I guess it's up to you to judge whether my support/objection to each particular thing (which I guess all fall under the umbrella of 'narcissism of the US') is based on a misunderstanding or just a strange opinion
It's a risk that parents should be prepared for, is what I'm saying. Prepare for the possibility BEFORE making the decision to take responsibility for an actual human being. (And yes, I'm saying if your child presents a disability later in life even after you're no longer 'legally' responsible for them, I think it's still your job to make sure they're okay since you brought them into this world.)
My point is there'll be enough people who'd naturally want to help without being forced to via social obligation (because they'd just feel better (or just less bored) if they helped than if they didn't).
In a world without absentee ownership, you don't even need to be particularly altruistic; if you have surplus (time, food, etc) and literally nothing better to do with that surplus (since you can't sell it for profit or anything), there's no reason not to just give it away to people who need it. (Again, I do support welfare given the current system because it's a necessary counterbalance against the forces preventing people from naturally taking care of themselves (and others when they chose to).)
(Still, this is an empirical dispute so I totes understand if you don't think this would be the case :])
EDIT: so i've been feeling deeply unsatisfied with my explanation of why i support 'prioritizing the self over the collective' but couldn't quite put my finger on what was missing. but now i remember
so here's a continuation of my rant:
see, 'prioritizing the collective over the self' goes both ways. if you perpetuate a culture of 'prioritizing the collective over the self', people in need would also feel the need to prioritize the collective over themselves. you'll (general 'you') try to take care of everything on your own, and try to hide your problems from others to avoid 'bothering' them
'but you'll be more useful to the collective when you yourself are taken care of, therefore by accepting help you are in fact prioritising the collective'
then you'll feel obliged to 'pay back' society for their help and feel bad about yourself if you don't end up being able to contribute as a result of their help, or feel like you're contributing just as much as if you weren't helped in the first place.
'but it's a matter of equality; it's okay for you to take more than you give because you're less fortunate than us so it evens the score'
then basically you're calling them weak/helpless. really great for people's self-esteem, not patronizing at all
(okay yes, maybe the fear of being weak is culturally induced to a certain extent, but where do you think it came from in the first place? i suspect a culture of prioritizing the collective, which of course would make people feel ashamed for 'being a weak link' and 'not contributing their part', but i should at least try considering other options.
well, during the pandemic (obligatory 'i'm not anti-lockdown'), i've seen a bunch of people say they're usually homebodies anyway, but now that there's a lockdown they suddenly don't like staying in because there's a difference between staying in by choice and staying in because you have to. point being, a significant proportion of people have a weird contrarian instinct where if they're told to do something, they'll resent doing it even if it's what they would've chosen to do in the first place.
so if people feel forced to help others in need, they're going to resent having to help the people they help, who they need to help because of their 'weakness'/'neediness'. naturally the resentment would seep through and the people in need are going to catch on and feel bad about themselves.
... okay i dunno, maybe i'm being uncharitable here. have any better sugestions?)
at least in the current society, welfare can be justified as 'you're not weak for needing this; it's a necessary counterbalance because the system is rigged against you'. but i still consider it a necessary evil; i think the the ends justify the means here, but i'm still not a fan of the means.
plus there's the thing where some people think those who need welfare are 'leeches'^, and so if everyone is obligated to help those in need, you have to go through this whole screening process where people debate if you're '''really''' in need or if you're just lazy. that sucks. but if people aren't obligated to help, people who don't want to help would not feel the need to scrutinize you and just leave you alone. and to get help, it only takes one person who both believes you're not a leech and happen to have some surplus they're willing to share (whether out of generosity or having nothing better to do with the surplus)(they may even have more surplus energy because they don't have to debate the people who don't want to help about how much you're not a leech!).
i think most normal people who aren't afraid for their own future and spending all their energy on securing themselves would indeed help that 50-year-old who list their legs in a car crash; i think we should work towards that world where not-fearing-for-your-future is the norm, which may, arguably, need collectivism as a means to an end (though the only way to know for sure is to throw both individualist and collectivist approaches at the wall and see what sticks). but i do think in that world, 'prioritizing the self over the collective' is a more healthy attitude than the converse. yes, there might be a slightly higher risk that you won't receive help at all, but people who do help you won't resent you, and you can freely ask for help from people who can say 'no' without shame or feeling indebted.
^ and no; the 'leech' mindset isn't individualism's fault - it's the fault of the notion that 'people deserve what they've worked for'. hot take, i know. i have a beef against the annoyingly uncontroversial notion of 'deserving', which also ties in to some of my other unpopular opinions coughbeingagainstipcough
EDIT2: Relevant comment