Individualism and Collectivism | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Individualism and Collectivism

Obviously, individualism and collectivism are both important in a successfully functioning society. The critical issue is maintaining a balance between the two, that is, maintaining individual rights within a society that also recognizes collectivism as a way to pool resources and diminish risk for the greater good. Infringe the rights of individuals and a society becomes inefficient, corrupt, stodgy, boring and, in the extreme, authoritarian. Individuals provide ideas, dynamism, energy, and enthusiasm to a society/economy. Collectivism allows a society to exploit benefits such as insurance, monopolies (e.g., utilities), and mutual funds, etc.

I'm an independent (i.e., individual) inventor, which is not an easy way to make a living, although I've done very well. Without patent laws to protect my inventions, large, wealthy companies would steal my ideas without recompense and I would have no reason to take risks and work hard to develop my ideas. These are ideas that collectivist, risk averse groups, such as large companies and Governments, would never conceive, much less develop. (Large organizations should be risk averse. Lack of sufficient risk aversion by groups who should collectively have known better partially explains the current lousy economy.) So, I take the upfront risks of developing and implementing my ideas and license them to large companies that have the resources to commercialize them. Society collectively has benefited from the actions of individual inventors, and this is recognized and protected in the US Constitution, as well as by most other nations.
Last edited:
What's your opinion on individualism vs. collectivism? (Maybe you should split threads).

I think a proper balance is absolutely crucial. If we are too individualistic we don't care about anyone but ourselves. If we are too collectivist we help people at the expense of ourselves and allow more individualistic people to take advantage or use us. The balance is key.
Just like it has in the current financial crisis.

The financial crisis was caused by the Fed completely mismanaging the money supply.

If the fed didn't loan out at artificially low rates without concern of risk, then it wouldn't have been a major problem. They allowed the poor health of the banking system to persist until breaking point.

Also remember the Fed is only a monopoly because the government makes it so. If they had market pressures, they simply wouldn't survive by acting the way they did.

Interestingly enough, Australia hasn't had negative growth yet as a result of the crisis. Mostly due to the 'lucky country' effect - eg (a) continued demand of natural resources, (b) the effect of scale - Australia is still a reasonably small country with a represnentative government - so it doesn't matter how bad our leaders are (in an individual sense), they still can't screw up as badly compared to leaders in a country with over ten times the population.

Not really but I've read about his Objectivism =)


Actually, she does look a bit manly.

PS, its Touch
Last edited: