This is too broad a word "collectivism." Under this broad term many different things could fall; and i'm one to believe that a neighborhood group is not nearly as bad as a communist state. Could you define it or specify what you mean? And, you're begging the question of collectivism being bad: why is it? Why in any degree is "collectivism" bad?
If I see you mugging an old lady on the street corner, I have a right to use force to stop you from doing that. Therefore so does society, i.e. the state.
could you clarify how an individual has the right to stop an old lady being mugged, therefore so does "society," yet that same society made up of those same individuals don't have the right to apply their moral standards? Also, I think you're conflating "society" and state. The two are the same entity? How so?
However, if I don't approve of the way you are raising your children, you are under no obligation to listen to my opinions on the matter. Likewise with society, i.e. the state. They have as much say in the matter as I do - none.
I think you have a bit of a strawman here: of course you are under "no obligation" to listen to other people's opinions; however, the law doesn't care about a person's opinion. It's independent of that. It doesn't follow that because you have "no obligation" to listen "to your opinion" doesn't mean that a law can't be made by the "state" regarding a matter. Also, I think it's a matter of degree: for example, if a child is being molested by his/her parents, you're saying that the government cannot pass a law against some actions? If so, why not? You can argue that your protecting the "individual" child's rights, but nonetheless you contradict your statement regarding "no obligation." If it's something like what you are feeding a kid, i can understand, but there are different degrees, and i think the generalize like your above statement is a problematic way to look at it. Also, "no obligation" regarding an opinion doesn't equal "no obligation" regarding a law, imo.
Likewise with society, i.e. the state. They have as much say in the matter as I do - none.
Again, "society" and the "state" are the same? how? I think it's an improper conflation of the two. And, again, you (or I) having "no say" doesn't necessarily extend to the society; there are certain ideas which society will promote -- disagreement may be found, but that doesn't equal "no say" or "no obligation."
Individuals cannot delegate powers to government that they do not themselves posess.
ok. i agree. but then how does government and societal norms contradict this idea?
Molestation is an assault. A violation of the child's individual rights (as you correctly pointed out). It is a legitimate function of the state and the law to punish that action.