It's been a while so I thought I'd come back to my individualism vs collectivism conversation. I've tried to demonstrate that despite the best intentions of leftists, true collectivism doesn't work. However, despite claims from some on the right, pure individualism isn't possible, either. Let's dig a little deeper.
In it's purest form, what does individualism look like? Have you ever seen those wilderness survival reality shows? You know the ones with a guy with a camera on his own out in the wild? Individualism is kind of like those reality shows, but with no camera.
A lone individual, on his own in that setting, is responsible for his own food, shelter, clothing, and security. It's possible, but he'd have to set priorities in order to make it. The first priority would be water, then food, then maybe temporary shelter. As those needs are met, he could then begin to focus on long term needs, like replacing worn out clothing and finding or building better shelter. Meanwhile, he'd have to focus on security at all times.
His initial food supply would have to come from basic hunting and gathering but as more of his needs are met, he might begin to have time for cultivation in order to grow and store food supplies.
Of course, if he ever finds and secures a mate, the work load could begin to be shared and he'd have more spare time. That might lead to children, who while at first, might mean extra work, eventually, they'll become additional hands to also share the workload.
And now, we're well on our way to collectivism. But that's my underlying point in this discussion. While nobody wants a completely collectivist society, we don't really want to live as individuals, either. Some might say, "The more, the merrier!"
No comments:
Post a Comment