ethics/political question

Who's more important, the individual, or the group of individuals he belongs to?

I came to this question when I was thinking over ethics, political theories and authoritarian/libertarian differences, and I decided the answer to this question was very pertinent but I'm not sure how to go about it.

Suppose you've got a man named A, and he's in a group consisting of himself, B, C, D, and E.

I never think it's moral to do something like, force A to pay B $5, unless A had stolen it from B before hand or something.  And I find it hard to come up with an example where I think it's justifiable to force A to pay $5 to B, C, D, and E, each, but I suppose that's what I'm asking.  Is it ever alright to forcibly sacrifice some of one individual for the rest of the group?

>>1
This depends on the nature of the group: its purpose, its method of operation, who runs it, and whether it's voluntary or compulsory.  If A, B, C, D, and E each AGREED to join the group permanently, and stated purpose was to redistribute wealth according to need, and B, C, D, and E needed the $5 more than A, then they would be justified in taking it.  The justification being that if A had needed money, he could have taken it from another member.  However, if a neutral party had forced the group to form, or, worse yet, B, C ,D, and E had forced A to join in order to have access to his higher net worth, then it would be simple theft.  (If A had stolen the money, it's a different matter entirely)

In >>6's scenario, you can justify killing Bob by assuming that if one were to gather all 1001 people into a room and say "1000 of you will die unless I kill the other 1" I would expect that they would all agree on killing the one.  But such decisions should be reserved for only the most extreme situations, namely when a great number of lives are at risk and seeking agreement from every affected party isn't feasible.