[naringas]

but with individualism we can form a better collective.

however it is harder to do, takes longer to get there, and there are some tough patches on the way.

because quality takes time and effort (and always encounters failure along its path). it's just more expensive to do things that way.

[menacingly]

This is a solid point, and doesn't deserve to be dismissed out of hand for wordplay reasons due to the apparent contradiction.

Obviously a team made up of self-reliant individuals is stronger than a team made up of not-self-reliant individuals.

Inidividuals who don't neglect the resources of the collective (which is impossible), but need them as little as possible, seem pretty clearly preferable to the alternative.

[Loughla]

>but with individualism we can form a better collective

I don't see this, even slightly. Could you please flush out your thoughts a little more to help me understand what you're saying?

[elliekelly]

> but through individualism a stronger collective may be achieved.

How so? You haven’t connected the dots between “individualism” and “result: stronger collective” so this seems like meaningless rhetoric.