4 ms·
And? A collection of individuals isn’t an individual. That’s why we don’t say that collectivist societies are all about the individual. They aren’t. It’s the op
by psyc 4y ago
And? A collection of individuals isn’t an individual. That’s why we don’t say that collectivist societies are all about the individual. They aren’t. It’s the opposite.
- epgui 4y agoIn this case, the goals of the public and of the individual are aligned. A few of the best ways to lose your individual autonomy are to die or become ill or disabled. Optimizing for as little of that as possible across society is a good thing for individual freedoms.
- psyc 4y agoIt isn’t individualism unless the individual is determining their own goals, and deciding what’s best for themselves. As soon as you have policy deciding what the public good is, you’re no longer discussing what individualists mean by individual freedom, at all. You’re subordinating the individual to the public good. I’m not trying to invalidate your other points, I’m asking you to please not try to frame them as ‘individual freedom, actually.’ I can’t stand doublespeak.
- epgui 4y agoIt really is not doublespeak. There are many examples of collective action / public policy that have the effect of maximizing or enabling individual autonomy.