The collectivist to be moral would be true to rational self-interest, and all that entails. That is the opposite of Hillary acting as Bill's agent to scam people and get unearned money.

What morality?
We've already established that politicians in Washington are only in it for power and money. That makes them immoral at the outset. The fallacy is to attribute any sort of morality to them. Oh yes, there are a few exceptions (very few). But as the old saw goes, the exception proves the rule.

Hillary's ability to attract throngs of believers and supporters is the evidence, in her mind, that man can only exist in a hive.

I think you will find that that was a Beretta, not a Glock.

The morality of the hive. Until you've surrendered your self and been assimilated into the Borg, you'll never understand.
I'm laughing here, folks.

Why mask something that most people believe in?!?!? You mask something that most people DON'T believe in. How do you think these thugs get into power?!?

I always get an attack of cognitive dissonance when I see the words "morality" and "collectivist" in the same sentence.

The one thing to always keep in the back of your mind when considering "them" is that almost every word they use is defined by the actions they take exactly opposite of how it has traditionally been defined. "Progressive" for instance always accompanies efforts to be REGRESSIVE -- to regress society back to when kings and princes etc. ruled. I often remember V. Jarrett noting, "we are ready to RULE on day one." Presidents are not to rule anyone. They are to execute laws duly created by the Congress. Those creations are to be -- but are not -- limited by the many places the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law...."
"Liberal" on the other hand is virtually always restrictive 00 again opposite any rational definition. "Conservative" usually -- at least verbally -- reflects an effort to "conserve" the power of the government, but of course is never actually spoken in political circles that way. Getting back to the initial question, sort of, Morality -- suggests a fixed set of values; politics, almost by definition does not!

A "morality" (principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior -wiki) presumes foundational "beliefs" from which choices and behaviors are derived. As I've stated before, a "belief" is neither truth nor fact. Collectivist "beliefs," IMHO, have no foundation in rational thinking. Their first belief is that the benefit of the collective takes precedence before that of an individual. That this concept, a priori, means they, as individuals, have lesser worth goes against the primary (IMHO) precept of existence which is .... to survive as an individual..

I happened to see Sanders go after Trump- saying things like we "have to stop him". Gone was the grandfatherly image. The evil just escaped for everyone to see. Trump represented standing up against socialism, and Sanders was afraid of it and it had to be destroyed. Reminded me of passages in AS and the Fountainhead.

Hildebeast smiles a lot, but there is true evil that lurks within.

Me dino tried to find the scene where Steven Seagal (maybe it was another actor) snatches the slide off a gunman's Glock. Got tired of looking and settled for another way to kick a gunman's ass~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oUwx...

Hillary is pure evil, as is Sanders. They dont even mask it.

We saw the true nature of "collectivism" with the Politburo of the old Soviet Union: it is actually elitism. It is the morality that justifies the age-old line from Animal Farm that "some are more equal than others". It rejects the notion that all are created with the same rights and rather bestows upon some rights according to power, money, or lineage. It rejects the notion of inherent rights and instead takes the stand that rights and privileges are purely benevolent gifts from the government in power - the government of men.

The true collectivist would seek for everyone to have the same privilege and share in the same opportunity as everyone else, knowing that the only real benefit to the community as a whole is a result of the improvement of the individual.

I use this reference in all relations now. Recently I used it to express Right Relations to a law professor. When she understood the basic concept, asked if I'd an interest in teaching ethics at Creighton. Hmmmmm....and undermine global Legality as it stands?
Well done, well met.

Wham! Outta nowhere!
This post is an inspiration.
The term "groupthink" just jumped back into old dino's widdle brain.
It came, it lingered, it faded away and me dino has not even thought about it for years.

http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resou....

Groupthink ties into collectivism~

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collect...

"Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value."

“The Objectivist Ethics,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 34

More here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/alt...

Define collectivist. Is it those that live it, or is those that rule it? That will answer your question.

Could not have said it better...

If a masked man walked up to me and stuck a politician in my ribs and demanded money...I'd kick his ass and the politician TOO!...Nobody stick a politician in my ribs...or anywhere else for that matter...
IT"S HUMOR! Laughing

There is no morality in collectivism. Its is coerced and forced servitude. Collectivism is anti-freedom and anti-free will.

If a masked man walked up to you, stuck a gun in your ribs and demanded your money, you would easily identify this to be a clearly immoral behavior. So, why are so many folks hiding from the reality that when the masked man replaces the gun with a politician, the morality of the act doesn’t change?