Believing that the family is the basic unit society is built around =/= collectivism. To claim otherwise is to claim that ever prior society in history is somehow collectivist, which is nonsensical.
Collectivism as an idea didn't really appear until the 19th century, maybe late 18th century. It is specifically structured around the idea of people as subordinate to the society as a whole. Prior to then, that was not generally the relationship, people were not subordinate to society, but subordinate to other people. IE, in feudalism, you had a chain of individual relationships that defined the structure of a society. Yes there were classes of people, but as a class peasants were not subject to kings, no, they were individually subject to their local lord, who was subject to their superior noble and upwards via individual relationships to the king.
Within the English system you saw such ideas quite regularly, there was considerable jurisprudence on what the rights of individuals (as defined as Englishmen) were, such as the right to keep and bear arms, rights to petition, etc. The idea of individual rights were much older than the United States; however, even within this system you had an understanding of social organization that was based on family units. "Clans", after all, are just extended families, and those extended families tended to be what made up day to day society for most of human history around the entire world.
Recognizing that families are the building block of society seems to be a fair thing to do, even while recognizing that individual rights are also a thing. They're not incompatible, and having a government oriented towards supporting families and favoring their creation seems like a generally good idea to me.
Collectivism as an idea didn't really appear until the 19th century, maybe late 18th century. It is specifically structured around the idea of people as subordinate to the society as a whole. Prior to then, that was not generally the relationship, people were not subordinate to society, but subordinate to other people. IE, in feudalism, you had a chain of individual relationships that defined the structure of a society. Yes there were classes of people, but as a class peasants were not subject to kings, no, they were individually subject to their local lord, who was subject to their superior noble and upwards via individual relationships to the king.
Within the English system you saw such ideas quite regularly, there was considerable jurisprudence on what the rights of individuals (as defined as Englishmen) were, such as the right to keep and bear arms, rights to petition, etc. The idea of individual rights were much older than the United States; however, even within this system you had an understanding of social organization that was based on family units. "Clans", after all, are just extended families, and those extended families tended to be what made up day to day society for most of human history around the entire world.
Recognizing that families are the building block of society seems to be a fair thing to do, even while recognizing that individual rights are also a thing. They're not incompatible, and having a government oriented towards supporting families and favoring their creation seems like a generally good idea to me.