Collectivism v Individualism

Definition of individualism: Placing individuals inside a group's first, they are the highest ethical value so a group needs to serve them. Fine.

Collectivism: individuals belonging to groups need to have some kind of duty to that group. Fine.

Pretty clear there is no absolute one way or the other. And they form a nice feedback loop: people in group membership amount to more than they would on their own, and contributing to that group is seen as prosocial and rewarded.

And collectivism seems better suited to struggles and survival.

But you cant have a group of any kind if it is always hamstrung by individuals who dont want any duty to it and think only of what it gives them. Free-riders as it were. As soon as it stops serving their interest they're entitled to leave and call anyone who condemns them for it "a collectivist"

Yes you can make the libertarian argument that people will rationally just accept some loss of freedom for greater gain in the long run but the libertarian party sucks. And also other groups rightly see that as inefficient.

Sargon doesnt understand a group NEEDS goals and rules over what each individual wants, otherwise it just becomes divided against itself