A vulgar induvidualist: “There is no such thing as a forrest, there are only trees.” (And there is no sea, there are only water drops. [8-)] )
An induvidualist: “Only the trees have rights, but not the forrest.”
A collectivist: “The forrest has rights as well as the trees.”
Not a collectivist: “There is a forrest, but it can not have rights.”
There seems to be some confusion. Hope this clears it up.
There’s no such thing as ‘vulgar individualism’ – it’s a smear term. People concerned about collective entities are usually known as collectivists.
I would argue that, as described by Marko, it’s a fairly appropriate description for someone who knows of methodological individualism without understanding it.
No. It’s an attempt to pretend that nationalism, tribalism, and that sort of thing are not at odds with individualism. Also, google for “vulgar individualism” and you’ll see that the usage of the term is marginal and can be ambigous. Both social democrats and conservatives use it as a smear term.
Besides, methodological individualism is not the point.
What is a “collective entity”? “Usually known”? Can you be any more vague?
Please provide a clear short definition of what is induvidualism and what is collectivism, like I have.
Oh? But I assert that Nationalism is indeed at odds with induvidualism. Nationalism after all claims that the state is legitimate providing it is a nation-state.
Affection and concern for what you deem your nation or your people however is not. No more than affection for any other group. Say your family, or a football pub team you are a part of. Which is really what I suspect you are trying to insinuate with your attempts at muddying the waters.