I have arrived at some temporary solutions to problems regarding political philosophy in the real world. For the most part, the debate over the ideal political philosophy has been narrowed down to two choices: socialism and capitalism. I agree with this. However, blending in with that debate my own conviction that toleration and moderation are the keys to success in any situation, I have concluded that there are, for purposes of this discussion, two types of political philosophies, and each is best served by a compromise between socialism and capitalism.

Individual Political Philosophy. I believe there can be no question that individualism is the political philosophy that best serves the individual. By its definition, which follows, one can see that individualism advocates effort and responsibility as a price for freedom. If all individuals in any given society earnestly tried to be productive for themselves (and/or their family, business, country, etc. -- whatever serves the individual's interest), the result would be an emotionally and materially prosperous society, as well as free and secure.

One should note that the inherent selfishness of individualism is not the same type of selfishness as the typical, derogatory form, characterized by a general disregard for anyone but one's self. Rather, the selfishness of an individualist with a solid moral foundation -- which is best achieved if the individual's peers, serving their own interests, influence such a moral foundation -- is characterized by an awareness of one's role individually and as part of the collective. In other words, a morally sound individualist can never be a "greedy, back-stabbing capitalist" unless unfairly coerced.

Collective Political Philosophy (or social political philosophy). Just as individualism is the political philosophy that best serves the individual, collectivism is the political philosophy that best serves the collective. (Branches of collectivism include socialism and communism, derived from "society" and "community", respectively, and thus implying their interests in serving the collective rather than any individual or groups of individuals.)

The virtues of collectivism arise from its noble intentions; collectivist aim to level the playing field in order to improve the quality of life for the less fortunate. However, by the definitions of individualism and collectivism above, one can immediately recognize conflicts which can cause and have caused significant struggles between advocates of individualism and collectivism. The most significant conflict arises when the collectivist attempts to redistribute previously earned wealth (material or otherwise) into the hands of the less fortunate. While the collectivist's intentions are noble, so is the capitalist's conviction that his wealth as earned as his to serve his interests in his way. The problem is that the collectivist believes that wealth should be no one's and everyone's, and that it should be used to serve the collective interest in the most equitable way.

It is important to note the difference between the concepts of equality and equitableness. To reduce two objects to equality would mean to shape them exactly alike. To reduce two objects to equitableness would mean to reduce them to similar forms with subtle, but acceptable, differences that allow no advantage of either over the other. In this context, then, equitableness is congruent with fairness.

It is important to understand this difference, or else the intentions of collectivism may be grossly misunderstood, as they have been since the ideals of communism were first put into righting. Collectivism and its sub-philosophies promote equitableness, or fairness, not equality. A collectivist, socialist, or communist does not want to reduce all individuals on earth to a single, molded form. Rather, the collectivist wants to reduce the inequities created by capitalism in order to provide equal opportunities -- of education, of wealth, of all things noncultural -- to everyone.

The problem, naturally, is that the wealthy do not wish to donate their good fortune for such a noble cause, because it would be a drastic reduction in the quality of their lives. Regardless of how "fair" it would be once equitableness is attained, it would never be "fair" to those who once were wealthy, who had given up their wealth in order to be a commoner.

Ah, the solution. Granted, I am only twenty years old and have not had the time nor have I put in the effort to thoroughly research these topics, but I understand the concepts well enough, and I think I may be on to something. The solution, as I stated above, is merely a result of the application of moderation and toleration to the diametrically opposite political philosophies of individualism and collectivism (or capitalism and socialism, if you will).

In order to reduce to conflicts between the individual interest and collective interest to a minimum, the individual must be an individualist with a healthy respect for the collective, and likewise the collective a healthy respect for the individual. The individual must be able to pursue promotion, but the collective must offer no preferential advantages to any particular individuals or groups of individuals.

Call it collective individualism, or merit-based socialism, or something in between. But know this: in order for such a philosophy to represent its own best interests, the greatest autonomy must rest with the individual, and the collective interest must allow individual freedom only to the limits at which it would encroach on the health of the collective.

To find an example of such a system established, read the "Declaration of Independence", The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers. In those documents lie the foundations of federalism, the only form of government which allows for the perfect balance of individual and collective interest.

Only through federalism may the tenets of liberalism truly be followed in an equitable fashion, so as best to serve the individual, the collective, the world.