Though both of these basic ideologies fuel the core reasoning of all of today?s political factions no matter what state or nation you are in, what are their real ends and do they work? What would a society completely consumed by the ideals of individualism be? Or, what would a culture so entrenched in the philosophy of collectivism yield as its golden standard of governing resemble? This is assuming of course that both of these hypothetical societies still embrace the notions of human rights and are not aspiring to tyranny?although those are definitely possibilities.
One way to look at the extremes of each having ?their way? would be that they would both end up becoming a type of Anarchy if taken to the extreme. For instance, if the individual is so embraced to the point that there are absolutely no laws to protect others from another individual?s whims of choice, than wouldn?t government of any kind also be abolished since it stands in the way of one?s pursuits? More so, what if the individual wished to rule others or aspire for tyrannical rule over the entire world? Wouldn?t a scenario like this also be possible and therefore permissible within the realms of total individualism to the extreme? This fact that any individual would have to right to do as they please because of their inherent exceptionalism without restriction would inevitably lead to a self-governing, type of Anarchy. It would be Anarchy because no government would be seen as legitimate since it would infringe on the potential of the individual to do as they please to attain their own ends.
And as for Collectivism, how would the extreme version of this society become Anarchy? Likely, it would be a system in where the foolishness of even trying to fund higher taxes to provide all services to all people for the sake of equality would be realized and then superseded by a system of full contribution of labor without compensation by the masses and for the masses. To participate and receive the benefits of society, one would have to give without money, but then receive society?s benefits. It would be like a forced volunteerism if that could be intellectualized?Though this sounds very much like an egalitarian society (if it ever did work), the reason why it would be Anarchy is because a legitimate government would no longer exist or be needed. All that would exist in its place would be a heavy handed, societal and cultural norms that encompasses all reasons to act? which one could argue is actually government in a sense?a topic for another time perhaps?
One way to look at the extremes of each having ?their way? would be that they would both end up becoming a type of Anarchy if taken to the extreme. For instance, if the individual is so embraced to the point that there are absolutely no laws to protect others from another individual?s whims of choice, than wouldn?t government of any kind also be abolished since it stands in the way of one?s pursuits? More so, what if the individual wished to rule others or aspire for tyrannical rule over the entire world? Wouldn?t a scenario like this also be possible and therefore permissible within the realms of total individualism to the extreme? This fact that any individual would have to right to do as they please because of their inherent exceptionalism without restriction would inevitably lead to a self-governing, type of Anarchy. It would be Anarchy because no government would be seen as legitimate since it would infringe on the potential of the individual to do as they please to attain their own ends.
And as for Collectivism, how would the extreme version of this society become Anarchy? Likely, it would be a system in where the foolishness of even trying to fund higher taxes to provide all services to all people for the sake of equality would be realized and then superseded by a system of full contribution of labor without compensation by the masses and for the masses. To participate and receive the benefits of society, one would have to give without money, but then receive society?s benefits. It would be like a forced volunteerism if that could be intellectualized?Though this sounds very much like an egalitarian society (if it ever did work), the reason why it would be Anarchy is because a legitimate government would no longer exist or be needed. All that would exist in its place would be a heavy handed, societal and cultural norms that encompasses all reasons to act? which one could argue is actually government in a sense?a topic for another time perhaps?
