Are you saying that the British shouldn't have voted Labour before WWI, or Canadians vote NDP?

As long as progressive Democrats vote for centrist or right-of-center candidates, the party will have no incentive to become more progressive. If anything it incentivizes the party to be more centrist or right-of-center.

As long as self-identified libertarians or semi-libertarians vote Republican lest the Democrats win, Republican Presidents and major Republican leaders will be pro-war: pro-war in the Middle East, pro-Israel, pro-war on drugs, pro-war in sex, anti-immigration, and pro-military-industrial complex, and FWIW to libertarians, pro-debt.

Also, look at election results:

wp:2024 United States presidential election#Results by state

​

If 3 million Californian Harris voters instead voted for Stein, Harris would have still won California—but that wouldn't matter as she still lost the election.

If 25% of Utahn Trump voters instead voted for Oliver, Trump would have still won Utah and Utahns would still have Trump's higher cost of living, higher fuel prices, the Forever War continuing, and record high debt, and hours of listening to a vain mean-spirited old bigot lie and blabber on.

​

If 15% of Utahn Trump voters instead voted for Harris, Trump would have, again, still won Utah.

If 25% instead voted for Harris, Utah would have gone to Harris, along with its 6 Electors, meaning she'd get a total of not 226, but 232—meanwhile Trump's 312 would go down to 306.

Even if she became President, presumably there would still be the high debt, Central Americans kicked out of US, and Harris attempting to explain continued US support of Israel's Gaza genocide.

​

So if you're going to vote, you might as well vote your heart and for at least some principles.

​

but please, be a good partisan Democrat and downvote this reply and make Newsom smile.

This doesn’t negate the fact that I value the good of the collective over the good of an individual. Individualism is what led to civilization which is what led to the destruction of our planet and our separation from it. Individualism is the cancer that must be eradicated.

Wasn't it collectivism that lead to civilization, with gangs of workers dragging blocks up ramps to build pyramids, while others labored in the fields to feed themselves and these gangs, learning little on how to fend for themselves in the wild if they desired to escape their conditions?

Our planet is not destroyed. The detonation of every nuke made by humanity couldn't destroy our planet, or even all life on it.

​

The rights of individuals is more important than any nation.

To me this is like saying “dog poop tastes better than cat poop.” Nations should not exist and individualism should not exist.

Maybe your analogy is better for differentiation of the varying kinds of nationalism. Some might say the same of collectivism. Try this: "Eurocommunism is better than Stalinism in much the way that a shit-sandwich is better than just plain shit."

Of course, some Indigenous rights groups and others might defend nationhood.

​

​

Now just to be clear, I am a huge fan of individuality, just not individualism.

​

wt:individuality

Noun

individuality (countable and uncountable, plural individualities)

.1. (uncountable) The characteristics that contribute to the differentiation or distinction of someone or something from a group of otherwise comparable identity.

.2. (countable) A person.

​

wt:individualism

(Noun)

individualism (countable and uncountable, plural individualisms)

.1. The tendency for a person to act without reference to others, particularly in matters of style, fashion or mode of thought.

Antonyms: collectivism, statism

.2. The moral stance, political philosophy, or social outlook that promotes independence and self-reliance of individual people, while opposing the interference with each person's choices by society, the state, or any other group or institution.

.3. (logic) The doctrine that only individual things are real.

.4. (philosophy) The doctrine that nothing exists but the individual self.

Synonym: solipsism

When I think of individualism, I don't think of it necessitating being anti-social or even wt:asocial, but rather that no one can tell you what to do, at least not without your consent.

Let's say 10 people each have $5 and each wants a pizza. $5 will get each 2 slices, but $25 would get a pizza with 50% more area than 10 slices combined, and $50 would get one with twice the area, plus 10 cans of soft drinks.

The problem is toppings. 7 want cheese, 2 want extra cheese, and 1 wants no cheese (maybe due to dairy allergies and/or wt:thon is a vegan). 3 want pineapple, 3 don't. and 6 are okay with it. Ditto mushrooms. A few would forgo their drinks for extra toppings, while one would forgo pizza for 3 cans.

So they negotiate for a while.

6 come to a close agreement, 3 would rather just get slices, and one would rather keeps thons $5.

Presumably under collectivism, it's majority rule and the 6 take the $20 of the 4, add it to their $30, and every one gets an equal amount (or maybe the 4 get less as they opposed the collective, and those who supported the collective get more: no one goes hungry, but each of the 6 eats and drinks a little more);

while under individualism, the 6 get the pizza they agreed on and as a group they paid for; while the other the 3 get their slices; and 1 gets no pizza nor drink but keeps thons $5.