Dammit, meant to send to the list again.
   On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:02 AM Sean Lynch <[1]seanl@literati.org>
   wrote:

   On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:33 AM Razer <[2]Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

     I think there's a place for individualism within collectivism but
     the
     collective comes first.

   This I can't really agree with. There is no collective without the
   individual, and why should any individual be part of such a thing if it
   doesn't benefit him or her?
   I recognize that we share the planet and that we all benefit from the
   existence of society, but I think the only obligation that places upon
   us is to give at least as much as we take. But at the end of the day
   the only people qualified to make the determination of whether an
   individual's contribution is adequate is the individual and anyone
   considering entering into some kind of exchange/relationship/whatever
   with that individual. It is the sum total of these decisions and
   interactions from which society emerges.
   My longer term hope is that sharing the planet is just a temporary
   constraint that we'll eventually overcome. There is a lot of room in
   the galaxy and even the solar system. "If you don't like it, leave" is
   a lot more realistic of an option when the choices and resources
   available are practically infinite. This is not to say I'm sympathetic
   to the Venus Project and its' ilk; I don't think they're wrong about a
   future of abundance, I just think their language and thinking is rooted
   in a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of economic scarcity.

References

   1. mailto:seanl@literati.org
   2. mailto:Rayzer@riseup.net