I love memes! If a picture is worth a thousand words, a meme is worth two. They can be funny, provocative, insulting, and funny. Did I mention they were funny? Ya, those are the ones I like the most.
Harsh but true. And funny. Especially if you’re an introvert, comedy is subjective, though, so maybe you don’t agree. If not, you can just read it and move along.
Serious memes sometimes cause problems, though. Take this one for example:
I posted it a while back because I believe in personal rights, freedoms, and individual achievement, and am concerned that the very real problems we see today are resulting in too many people showing a willingness to trade their freedom for illusory “solutions.” Communism, fascism, and transgenderism all insist that you identify as a member of a group rather than as an individual. They use fear and hatred to divide while promising that they have the solutions to all of your problems.
Seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it?
I even included this line when I posted the meme: Like most memes, this is a simplification. But not much of one. That’s not a lot to read. Short enough to tweet, and the time it takes to read should even be manageable by the TikTok addicts.
Guess what?
No joy. Many replied, trying to explain to me how this was a simplification. You mean like I said it was?
Sigh.
I’m not sure how much less I can write before people read the words.
The “best” reply though, was:
This is complete fiction. It’s not a simplification, is a delusion spread by America and it’s idea of exceptionalism. Let me be clear, individualism means human isolation and the associated division.
This is, of course, utter nonsense.
A warning to beware collectivism is not a call to cast off the “shackles” of society and run off to the woods to live on hazelnuts, or pinecones, or whatever unappetizing tree detritus is prevalent where you live. It is meant to remind those amongst us who tie their identity too tightly to a group that they are individuals and that it is the individual who is the correct focus of society.
There are two possible reasons that someone is unable to understand this:
People see a meme and expect the depth one would associate with a PhD thesis.
People can’t be bothered to do 30 seconds of research.
I can’t help people with #1. Except perhaps to say, it’s a meme! Lighten up!
I can help with number two, though, so here:
Source: Collectivism vs. Individualism: Similarities and Differences
Communism, using one obvious example of collectivism, will tell you that your individual problems (unaffordability, lack of housing, etc.) are caused by other groups (ex., the rich, capitalists, etc.). Communists promise that your personal freedom can only be guaranteed by the collective.
In other words, your individual freedom is under assault by groups, and the solution is to subordinate your individuality to a different group.
It is a form of mental gymnastics that makes the head spin.
We are all members of groups, society being the largest. Insofar as these groups matter, it is only because they consist of individuals. Without groups, individuals remain. Without individuals, groups disappear.
I cannot make it simpler than that.
Society exists to protect the individual, not the other way around. Yes, individuals should protect society… provided that the society in question fulfills its duty to protect the rights of individuals. We agree to be governed because we understand that a certain level of security is necessary to ensure our freedom.
“Where there is no law, there is no freedom.”
-- John Locke
As individuals, people are free to determine their own identities. However, when people identify more as a member of a group than as an individual, they have lost their way.
All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts.
-- Ludwig von Mises
There may be strength in numbers, but there is only freedom in individualism.
Phil is a freelance writer, Canadian Navy veteran, and classical liberal. He has lived and worked in both Canada and the United States and currently resides in Vancouver, British Columbia where he writes on politics, individual rights, free speech, and anything else that catches his fancy.
As you may have picked up from this article he’s now trying his hand at humor. You can find some of what he finds funny here
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying him a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to us.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
 | A guest post by
|
I liked the logic of this article. Some groups are beneficial to the individual like religious groups or sport clubs, as few examples, because they encourage individual action that in turn benefits society. A society of individuals working together. Not a society that of anarchy and nihilism.
Great post!
The tension between individualism and collectivism is due to Pareto efficiency.
Individualism challenges Pareto efficiency primarily because the latter, when derived from purely individualistic assumptions, is silent on the initial distribution of wealth and does not account for social welfare beyond individual self-interest. This can lead to highly unequal, yet technically "efficient," outcomes that many would consider unjust.
An allocation of resources is Pareto efficient if it is impossible to make any one person better off without making at least one other person worse off.
How Individualism Creates Challenges:
Individualism and the Pareto criterion take the initial distribution of resources as a given. A society where one person has all the resources and everyone else has nothing can be Pareto efficient, because giving anything to another person would make the first person "worse off" (by one unit of resource). This outcome is efficient but highly inequitable.
Because any redistribution that makes a loser worse off is not a Pareto improvement, strict adherence to the Pareto criterion (under individualistic premises) prevents policies aimed at social justice or helping the disadvantaged, even if the overall social welfare (using other metrics) would increase.
In short, collectivism distills down to what the Bible calls coveting or what we atheists call yearning to possess something that belongs to someone else. Such people—collectivists—envy the talents of individuals so much that no matter how much their lives are improved by a Steve Jobs or a Sam Walton it will never be good enough unless the most talented among us are forced to lose their resources in the exchange. The collectivization of individuals has only one inevitable outcome—equal poverty.