To a degree you are correct. However to a degree your wrong... We are all individuals and we all live in many collectives, ones family is a collective, ones state is a collective, ones country is a collective, ones species is a collective, and the collective that we all share because we have no other choice is the collective of the planet Earth. A collective is made of individuals working together for a common goal. Sometimes a collective can protect the individual and other time a individual can protect the collective... Whether a individual or collective the freedom of personal choice is what matters as long as that personal choice is truly that personal and one isn't making choices for others...

??????????????
I am making statements about choices. you want to ignore my discussion and have one of your own

If reality were different, it would be different.

missed or ignored "All other things being equal."
how free I am is where we start
if the US were as free today as it was in 1800, all things being equal, I'd rather live today.
every objective measure of human happiness increases with the average level of technology. freedom allows the avg level of technology to increase.

No, they are opposites.

There can be a blending of individualism and collectivism...

So a wealthier feudal country is better to live in than a democratic country that is poorer than it?

I'd rather live in a wealthier society than a poorer one, all other things being equal.
to your statement, you are incorrect.

Part of what makes any life better, even mine own individual life, is for other person(s) to get his/her part of this existence (of this world), to be content to let others get they're part of this existence ....out of each person's own merit and earning(s). 'Three acres and a cow' refers to an idea of G.K. Chesterton's that each family is better off to work towards owning their own means of production (both economically and physically), and not become or remain 'wage slaves'.

I call it like I see it. Besides, I've been insulted many times on this site. :)

Only on this site might that statement be perceived as an insult. :)

Your original post in this thread makes it seem like you're more concerned with improving life for all than improving it for yourself.

you.
The Rational Optimist, by Ridley

Making life better for who?

I agree that the phenomenon you point out is a form of collectivism.

I'm not sure I understand your point. but if you're talking about the writer Chesterton, there is nothing to save and no parallels to be drawn.
true champions of this life understand that three acres and a cow will take us right back to the Malthusian trap. One of the main applications of reason in making life "better" is science and technology. Rand wrote extensively on this.

The real waste here seems to be everyone's effort to guide the 'collective' to becoming more or less politically correct, or to becoming more homogenized about what is politically correct. Remember; the path to collectivism/liberalism/conservative-ism begins with, 'We all should .......', or, 'Someone ought to .....' Ultimately, the true champions of this life will simply go get their own 'three acres and a cow' and get down to the business of living his/her own life to the fullest. (It may be ironic, but it seems much of what has been written by Rand can now only be saved by Chesterton.)