"The Needs of the Many Outweigh The Needs of the Few, Or the One."
That's collectivism in a nutshell, isn't it? But where does it lead us?
We, the many, need health care. Doesn't our need for healthcare outweigh the needs of the few who provide it? Doesn't that mean we should be able to force them to give it to us?
We, the many, need education for our children. Doesn't our need for their education outweigh the needs of the few who provide it? So shouldn't we be able to force them to give it to us?
And the same goes for shelter, food, and clothing, doesn't it? Don't the needs of the many who need these things outweigh the needs of the few who make them? Isn't it immoral for them to deny us what we so patently need, just in order to survive?
For each need that we decide to live this way, we're going to find a bunch of the providers will go into some other line of work where they aren't forced into servitude. And the remainder will get horribly squeezed and overworked, so that there isn't enough to go around. And then the government will start rationing to us the things we need, and whether we get what we need will no longer be in our hands. It will instead be in the hands of the few who have political power. And it is just sinful human nature that they will serve their needs first and leave us only with what they don't want or can't get away with keeping for themselves.
A man who went by the internet handle of Bear once said something on this which I think is very pertinent:
"As an ethical individual, I may decide to yield my rights for the good of the majority, but that decision should be mine, not the majority's."