Argument #5 - The Limits of Individualism Fineman (2009) argues that in order to function as a unified nation, one needs to sacrifice some individual rights, and that the best governments are those that allocate liberty and wealth equally to provide "fair equality of opportunity? (p. 157). He asks what obligations Americans have to each other in terms of social-welfare, material prosperity, and behavior. His arguments on individualism do not stem from whether Americans would put effort to help each other in a time of crisis or in any situation, but rather he questions the degree to which government could commit them to help. He contends that government has to deliberate how to resolve the two ideas of ?united we stand? and ?there?s no such thing as a free lunch?. So how does one reconcile such vastly differing viewpoints? He suggests that perhaps the best way to do this is ?to sell regulation and taxes to the voters, successful politicians learn, is by packaging it as a route to enhancing individual freedom (Fineman, 2009, p.175).? In other words,…show more content… Sociologist like Karl Marx may suggest that societies should always strive to work towards the greater good of society and giving priority over their own individual needs, believing that as long as there were those in need of anything, individuals had to sacrifice their own happiness to help them. However, communist countries like China and Cuba, with their collectivist societies, are examples of how societies can loose and dip into poverty when a society forgets the needs of the individual and promotes only the collective. Additionally, capitalist societies like America and many modern societies do not work well without the entrepreneurial spirit of