One might imagine that I am against collectivism, but that is not entirely true. Collectivism has its place. It is when proponents of collectivism presume the collective to be more than it is (or can be) that it becomes dangerous.
One must always remember (it is so easily forgotten that I don't think I have ever heard anyone come out and say it) that a collective is nothing more than an arrangement.
Think about this: when you are doing something "for society" who is it that benefits? Society? Society is a collective. "Society" is an agreement among individuals. It cannot benefit because it does not exist except in the minds of the individuals who believe in it.
A collective is, at best, a mutual agreement between constituents to organize their behaviors in a way such that the collective benefit to each individual outweighs the costs of belonging to the collective. In other words, there is a synergy between individuals who create the group so that everyone in the group benefits and gets more out of belonging to the group than they put in.
Every "society" that I have seen falls short of this ideal. Why? Because individuals do not understand the nature of the arrangement.
Too often, people are born into a collective. They are forced into the situation without consent or consideration. The collective takes on the illusion of being something more than what it is. A "country" or a "nation" or a "state." The last of which is the most obvious because someone can simply move out of a state if he does not like it, but the other collectives are a pall that hangs over the individual forever, unless drastic action is taken, and even if someone renounces his own country, where is there to go? The whole world is run by these countries.
Why is collectivism what it is? Because, evolutionarily speaking, collectives are good a killing people en masse. Because collectives are so effective at killing, the only people left are living in collectives. Anyone who tries to live outside a collective has no territory, nowhere to go.
People organize collectives initially for mutual benefit. However, when those people die or forget the purpose of the collective, politicians seize control and then turn the collective into a device for personal fulfillment. We forget that that the purpose of the collective is for our benefit, not the abstract benefit of an imaginary bugbear.
Whenever the "state" or the "nation" require sacrifice, but does not provide benefit, it is a tyranny, and must be thrown out. Such an organizing principle that is not a benefit to the constituents is a social disease, a monstrous mental disorder that must be cured. Our founders knew this, which is how they could write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We have forgotten because we have been brought up inside a belief system that has for too long been unquestioned.
Sure, many people would die for their "country," but what, exactly, is it that they are dying for? The land? The flag? A document? Ideally, people should only die for something that is real: not an illusion. The land, the flag, and the document, are symbols of a country, not the country itself. What is it, then, that requires sacrifice?
One's people. That's what. People are real. A nation is nothing but people and the agreement between those people to trade some freedom for greater personal gain. If, however, the people in your "nation" are no longer your own people, are they still worth dying for? Some abstract belief in an imaginary greatness in an imaginary construct that is no longer maintained by people who knew what it is for?
