Are you saying that the British shouldn’t have voted Labour before WWI, or Canadians vote NDP?
As long as progressive Democrats vote for centrist or right-of-center candidates, the party will have no incentive to become more progressive. If anything it incentivizes the party to be more centrist or right-of-center.
As long as self-identified libertarians or semi-libertarians vote Republican lest the Democrats win, Republican Presidents and major Republican leaders will be pro-war: pro-war in the Middle East, pro-Israel, pro-war on drugs, pro-war in sex, anti-immigration, and pro-military-industrial complex, and FWIW to libertarians, pro-debt.
If 3 million Californian Harris voters instead voted for Stein, Harris would have still won California—but that wouldn’t matter as she still lost the election.
If 25% of Utahn Trump voters instead voted for Oliver, Trump would have still won Utah and Utahns would still have Trump’s higher cost of living, higher fuel prices, the Forever War continuing, and record high debt, and hours of listening to a vain mean-spirited old bigot lie and blabber on.
If 15% of Utahn Trump voters instead voted for Harris, Trump would have, again, still won Utah.
If 25% instead voted for Harris, Utah would have gone to Harris, along with its 6 Electors, meaning she’d get a total of not 226, but 232—meanwhile Trump’s 312 would go down to 306.
Even if she became President, presumably there would still be the high debt, Central Americans kicked out of US, and Harris attempting to explain continued US support of Israel’s Gaza genocide.
So if you’re going to vote, you might as well vote your heart and for at least some principles.
but please, be a good partisan Democrat and downvote this reply and make Newsom smile.
This doesn’t negate the fact that I value the good of the collective over the good of an individual. Individualism is what led to civilization which is what led to the destruction of our planet and our separation from it. Individualism is the cancer that must be eradicated.
The rights of individuals is more important than any nation.
To me this is like saying “dog poop tastes better than cat poop.” Nations should not exist and individualism should not exist.
Now just to be clear, I am a huge fan of individuality, just not individualism.
This doesn’t negate the fact that I value the good of the collective over the good of an individual. Individualism is what led to civilization which is what led to the destruction of our planet and our separation from it. Individualism is the cancer that must be eradicated.
Wasn’t it collectivism that lead to civilization, with gangs of workers dragging blocks up ramps to build pyramids, while others labored in the fields to feed themselves and these gangs, learning little on how to fend for themselves in the wild if they desired to escape their conditions?
Our planet is not destroyed. The detonation of every nuke made by humanity couldn’t destroy our planet, or even all life on it.
The rights of individuals is more important than any nation.
To me this is like saying “dog poop tastes better than cat poop.” Nations should not exist and individualism should not exist.
Maybe your analogy is better for differentiation of the varying kinds of nationalism. Some might say the same of collectivism. Try this: “Eurocommunism is better than Stalinism in much the way that a shit-sandwich is better than just plain shit.”
Of course, some Indigenous rights groups and others might defend nationhood.
Now just to be clear, I am a huge fan of individuality, just not individualism.
individuality (countable and uncountable, plural individualities)
.1. (uncountable) The characteristics that contribute to the differentiation or distinction of someone or something from a group of otherwise comparable identity.
individualism (countable and uncountable, plural individualisms)
.1. The tendency for a person to act without reference to others, particularly in matters of style, fashion or mode of thought.
Antonyms: collectivism, statism
.2. The moral stance, political philosophy, or social outlook that promotes independence and self-reliance of individual people, while opposing the interference with each person’s choices by society, the state, or any other group or institution.
.3. (logic) The doctrine that only individual things are real.
.4. (philosophy) The doctrine that nothing exists but the individual self.
Synonym: solipsism
When I think of individualism, I don’t think of it necessitating being anti-social or even wt:asocial, but rather that no one can tell you what to do, at least not without your consent.
Let’s say 10 people each have $5 and each wants a pizza. $5 will get each 2 slices, but $25 would get a pizza with 50% more area than 10 slices combined, and $50 would get one with twice the area, plus 10 cans of soft drinks.
The problem is toppings. 7 want cheese, 2 want extra cheese, and 1 wants no cheese (maybe due to dairy allergies and/or wt:thon is a vegan). 3 want pineapple, 3 don’t. and 6 are okay with it. Ditto mushrooms. A few would forgo their drinks for extra toppings, while one would forgo pizza for 3 cans.
So they negotiate for a while.
6 come to a close agreement, 3 would rather just get slices, and one would rather keeps thons $5.
Presumably under collectivism, it’s majority rule and the 6 take the $20 of the 4, add it to their $30, and every one gets an equal amount (or maybe the 4 get less as they opposed the collective, and those who supported the collective get more: no one goes hungry, but each of the 6 eats and drinks a little more);
while under individualism, the 6 get the pizza they agreed on and as a group they paid for; while the other the 3 get their slices; and 1 gets no pizza nor drink but keeps thons $5.
Civilization began when we stopped being hunter gatherers and started being sedentary with agriculture. Those structures you’re referring to were being built thousands of years after civilization began. One could argue it goes even deeper; when we stopped being immediate-return hunter gatherers and switched to delayed-return hunter gatherers, then the concept of elites began, which is the root of individualism, the cancer that led to the beginning of civilization.
Your pizza story is irrelevant because in my worldview things like money and material wealth and items that are not collectively owned and shared would not exist; now there would be personal possessions to help in tasks like hunting or maybe ornamentation, but anything that is for the good of the group would be shared. In traditional hunter-gatherer societies, rather than relying on a moneyed economy or barter economy, they usually had what is called a gift economy. In this, your relationship with others is one of the most important things, and contributes to the cohesion of the group. It builds trust. One of the ways to do this is to always give each other gifts.
Civilization began when we stopped being hunter gatherers and started being sedentary with agriculture. Those structures you’re referring to were being built thousands of years after civilization began.
IIUC, civilization started with cities, or at least towns; just as history began with writing.
One could argue it goes even deeper; when we stopped being immediate-return hunter gatherers and switched to delayed-return hunter gatherers, then the concept of elites began, which is the root of individualism, the cancer that led to the beginning of civilization.
I tend to think there was some overlap. e.g. there were/still are indigenous in the Amazon who while still hunting and gathering, also engage in agriculture, including slash-and-burn; meanwhile, many farmers also hunted; and let’s not forget herders. Wealth wasn’t only land one held, but also how much livestock one owned.
Elites probably resulted with larger groups, which might have been the result of technological advances, such as more farming, as well as specialization of labor. There was also gender-specific roles. Generally it was the men who hunted, while the women gathered, maybe butcher the carcasses, and made winter clothes, while rearing the children they bore.
Perhaps sometimes a band would raid other bands, then later simplify it to extortion. Consensus gave way to either majority rule and/or elites. Merited leaders gave way to hereditary leaders.
Your pizza story is irrelevant because in my worldview things like money and material wealth and items that are not collectively owned and shared would not exist; now there would be personal possessions to help in tasks like hunting or maybe ornamentation, but anything that is for the good of the group would be shared.
So perhaps what you’re kind of saying is that the group of 10 would have $50, and they’d discuss over how it should be spent.
Also, are you suggesting that humanity should return to hunting, or perhaps small agrarian groups who are short distances away from the food they grow?
In traditional hunter-gatherer societies, rather than relying on a moneyed economy or barter economy, they usually had what is called a gift economy. In this, your relationship with others is one of the most important things, and contributes to the cohesion of the group. It builds trust. One of the ways to do this is to always give each other gifts.
Choose Freedom: vote Libertarian.
wp:2026 United States Senate election in Michigan#Results 3
Gee what a good idea. /s
America is a de facto 2-party state.
Voting for either of the 2 parties is a vote for the 2-party state.
If you vote for a third party in a First-Past-the-Post system, you effectively vote for the winner.
Are you saying that the British shouldn’t have voted Labour before WWI, or Canadians vote NDP?
As long as progressive Democrats vote for centrist or right-of-center candidates, the party will have no incentive to become more progressive. If anything it incentivizes the party to be more centrist or right-of-center.
As long as self-identified libertarians or semi-libertarians vote Republican lest the Democrats win, Republican Presidents and major Republican leaders will be pro-war: pro-war in the Middle East, pro-Israel, pro-war on drugs, pro-war in sex, anti-immigration, and pro-military-industrial complex, and FWIW to libertarians, pro-debt.
Also, look at election results:
wp:2024 United States presidential election#Results by state
If 3 million Californian Harris voters instead voted for Stein, Harris would have still won California—but that wouldn’t matter as she still lost the election.
If 25% of Utahn Trump voters instead voted for Oliver, Trump would have still won Utah and Utahns would still have Trump’s higher cost of living, higher fuel prices, the Forever War continuing, and record high debt, and hours of listening to a vain mean-spirited old bigot lie and blabber on.
If 15% of Utahn Trump voters instead voted for Harris, Trump would have, again, still won Utah.
If 25% instead voted for Harris, Utah would have gone to Harris, along with its 6 Electors, meaning she’d get a total of not 226, but 232—meanwhile Trump’s 312 would go down to 306.
Even if she became President, presumably there would still be the high debt, Central Americans kicked out of US, and Harris attempting to explain continued US support of Israel’s Gaza genocide.
So if you’re going to vote, you might as well vote your heart and for at least some principles.
but please, be a good partisan Democrat and downvote this reply and make Newsom smile.
Bad bot.
If you don’t vote for Newsom, Vance might win.
Don’t think, vote—for Newsom.
Support the Gaza Genocide.
The party of millionaires and people who think they’re millionaires.
I wonder if he’s a millionaire.
wp:Chase Oliver
deleted by creator
Who are you voting for?
I value the good of the collective over the good of the individual though
Also I’m not American so my opinion doesn’t matter
The collective is made up of individuals.
Your opinion matters, however small it might be, and is probably better than that of many Americans.
The rights of individuals is more important than any nation.
This doesn’t negate the fact that I value the good of the collective over the good of an individual. Individualism is what led to civilization which is what led to the destruction of our planet and our separation from it. Individualism is the cancer that must be eradicated.
To me this is like saying “dog poop tastes better than cat poop.” Nations should not exist and individualism should not exist.
Now just to be clear, I am a huge fan of individuality, just not individualism.
Wasn’t it collectivism that lead to civilization, with gangs of workers dragging blocks up ramps to build pyramids, while others labored in the fields to feed themselves and these gangs, learning little on how to fend for themselves in the wild if they desired to escape their conditions?
Our planet is not destroyed. The detonation of every nuke made by humanity couldn’t destroy our planet, or even all life on it.
Maybe your analogy is better for differentiation of the varying kinds of nationalism. Some might say the same of collectivism. Try this: “Eurocommunism is better than Stalinism in much the way that a shit-sandwich is better than just plain shit.”
Of course, some Indigenous rights groups and others might defend nationhood.
wt:individuality
wt:individualism
When I think of individualism, I don’t think of it necessitating being anti-social or even wt:asocial, but rather that no one can tell you what to do, at least not without your consent.
Let’s say 10 people each have $5 and each wants a pizza. $5 will get each 2 slices, but $25 would get a pizza with 50% more area than 10 slices combined, and $50 would get one with twice the area, plus 10 cans of soft drinks.
The problem is toppings. 7 want cheese, 2 want extra cheese, and 1 wants no cheese (maybe due to dairy allergies and/or wt:thon is a vegan). 3 want pineapple, 3 don’t. and 6 are okay with it. Ditto mushrooms. A few would forgo their drinks for extra toppings, while one would forgo pizza for 3 cans.
So they negotiate for a while.
6 come to a close agreement, 3 would rather just get slices, and one would rather keeps thons $5.
Presumably under collectivism, it’s majority rule and the 6 take the $20 of the 4, add it to their $30, and every one gets an equal amount (or maybe the 4 get less as they opposed the collective, and those who supported the collective get more: no one goes hungry, but each of the 6 eats and drinks a little more);
while under individualism, the 6 get the pizza they agreed on and as a group they paid for; while the other the 3 get their slices; and 1 gets no pizza nor drink but keeps thons $5.
Civilization began when we stopped being hunter gatherers and started being sedentary with agriculture. Those structures you’re referring to were being built thousands of years after civilization began. One could argue it goes even deeper; when we stopped being immediate-return hunter gatherers and switched to delayed-return hunter gatherers, then the concept of elites began, which is the root of individualism, the cancer that led to the beginning of civilization.
Your pizza story is irrelevant because in my worldview things like money and material wealth and items that are not collectively owned and shared would not exist; now there would be personal possessions to help in tasks like hunting or maybe ornamentation, but anything that is for the good of the group would be shared. In traditional hunter-gatherer societies, rather than relying on a moneyed economy or barter economy, they usually had what is called a gift economy. In this, your relationship with others is one of the most important things, and contributes to the cohesion of the group. It builds trust. One of the ways to do this is to always give each other gifts.
IIUC, civilization started with cities, or at least towns; just as history began with writing.
I tend to think there was some overlap. e.g. there were/still are indigenous in the Amazon who while still hunting and gathering, also engage in agriculture, including slash-and-burn; meanwhile, many farmers also hunted; and let’s not forget herders. Wealth wasn’t only land one held, but also how much livestock one owned.
Elites probably resulted with larger groups, which might have been the result of technological advances, such as more farming, as well as specialization of labor. There was also gender-specific roles. Generally it was the men who hunted, while the women gathered, maybe butcher the carcasses, and made winter clothes, while rearing the children they bore.
Perhaps sometimes a band would raid other bands, then later simplify it to extortion. Consensus gave way to either majority rule and/or elites. Merited leaders gave way to hereditary leaders.
So perhaps what you’re kind of saying is that the group of 10 would have $50, and they’d discuss over how it should be spent.
Also, are you suggesting that humanity should return to hunting, or perhaps small agrarian groups who are short distances away from the food they grow?
How big would these societies be?
Nah. I like parties that actually organize to give themselves a chance to win.
I don’t gamble, but if I did, I wouldn’t bet on losers.
The odds are that either the Republican candidate, or the Republican-lite candidate, will win.
(Was Obama much better than McCain or Romney?)