Any thoughts on the rumored Ukrainian offensive?

It seems "rumors" of a Ukrainian offensive seem to pop up every once in a while, but is there any substance to this?

There's at least a chance that Ukraine has successfully held back an amount of troops, materiel and ammunition to be able to conduct an offensive. I don't think the chance is particularly high, and the chances of this being a form of propaganda/information warfare seems more likely to me.

But even if it's the latter, it would be interesting to think about what the target and goal is of the information campaign.

- Information warfare aimed at the Russians seems unlikely, however the Russians have dug in across pretty much the entire frontline. That fact alone seems to discredit a real threat of a Ukrainian offensive, however it does show the Russians took the initial possibility seriously.

- Propaganda aimed at the western public, to divert the image of a lost war?

- Propaganda aimed at the Ukrainian forces to keep some semblance of hope for victory?

- All of the above?

I would also be interested to hear if anyone here is convinced the Ukrainian offensive is a likely possibility.

An interesting difference between science and philosophy is that Plato sought the Monad in the undivided, ever expanding outwards into something that encompassed all.

Science on the other hand looks for it in the indivisible, zooming in ever further.

They are quite literally opposites.

Perhaps an expedient question to ask would be, when was the last time US party politics had a significant influence on matters that also greatly impacted the 'powers that be', ergo the BlackRocks and Vanguards, the large banks, the US military-industrial complex, etc. — Tzeentch

No one?

If there are no examples of this, then the cynic in me is inclined to say US politics is little more than an inflammatory clownshow for the peasantry to squabble over, while the fat cats strike up the big bucks.

Perhaps an expedient question to ask would be, when was the last time US party politics had a significant influence on matters that also greatly impacted the 'powers that be', ergo the BlackRocks and Vanguards, the large banks, the US military-industrial complex, etc.

The net flow of tax money is from the government to me (my schemes), not the other way round. — Isaac

Knowing where the state's money comes from, is that a good thing, though?

I get the idea. I can hardly blame someone for seeking to profit from a system that is imposed on them.

However, this is not a cost we're imposing on the state, but on the people who finance the state - ordinary people caught in the same trap as you.

If there is but one party, why such polarization along such meaningless labels? — Hanover

How better to extend tyranny than to provide the illusion of freedom?

Related to the geopolitical conflict the Ukraine war is a part of;

As the US is increasingly tied down by the war in Ukraine on one hand, and the geopolitical rivalry with China on the other, the chance of dormant conflicts starting to re-emerge elsewhere in the world is going to significantly increase.

It seems Sudan could possibly be the first instance of this happening - a country rich in natural resources like crude oil, gold and uranium, and one that has been plagued by ethnic conflict for many decades.

So my version of what I think is my property (shared property) involves massively more 'theft' by private corporations than by governments, hence my different priorities. — Isaac

That's fair enough.

The current status quo involves a massive amount of coercion too. I suppose we just value the two differently.

I need an entity big and tough enough to fight the corporations. — Isaac

It's all hypothetical of course, but assuming violence is completely off the table as we've discussed, and that means you are not being deprived of your basic needs, why even care about big corporations at that point?

Let them build their sand castles.

The difference to me is, I would not be forcibly made complicit in what the big corporations get up to, in the way I am now being made complicit in what my government gets up to.

This is a real problem for me. Because the state makes me a part of its wicked scheme, I am forced to care, and protest.

Why? Bearing in mind we're talking about the threat of violence here. — Isaac

Billions of people are being threatened with violence by governments, but millions are being violently assaulted by governments - wars, the prison system, etc.

While coercion is more wide-spread, actual violence is definitely a part of my argument, and it is the capacity for actual violence that underlies the state's power.

So we have threat of violence vs theft. You either have your stuff taken because someone bigger than you demands it (and you're sensible enough not to fight), or you have your stuff taken by someone more deceptive than you when you're not looking.

In each case you can do something about it (get stronger or get cleverer), but those options are limited (there'll always be someone stronger than you and always be someone cleverer than you). So you get your stuff taken in either case, and there's little you can do about it. I just can't really see the big difference. — Isaac

A difference would be, in one case resistance is met with possible bodily harm and your loss of freedom. In the other, resistance seems perfectly acceptable, and the price, at most, seems material possessions(?).

That's a big difference, because to me resistance to being made complicit is an ethical duty.

it's under consideration; exit strategies are in place. — Vera Mont

Sounds more like an exit fantasy if you're still here. Why are you wasting your time complaining on an internet forum?

Tough; you're here now. The exit is over there. — Vera Mont

Have you ever considered taking your own advice in response to your criticism of modern society?

So, we can draw a line at someone literally extracting your possessions from you by force. that's clearly not voluntary. But what about them taking your possessions when you're out? Is that voluntary (you left them insufficiently guarded)? If not, then we have any possession taken without consent being 'involuntary'. So If I think I own the river from which some company is extracting water, they're taking that possession of mine without my consent, yes? — Isaac

Basically, yes.

I don't see any justification for calling the fact that the government tops the 'violence' list a 'monopoly', but saying that the fact that a small cabal of corporations top the 'manipulation' list as not a monopoly. — Isaac

Depending on the circumstances, it could be called a monopoly. I think for something like "manipulation" that would get rather complicated, but in theory it's certainly possible. Monopolies are generally going to be problematic and another source of unethical behavior. If a monopoly on manipulation, as you call it, comes to a point of "mind control", perhaps that can even be considered a form of violence.

I will argue though that the fact that the individual can try to resist, so therefore the state does not hold a monopoly on violence is misleading. There is obviously some threshold at which point the entry barrier becomes too high to overcome, at which point we start viewing things as monopolies. That goes for companies and states alike.

I therefore also don't see how removing one form of power has any relation to property. It will simply be distributed according the the remaining forms of power. — Isaac

Possibly so. In a theoretical case where violence is taken out of the picture completely, I would argue distribution by those remaining forms of power is preferable, albeit not perfect either.

Tax comes under 'the rest' since it can be extracted by means other than violence (theft, deception, market manipulation, psychological manipulation...) — Isaac

Yes, so discussion about what belongs to who is of course possible, and to a certain extent probably inevitable. However, the means of arbitration that states use - unilateral imposition under threat of violence - is arguably the absolute worst way to do it, hence my protests.

That's a good foundation for agreement. Can we agree, further, on what constitutes "basic life needs?" — Isaac

Let's leave this for another time, as to not derail the thread too much. :up:

The point I'm making here is that what we can rightfully possess (what it would be 'theft' for the government to take) is a separate issue from the means by which government takes it.

Using violence (or threat of it) might be wrong in all cases, but it doesn't in any way preclude the current distribution of property - including your tax burden - it just changes the means by which it can be collected. — Isaac

Assuming I understand your point correctly, I would argue that the way people should distribute property is through voluntary means.

As above, I'm not unsympathetic to this view but I'm struggling to see an argument as to why violence (as opposed to cunning) creates a somehow less tolerable inequality. — Isaac

The state might make someone take a product by threat of violence, the physically weak would comply.

The company might do so by clever advertising and psychological manipulation, the mentally weak comply.

What's the difference? — Isaac

Simply put, the state maintains a monopoly on violence, which means any act of resistance will be further cause for violence. Resistance is forbidden.

The thief holds no monopoly on cunning, and I can (fairly easily, I would argue) use my own wits to protect myself against it. Without a monopoly on violence the thief can't stop me from resisting their efforts.

The company holds no monopoly on manipulation, and I can use my mental capacity however I wish to resist the company's influence.


Further, I distinguish between actions against one's body and action's against one's belongings. The body is the one belonging that irrevocably belongs to the individual, while there can be a debate about the rest.


That isn't to say that companies cannot also perform actions that are or are akin to physical violence. Depriving people of their basic life needs, for instance, is in my view on par with actual physical violence, and I would judge it just as harshly.

What about your money? Any land you think you own? Possessions like boats, cars, buildings...? — Isaac

I'm not a particularly materialistic person.

...that describes most of the world's larger corporations. In Indonesia, for example, it is impossible to get insurance without using a company majority owned by Black Rock. They've simply bought out (quite legally) all competition.

Google, Black Rock, Vanguard, Microsoft...
All for exactly that to an extent that is larger than most governments. The US government might still come out as public enemy number one, but we'd come to Black Rock way before the majority of the rest if the world in terms of "tak[ing] things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist" — Isaac

I consider all of that to be unethical as well. But I view physical violence a degree worse than the coercive power of powerful corporations (if only by a little), which is why the physical violence of states is, in my view, not an actual alternative.

Consider for example that I wouldn't even have insurance if I wasn't directly obligated by the state to be insured. An example of how the state's violence gives coercive power to the corporation.

Likewise, big pharma is problematic, but it becomes inescapable when states start mandating their product.

Not at all. Many individuals are capable of the sort of hacking, or deception needed to extract money from a bank account. It happens all the time, it doesn't require extraordinary state power, an ordinary thief could do it. — Isaac

I just said the state could take your money non-violently. You could try and take it back non-violently too. We could oppose violence entirely. It wouldn't stop people taking the property they thought was theirs. The best hacker/thief/con-man would have all the money. No violence needed. — Isaac

If physical violence was off the table completely, protecting one's belongings would be easy enough. I could chain myself to my belongings so that any attempt to seperate me from them would result in an act of physical violence and voilá.

Physical violence is something particularly insidious.

I can protect myself from a hacker or a thief easily enough. I cannot protect myself from the violence of the state, which is of course exactly the reason why states use and protect their monopoly on violence, why conflicts have a tendency to devolve into violence, etc. The last argument of kings, as Louis XIV famously enscribed on his cannons.

We have way bigger fish to fry than the state. — Isaac

I disagree with this.

While I agree that ever more powerful corporations are a problem on the same line as states, I view states as being equally responsible for that problem, and not as a viable alternative. They're two sides of the same rotten coin.

Then there's the added dimension that states are actively trying to make me complicit in their misdeeds by forcing me to contribute to their purse.

I have little power and moral ground (or desire, for that matter) to decide for others what they should do. I do however have a moral ground not to be made complicit in the misdeeds of others.

What you are describing is the state using its extraordinary power to put the individual in a position where they are unable to resist.

That in itself could be seen as an act of violence (or at the very least belonging in the same category), however it's probably useful to understand that the state's violence is a direct reaction to this act of resistance.

An individual that resists the state's will, will eventually (usually quite swiftly) be met with violence.

That the state has means to put the individual in a position where resistance is impossible, is not a redeeming factor to the way states operate.

I would not judge a person who takes things from others by putting them in situations where they are completely unable to resist any more favorably than a person who takes things by force.

Or, it could do so whilst you're in (since the same proscription applies to you - you can't use violence against them to make the stop). — Isaac

There are ways other than physical violence against persons with which one could resist, and they would be met swiftly with actual violence against your person by the state.

Such like suggests (to me at least) that anti-taxers go by (dogmatic) ideology, but I could surely be wrong. — jorndoe

My gripe with states goes further than taxes, but you are right - it's ideological in nature.

I'm against violence of any kind (with the possible exception of self-defense), whether it's committed by a common thug or organized and condoned by millions of people.

States operate on unethical principles and make me complicit by force.

The true anarchist/individualist is always outnumbered. Will it be by organized thugs or a democratic majority? Or will they be alone? Choosing the "least bad" is rational. — jorndoe

I think there is a point in discussing the principles that underlie our societies, regardless of whether there is a feasible alternative.

The understanding that states operate on a principle of violence is an important one, especially on a thread about communism, since communism first requires feeding the beast (in the hopes it will eventually abolish itself).

You can opt out of the social contract in several ways: — Vera Mont

I don't believe in the legitimacy of a "contract" that has been unilaterally imposed.

I also don't believe I should bear a cost for avoiding something that was unjustly imposed on me in the first place.

Apparently the basic function of states wasn't clear to some, and you asked for it so there you go.

So I guess the state has a literal gun to my head there too. — Mikie

Yep. That's how the state operates.

1. Someone who doesn't pay tax once, and then (understandably) is coerced by the state to start paying taxes, might avoid a prison sentence. Someone who refuses to pay taxes gets thrown in prison.

2. Being thrown in prison happens, literally, under threat of violence, and that generally involves armed policemen. The gun is literal.

Violence and subsequent imprisonment underlies the entire justice system. Perhaps that is somehow justifiable, but there's no point in trying to sugarcoat it.

You think we're not funding our national defense? — Christoffer

Sweden doesn't have a credible military at all. That goes for all European nations, with the possible exception of Poland.

So yes, Sweden is certainly piggybacking off the US military budget. Yet you confess a certain disdain for the United States, while simultaneously seeing no issue with being dependent on it for your security, and even profiting from it? Quite hypocritical.

You just come off as fundamentally confused as to what this discussion is about. — Christoffer

It's not very complicated. States use tax money to fund immoral practices. So taxation enables states' immoral practices.

And all states conduct immoral practices, including Sweden, which is what I've just explained to you.

No, it doesn't, find that definition please, that includes "violence". — Christoffer

No one is actually forcing you. — Christoffer

If a person doesn't pay tax, they are thrown in prison. If being physically thrown into prison isn't a method of forcing, a method of violent coercion, then I don't know what is.

I'm not sure how more obvious I can make it to you.

What the hell does that have to do with taxation as an economic system? — Christoffer

It's a pretty good analogy, actually.

See if you can wrap your head around it.

No, you are avoiding providing a description of an alternative system. — Christoffer

Yes, of course. Because I don't see the point in providing one to you. I'm not making a secret of that fact, so I don't think I'm being dishonest.

Ok, do so with Sweden. — Christoffer

Sweden, like every European nation, enables the United States' misbehavior by outsourcing its national defense to the United States. That makes every European nation complicit in the United States' misbehavior, and also makes it complicit in, for example, poverty in the United States. European nations have a social system because the United States pays for their defense.

Also, didn't I recall you calling Sweden a capitalist "slave system"?

And then there's the fact that I don't give a shit about the US, it is pretty much a failed state system with a lot of corruption. — Christoffer

And yet you see no problem in piggybacking off it to avoid having to pay for national defense?

How odd.


Anyway,


When a government conducts immoral behavior, like waging war on other countries, destroying the lives of its citizens, etc. am I justified in refusing to pay taxes?

This is of course a key question.

Taxation is a system, failed usage of that system is not equal to the system itself. — Christoffer

Taxation by its very definition is taking part of the value of a person's labour under threat of violence.

I view coercion as something that is inherently immoral, and thus a system that is predicated on it as inherently flawed, regardless of how it's used.

The fact that taxation is exclusively used by imperfect entities known as states further compounds my problems with it.


Essentially your line of reasoning reminds me of someone who tries to justify a war while refusing to concede that killing people is immoral.

So you refuse to provide any kind of description of the society that you argue for? — Christoffer

Of course. There's no point in wasting time describing an alternative if you're completely sold on the idea of taxation. Pearls before swine, as they say.

The same as just summarizing tax as "theft at gunpoint", which is just a loaded statement and a naive idea disregarding the very function of tax, ... — Christoffer

It's not really a loaded statement. It's simply a true statement that taxation is predicated on threats of violence, and I would argue therefore little more than an elaborate method of theft.

So how would you rate your own arguments in this regard? — Christoffer

Not only would I consider my arguments worth responding to, I would consider them essentially mandatory to deal with for anyone who wishes to coherently make an argument for why taxation is ok.

I seem to explain taxes as a cash flow that keeps society healthy by creating equality and providing services to the people. — Christoffer

That sounds fantastic. It would almost make one wonder why anyone would have to be threatened with violence in order to pay up? Or perhaps it's not as rosy as you sketch it.

You cannot use corruption and mishandling of tax money as an argument against taxes because that has to do with the quality of the state, not taxes as a system. — Christoffer

I disagree. Since taxation enables all kinds of misbehavior by states, which pretty much all states are guilty of one way or another, I think they go hand in hand, and it's essentially impossible to view them seperately.

In a perfect world where a state uses taxation only to do good things, again, why would anyone need to be convinced by threats of violence to pay up?

So, you can't use your experience of a nation with a corrupt and shitty economy and state as an argument against taxation as a form of economic system. — Christoffer

This sums up pretty much every nation, so I certainly can.

Another loaded question that focuses on a failed state and not the actual system. — Christoffer

I could ask you the same question about the United States, or any of its European dependencies, or any state in the world.

Is an American tax payer justified to refuse to pay taxes when that tax money is directly being used to bomb people in third world countries?

Am I justified to refuse to pay taxes when the Dutch government is utterly incompetent and demonstrably responsible for destroying innocent citizens' lives?

Or are these all "failed states" too?

Now we're getting to the meaty bits.

So no, I don't agree that it is "taking people's things at gunpoint"... — Christoffer

So asking me to describe my alternative was pointless at best (and dishonest at worst). :up:

Your entire life you have reaped the rewards of this type of society, — Christoffer

You can absolutely leave the place that collectively agreed upon a system that generates a cash flow to help stabilize society and generate equality. — Christoffer

These are non-arguments.

If you don't like capitalism, why don't you just leave? You've lived your whole life reaping the benefits of a capitalist society, etc. etc.

If you don't like America's gun laws, why not just leave? Etc.

Not worth responding to.


The rest of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that the state owns the individual and their labor, and that only by the extraordinary grace bestowed by the state the individual is allowed to have property. A rather archaic image of what the relation between citizens and states should look like.

It's a bit ironic to think how much this view of the state resembles the idea of the worst kinds of capitalism, with 'trickle-down' and all, only this time it also holds a monopoly on violence.


Let's also not forget what taxation makes us complicit in - wars, corruption, failed government projects (the lists of which are truly endless), etc.

Would a Russian be within their moral right to refuse to pay taxes, because they don't wish to support the war in Ukraine?

I would say so. And you would say no.

Describe a society without taxes, ... — Christoffer

Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint?

If we can't agree on that, there's no point in discussing an alternative because you don't seem persuaded that there is any necessity for an alternative.

In the US you could (conditionally) get 5 years behind bars, ... — jorndoe

That's assuming you would start paying taxes after the sentence.

If you don't pay taxes, you'll spend your life behind bars.

By the way, Somalia has no taxes, but I wouldn't recommend going there. (Hint?) — jorndoe

I suppose the next time someone brings up gun violence in the US I will recommend them to immigrate somewhere with stricter gun laws. :snicker:

In almost 60 years of paying various taxes, I never saw a gun. — Vera Mont

There are literal guns stashed in the police office down the road, and they will literally be used if you don't want to go to jail after not to paying your taxes.

Let me emphasize that taxation is completely dependent upon very real and literal threats of violence.

yes

I addressed that comment. You seem to believe the Russians may have wanted Kiev, I stated that taking Kiev was never feasible given the size of the invasion force.

I skipped over the bit about Kremlin propaganda, because obviously I'm not going to try and decipher the 'true' meanings behind Kremlin propaganda.

If there are more points hidden in there, you'll have to state them more clearly.

To be clear, I'm not going to read through several articles to try and figure out what point you're trying to make.

↪Tzeentch, that wasn't quite the point. Maybe then switch to the term "commune" (or "collective" or something) instead of "state"? — jorndoe

There would be no such thing in any offical capacity, or it would just be the state under a different name, and thus totalitarianism under a different name.

What communism proposes as its end stage is quite idyllic. No one possesses anything. The "commune" doesn't possess anything. The leaders don't possess anything, no secret state that we now call a commune that continues to levy taxes, etc.

People living together in harmony, producing what they can and taking what they need.

Conflating selfishness and individualism is a collectivist canard as old as the word itself, and flips the dictum that man is a social animal on its head. I can’t take anyone who repeats it that seriously because it posits a glaringly false anthropology, that man is a fundamentally anti-social animal—as soon as individuals were set free from the bonds of subordination and are afforded rights they’d become hermits and care only for themselves. — NOS4A2

Well said.

I'll try to sprinkle some more in my opinion's and in my view's in there, but if you find the logic to sound authoritative then draw your conclusions I suppose.

... while seemingly ignoring other parts of the story. — jorndoe

Just state plainly what you would like me to address.

Without the crucial step of the almighty state abolishing itself, communism is literally just totalitarianism, and sadly previous attempts at reaching the stateless utopia have stranded in exactly that situation.

Had it not been for the obvious flaw in this plan, I would have been a communist myself.

No state, imagine that!

There is no state in the end stage of communism. No state to own things, no state to levy taxes. No state, period.

Pretty much everything discussed in this thread is speculative.

If there's something specific I haven't adressed please state it plainly, because your posts aren't always easy to decipher.

Must be tough hearing a spade being called a spade all the time, huh?

Against taxes (along the lines of NOS4A2)?
That would rule out communism and whatever socialist aspects of society. — jorndoe

Yes and no.

Taxes are literally taken from you at gunpoint. I am against taking things from other people at gunpoint, whether it's done by a common thug or a state.

I'm not against voluntarily contributing to one's community.

Communism proposes the absence of a state and self-governance. That doesn't imply taxes.

Obviously an almighty state will never abolish itself, so the communist utopia is pretty much a pipedream, but that's a different discussion.

This doesn't explain continued offensive operations against Bakhmut. If the goal is to sit back and consolidate gains, why keep attacking? — Count Timothy von Icarus

There are myriad possibilities for why they continue to pressure the Ukrainian lines.

Securing local tactical advantages, degrading the Ukrainian fighting capability, pressuring the Ukrainian forces to keep them off balance and unable to recuperate, etc.

Since they've been at it for several months, my impression is that whatever it is, they probably believe it's working in their favor.

This is inconsistent with continued Russian offensive operations. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I think it is definitely consistent.

That they do not intend to take large amounts of territory does not mean there aren't many other purposes those offensive operations might have, some of which I already listed.

But Russia isn't sitting back and waiting for Ukraine to attack entrenched positions, ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's probably because the Ukrainian forces lack any offensive capabilities, and if the Russians had any intention of further degrading the Ukrainian fighting capability they would have to bring the fight to them.

Given the shortage of armored vehicles and of well-motivated, well-trained troops on both sides, I would consider regiment-scale operations (3,000-5,000 soldiers) to constitute major efforts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's besides the point.

In my view, we haven't seen any large-scale offensives intent on taking large amounts of territory since the initial invasion.

No one is questioning that there is intense fighting going on around Bakhmut. The question is what purpose that fighting serves, and the capture of territory to me seems an unlikely explanation.

If their goal is to hold all of Kherson Oblast, ... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Some point needs to be made as to its strategic relevance weighed against the cost of holding it. We can make guesses towards the former, but for the latter we simply lack all relevant information.

However we can use the Russian actions to make an educated guess and my view is that the Russians leaving Kherson voluntarily points towards it neither being particularly stragetically relevant, nor the Russians being willing to pay a high cost for holding it.

Russia withdrew from the Kyiv and Sunny axes. It left Kharkiv retreating past Kupiansk because of a general rout in which it turned over warehouses full of munitions and hundreds of vehicles. It withdrew from Kherson City and the general environs, .... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure.

I don't see how that would be incompatible with the theory I've put forward.

I am not sure how Russia failing to take meaningful amounts of territory for almost 12 months, despite carrying out large scale offensive operations, while also losing control of meaningful amounts of territory, is not evidence that they can't take more territory. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The theory is pretty straightforward.

1. Russia invades, threatening Kyiv to force negotiations, while occupying the most strategically relevant areas in the south (land bridge to Crimea).

2. Negotiations fail, so Russia switches gear for prolonged war. The Russian army was overstretched and pulled back its lines to something more stable. This was mistakenly perceived (or deceptively marketed?) as a "Ukrainian offensive", which it clearly wasn't.

3. With the prospect of prolonged war and having to take parts of Ukraine by force, Russia's primary concern becomes the prevention of an insurgency. This means it will seek to pacify areas it occupies before conquering more territory - the 'bite-sized chunks' approach. This could take months, or even years.

4. Meanwhile local tactical battles are fought, with the primary goal of degrading the Ukrainian fighting capabilities.

Some other points:
- Neither Ukraine nor Russia has carried out large-scale offensives since the start of the invasion.
- It's debatable whether the territory lost by Russia was meaningful. Some argument has to be put forward as to why these areas would be strategically relevant. The fact that the Russians gave up most of that territory without a fight implies the opposite. Movement patterns of the Russian forces across the areas of northern Ukraine also do not imply the intent to hold for prolonged periods of time. You can still view these patterns on sites like https://liveuamap.com.

That's the positive side of individualism, but the negatives like social fragmentation, inequality, egoism and selfishness, lack of social responsibility, loss of meaning and connection. — Christoffer

What I'm trying to get across is that those negatives aren't necessarily the result of individualism.

Individualism first and foremost states that the individual has inherent value, and from a moral perspective cannot simply be bulldozed by states or collectives. In my opinion, that idea is the very cornerstone of humanism. Wherever the value of the individual is not acknowledged we find, pretty much categorically, inhumanity. Human rights and constitutions are based on the idea that individuals have rights. I could go on.

This is why I find it deeply disturbing that people on this forum have taken such an adversarial stance towards individualism, apparently attributing to it all the negative traits of our society.

Individuals left to their own devices will generally seek voluntary, mutual beneficial relations with others. They will pursue happiness, but that happiness often includes the happiness of others. They will prefer coexistence over conflict, etc.

Note also that individualism understands every individual to have inherent value, so self-aggrandizement at the expense of others - egotism - has nothing to do with individualism.