Is a group of individuals an impossibility?

By forming a group based on individuality do the individuals accept that they all have something in common and are thus no longer true individuals?|||Individuals are persons. You're an individual! loll!


We all have something in common. We share most of our genes with all humanity and beyond. But we all have some traits that make us one of a kind. That's what sets us apart of other, along with the environment we are raised and live in. Even a person and his clone would have differences.


No one is so stranded from society, so to not have a group. Everyone in a group it's unique and retains his unique features to certain level. Entering a group doesn't make you less unique.|||There is no group unless there are individuals.|||They may all have something in common, but they are still all individuals as there are many facets to the charachter that it would be impossible to find one exactly the same, therefore unique.


Take fruit stall - all apples are different, each is unique as they are all apples but each has a slightly different shape, taste, amount of juice, pips........|||In a group based on individuality , if you have something in common doesn't prove that the individuality is lost, they are simply knowing that they are somewhere close in their views, but individually they are individual. In fact, in a group like this it is very difficult for them to match with others even though they respect each others individuality, that is why they are called the group of individuals.|||working as a group member does not take away your individuality!|||The largest such "group" is the United States. At its founding, "common sovereignty" was the standard of how the government was to operate, meaing each individual had to give up to the government his/her right to such things as vigilante justice; or monkee trials; or political rule over others that is not democratically ordered under our system of republicanism.





But "popular sovereignty" is derived from "individual sovereignty." The "popular" cannot exist without permission from the "individual" to take parts of his/her rights.





"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day."


http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm





In giving up these rights to "popular sovereignty," we actually become more free to become more individualized. This is because we DO HAVE more freedom from the tryanny of other individuals. We no longer have to band together in tribes with spears or with guns; we let the State do it through elected representatives and hired professionals.





The United States IS a "group of individuals," because only individuals can freely give bits and pieces of their freedom in order "to provide for the common Defence." Taking of those bits and pieces by any other means is tyranny.





Tyranny eliminates the impossiblity of individuality in the group.