[color_me_not]

Sorry, that question was purely rhetorical.

That divide between individual and collective as stated above was very sketchy, and I merely wanted to indicate that.

If one take the strict definition of individualist and collective from a dictionary (well, which one, to begin with?), of course they are opposite, just looking at the idea conveyed by the word radicals (ie individualist -> individual, vs collective).

As always, we all start talking about things without first defining the terms we use to discuss those things, and of course confusion, anger and frustration ensue.

[AmericanChopper]

The whole point this thread seems to be missing is the collectivist vs individualist debate that this relates to is about how society is governed. People assembling to address their needs/wants collectively might be collectivist in the broad sense, but it requires individualist governance framework to exist, because under a collective governance framework such freedom of association would not be permitted.

Just like how a large company is essentially governed in the same way as a planned economy is, but nobody’s under the impression that JPMorgan is a socialist institution.

[WalterBright]

Collectives are when people share equally in the work and the results.