for the individuals but for everyone in the society who benefits from the collective improvements

>Is an individualistic society the best?
No.

>Are ancaps right?
Most certainly not.

Despite claiming to support individualism an-caps (especially internet an-cap warriors) work like a collectivist cult.

It doesn't matter if it's natural. Collectivism is necessary

A system where you don't value anything but yourself and those close to you is a system of predation. A system where the power of mankind is aimed at destroying eachother.

Society? no. and individualist aristocracy is best.
>muh aristocrats BAD GUUYZ, MUH LIBERDY
Not institutionalized Aristocracy but I mean cultural heroes who are individualistic.
Johnny Appleseed
John Henry
Casey Johns
Paul Bunyan

>some retard planting apples
>aristocrat

>Ancap is individualism
My fucking god, the state of Veeky Forums...
No you imbeciles, ancap is oposition to the initiation of force (Non-Aggression Principle), and identifies the nation-state as the largest current example thereof. Ancaps are perfectly fine with collectives as long as they are voluntary; families, tribes, ethnically homogenous gated communities, corporations, cooperatives, are all A-OK

Yes