More, better, longer; the desire that has fueled the cycle of human suffering since man lived in caves. A dog chasing its own tail.

This is hyperhumanism.

Name the last time a bomb was dropped on your head by your government. Not figuratively, but with bomb in the unfigurative, literal meaning. — god must be atheist

You misunderstood. I'm talking about war, of course. A long-standing, bloody tradition that (certain) countries cannot seem to get enough of, and that every taxpayer is complicit in whether they like it or not.

A small gang of thugs are worse. — god must be atheist

Well, I would disagree.

your statement does not state whether you disagree or agree. — god must be atheist

I don't think you are a misguided idiot, even if I disagree with you.

It's the same as driving recklessly, with a blindfold, or intoxicated. — Christoffer

No, it isn't. Is there no such thing as common sense and using one's own judgement in your world view?

The rules are based on scientific knowledge and facts. — Christoffer

These are scientific facts, and disagreeing with them is disagreeing with reality itself. — Christoffer

You are ignoring the fact that science has been wrong numerous times during this pandemic. Remember how Covid-19 was initially ranked among diseases like Ebola, something which was in hindsight clearly wrong?

That is fine. That is how science works.

Science also tells us the restrictions and vaccinations come at a cost, and opinions on whether the costs weigh against the benefits of (some of) the restrictions vary. But you seem to have a low tolerance of opinions other than your own.

You don't give a shit about facts, you don't understand the science, you don't understand statistical analysis of different risk levels. — Christoffer

I do care about facts, but I may weigh those facts differently than you.

I don't care for anyone's opinion if that opinion has nothing to do with rationality, logic, facts and reason. — Christoffer

That's your issue, isn't it? What are you doing on a philosophy forum if you're incapable of accepting that people can look at the same facts as you do and come to different conclusions, let alone have a normal discussion about it.

"There is no subjectivity in my science".

I'm done. I'm tired of this forum and how my will to discuss philosophy always gets hijacked by people like you. — Christoffer

Maybe you wouldn't burn yourself out if half your post wasn't angry ranting.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. :kiss:

The choice to "drive a car" is not the same as crashing into someone. — Christoffer

And similarly, not being vaccinated and breaking regulations is not the same as killing or even infecting someone with covid-19.

Essentially what you're saying is, "I agree with the rules and therefore everyone that doesn't follow them I label as reckless." Of course, anyone who disagrees on the science or the rules you would probably regard as being wrong, because you think the science is conclusive: it isn't.

Anyway, fine. You're putting a lot of faith in whoever made those rules.

People may not agree with the rules. They may not have faith in whoever makes the rules. They may weigh things against each other and have different ideas as to what acceptable risks are. There's a subjectivity to all of this that you are not taking into account, that I am trying to make clear to you.

They are fundamentally different in mortality rate, — Christoffer

Different? Yes. Fundamentally different? Up for debate. Where I live it certainly is not fundamentally different from a heavy flu.

You argue that both hits are the same, so why would you need body armor if a slap and a sledgehammer are fundamentally just me hitting you? That's your logic right there, examine it. — Christoffer

No, that's your logic. Don't put words in my mouth.

So we're at a standstill until you can grasp the basics of this. — Christoffer

I don't think we're at a standstill. You are, however, conducting yourself like a child.

One is an act that can have risks, one is a reckless act that can have direct serious risks. — Christoffer

When you step into a car, you may crash into someone. How is that not direct and serious, and not just as much of a reckless action as interacting with people without being vaccinated?

Just as an example, your comparison with the flu that you then point out that you didn't state that Covid was the same as the flu, but still use as a comparison to make... what point exactly? Why make the comparison to the flu? For what reason? — Christoffer

Because both cause many deaths, yet the flu is accepted as normal, yet in the case of covid-19 people start questioning fundamental human rights like bodily autonomy.

On a philosophy forum, few people will be impressed by your sloppy philosophical scrutiny. — Christoffer

There's a reason I didn't respond to the rest of your post. :kiss:

No, you don't take reckless action. All actions in the world have risks, but taking an active reckless action is not the same as taking an action that has potential risks. Ignoring the pandemic, ignoring the vaccine is actively a direct reckless choice. — Christoffer

Explain the difference, then.

You directly compared it to the flu. — Christoffer

Of course. I did not state it was the flu, however.

facts matter. — Christoffer

And you, of course, a self-styled expert in all matters concering facts.

This is why you are all over the place, you don't have a consistent counterargument to my conclusion, it's grasping at straws. — Christoffer

I've actually asked you some pretty straightforward questions which you've been avoiding.

On a philosophy forum few people will be impressed by these sorts of proclamations of victory.

By driving a car normally you do not actively do something reckless. — Christoffer

Whenever you step behind the wheel, you are actively accepting the risk of killing someone. The risk is small, sure, but your label of 'reckless' or 'not reckless' is obviously subjective.

Covid-19 isn't the flu. — Christoffer

I did not claim otherwise.

That is the same as saying that if I decide to go out and throw sharp rocks at other people, it's not my responsibility or moral issue because if people are afraid of being hit by rocks they should just stay home and not go out when I'm out. Their fear is not my fear, so I don't care. — Christoffer

Except that not throwing rocks does not incur any risks for the thrower. So it is not the same.

Somehow I am reminded some famous billionnaire whose name I have forgotten. In any case, this person was nearing the end of his life and despite possessing all of that money, he locked himself up in a sterile environment out of fear of catching some germ or disease.

The funny thing is, he was unmistakenly right: interactions with other people could kill him. I wonder how the world would have reacted had he proclaimed that from now on, all the world should take measures to accomodate his fears so he could live normally. I'm sure it would have been the source of much hilarity.

Your argument is built upon making those things extreme. — Christoffer

I am taking the ideas you are proposing and taking them to their logical conclusions.

You seem to believe sometimes it is fine for people to suffer as a result of one's desires and sometimes it is not.

So far you have been unable to explain what the determining factor is.

Abortion is about your own body, — Christoffer

And the body of one's unborn child, of course.

Bodily autonomy is irrelevant if you risk hurting or killing other people. — Christoffer

Of course it isn't. The flu kills hundreds of thousands every year but we don't infringe upon people's rights to bodily autonomy because they may carry the flu.

So please tell me which of the following do you deem bad judgment by the government, and which you vehemently oppose your money spent on — god must be atheist

Dropping bombs on civilians, for one.

If it were not for the government, then gangs of thugs would force you into much worse conditions, again through violence or threat thereof. — god must be atheist

What is worse, a large gang of thugs or a small gang of thugs?

Basically we think of each other as misguided idiots, who can't see beyond their noses, mutually and equally. — god must be atheist

Your words, not mine.

Do you want to continue with this? — god must be atheist

Or I wouldn't be here.

If people stopped driving we would have a hard time functioning as a society — Christoffer

Societies have functioned without cars for millenia. They are not necessary at all.

and if people stopped having children humanity would die out. — Christoffer

Yes, and?

People don't have children in some sort of sacrifice to the human endeavor. They have children because they desire to have them.

Not in the same manner as denying a vaccine and recklessly expose themselves to other people. — Christoffer

All these things can be said for driving and having children. You're simply labeling one as reckless and the other as somehow acceptable because of a form of cosmic necessity, which I will argue is nothing other than a guise for desire; not much different from a desire not to be vaccinated.

I'll propose something radical: if one is afraid that being sneezed on will kill them, they're the one who should be isolating themselves.

Seeing one's own fear as a legitimate basis to dictate how others should exercise their right to bodily autonomy; now that is immoral; no less immoral than pressuring a woman into how she should or should not have an abortion.

Your fear is not my fear.

Those behaviors affect other people, with a risk of hurting or even killing them.
Mitigating the risks does not change that. One could also claim to have attempted to mitigate the risks of them not being vaccinated.

To be clear, there is no necessity for driving a car or having children; those are merely products of our desires.

But behavior that affects other people, hurts them, kills them, regardless of causal proximity, should never be accepted and should be considered a crime. — Christoffer

Like driving a car? What about having children?

YOU also are forced to pay taxes. This is used for many things that private people can't do: build roads, maintain a military, run government services like patent office and copyright protection, drug testing for approval for fitness, educating the populace for job readiness, and a million other useful services you can't do without, as well as foreign diplomacy administration and internal policing. — god must be atheist

Essentially a state will tell you what you need, and then claim it does a decent job at providing it. I consider it to be a bad judge at both. Additionally, it forces these conditions on you through violence or threat thereof.

Few things are so ignorant as thinking to know what another person needs.

It is okay to concede to a state of lack of freedom provided you are happy and your needs are met by those with power over you — Benj96

What if the state is unable to fulfill my needs? Also, am I allowed to determine what my needs are, or will someone else determine my needs for me and whether they are fulfilled or not?

It seems as individuals grow more powerless, alignment to states and political parties and ideologies becomes a means of satiating their will to power.

Fair enough. It does seem a far cry from the supposed world of mutual individualistic respect that has been brought up earlier in this thread though. — Echarmion

It may seem that way, but mutual respect can only come about as a result of free interaction. Mutual respect enforced through state coercion is just a deception.

In practice, individual rights under such a system are restricted to the right to not be directly physically attacked. All other rights only exist as mere potentials - they are there for you to take, if you have the power to keep them. — Echarmion

In a system where states are chosen as the guardians of individual rights, it would simply be a matter of what the state can coerce individuals into. More rights equals more coercion. From the perspective of individual rights it is self-defeating.

Mistrust in governments has grown, and when one realizes almost all of one's information has come from the very government one distrusts, one falls into an information vacuum that then gets filled up with information of varying validity.

There's not much of a mystery here. Intransparant and manipulative governance has only itself to thank for it. The mistrust, at least, is entirely merited.

Isn't that a bit like saying you have the right to bodily autonomy, insofar as you're allowed to defend yourself, but don't count on the state to interfere? Usually when people say the state should safeguard bodily autonomy they refer to proactive safety. That is to say they assume that there will not just be a determination after the fact of who was right and who was wrong, but instead an attempt to prevent a set of behaviors in the first place, on the basis that those generally violate someone's bodily autonomy. Is that not how you envision things to go? — Echarmion

I'm leaning towards not being in favor of proactive action in this instance. At least, not in the shape of the use of force or coercion, unless there's a direct indication that physical violence is about to take place.

Let's say A and B have a mutually agreed upon contract. Both get something out of that that they want. A wants to change the agreement. B prefers it to stay as it is, but prefers to change it's terms over loosing it entirely. At what point does A threatening to walk away become coercion? — Echarmion

Coercion involves violence or the threat thereof.

It is an adhesion contract and you will obey or you will suffer the consequences. Full stop. — James Riley

You're thinking of the divine right of kings.

What is the right so self-determination? — Echarmion

Essentially it is the right of every individual to pursue those things that they deem comprise a good life.

Does it include the necessary material preconditions for that self-determination? — Echarmion

No. It is up to the individual to decide what they wish to do with their lives, and it is also up to them to accomplish their goals.

I wasn't referring to "state" in the more general sense of "state of affairs", though I should have made that clear. I'd be interested in a more "colourful" description of how you envision such a society to look. Do you have real life examples which are closer to this ideal than most? — Echarmion

Assuming you are living in a free country, it is the life you are leading every day. Interaction based on voluntariness and respect for the other's wishes, individuality and freedom.

And if I’m following correctly, the disapproved of antitrust violator will be kicked out of the Individualists club, even though they’ve done nothing to restrict the rights of other individuals. — praxis

If they've not acted in contradiction to the ideas of individualism, then no.

This seems to mean that while an individualist may disapprove of antitrust violations they will defend to the death the right to commit antitrust violations. — praxis

Sure.

What does freedom entail to the individualist? — Echarmion

The right to bodily autonomy, the right to self-determination, freedom of speech, among other things.

How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion

A state that protects those essential freedoms, and nothing else.

So individualist are in favor of antitrust laws? I thought y’all was all about FREEDOM!! — praxis

Individualism really isn't a model for economics. In general individualism promotes freedom, but I think what you are not understanding is that while that is the case, it may not necessarily agree with what individuals use that freedom for. Much in the same spirit of the famous quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

That's a lie, I never claimed that individualism seeks to secure power over others. I said there may be the implication that an individualist wants to secure their power by eliminating the competition, ... — praxis

That would make them a non-individualist, then.

I hope you two kids are having fun playing with your little strawmen. — praxis

Oh please. They're your words.

You claimed that individualism seeks to secure power over others. This is not the case, as individualism recognizes such things as every individual's right to self-determination.

What you're doing is trying to blame individualism for negative human traits like greed and will to power, which is exactly the type of mischaracterization that Harry Hindu pointed out earlier. You're framing individualism as a form of egotism, which it is not.

The forces against which feminism seems to be struggling are perceived by me as individualist males who don't extend the individualist notion to include women. — James Riley

Case and point.

Actually if there's any implication along this line it's that the Individualist want to desimate the competition in order to secure their position of power. — praxis

As pointed out, individualism includes recognizing the rights of other individuals and not just one's own. If one is consistent in their beliefs, an individualist actually would shy away from positions of power over others.

Who in this thread has actually visited Israel and Palestine? — Tzeentch

Anyone?

That's a bit like saying wetness is forced upon water. It is true that every individual finds themselves embedded in relations which they are not able to easily change or abrogate. But so do they find themselves subject to the laws of physics. Do we level a charge at the laws of physics for their tyrannical nature? — Echarmion

People are conscious, moral agents; the laws of physics are not. That is a fundamental difference to me.

We can change the type and makeup of the social conditions "forced upon" the individual. But we cannot simply wish them away, because individuals cannot exist outside these conditions. — Echarmion

My point is not that all possible changes should be made to "right the wrong". However, the realization that the individual does not necessarily participate in society voluntarily is an important factor in why I believe states/societies/collectives cannot claim to hold moral authority over individuals (at least not by default).

I don't see how that changes the fact that these conditions are forced upon the individual. That the individual only realizes these things at a later age, when he is firmly rooted in whatever system he finds himself in, only makes things worse because it reduces his chances of being able to leave.

Some individualist chose for them. — James Riley

Are you being serious?

People didn't choose the society they were born into, so the analogy of a cage fits perfectly.

Haha, alright.

Lets say I trap you in a cage and force you to work for me. Every moment you do not kill yourself by holding your breath until you die of asphyxiation is a moment you agreed to my terms, no?

Do I understand you correctly that you believe people not killing themselves is a sign that they agree?

The point here is, there is no free lunch. The individual externalizes the cost of his existence onto the backs of those who did not agree to assume those costs in an arm's length, informed transaction. — James Riley

Nor did the individual agree.

This situation you sketch is brought about by individuals who chose to have children, and by a state that facilitated a certain standard of living.

One cannot force these conditions on an individual and then claim one is entitled to their coorperation.

Who in this thread has actually visited Israel and Palestine?

What part don't you understand?

... you cease being pro-individualism the moment you think your individuality trumps someone else's. The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian. — Harry Hindu

Well said!

There's few Palestinians who would defend the methods of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Unlike some people in this thread, they have long since realized that such violence fuels only one agenda, and that is Israel's.

I think it was Benkei who pointed out that individual rights tend to diminish with government reduction. — praxis

Individual rights do not diminish. One right is exchanged for another. In the discussion between big vs. small government, the trade off is between freedom and security. Where security is given to one, freedom (in essence also a type of security) is taken away from another, which is why I don't see the extension of individual rights by governments as a more = better type of deal.

Further, I believe governments and the type of individuals that lead them end up undermining the individual rights they claim to uphold, due to the corrupting nature of power.

So using government as a tool to contiunously attempt to expand individual rights is a self-defeating ideal.

What if a collective has little power and an individual has a lot of power, might not that individual undermine the interests of the collective? — praxis

Yes, and in general terms I would consider it desirable that the interests of the individual are put before the interests of the state. Individuals are almost always going to be the weaker party in the relationship between them and the state, and therefore need to be protected.

If the individual liked the power and wanted to stay in power they might intentionally take actions that weaken a collective in order to keep that power. The individual might try to make it difficult for the collective to organize, for instance, or promote the virtue of Individualism, and undermine their collective power. And of course divide and conquer has always been a crowd pleasing strategy. — praxis

Power hungry individuals are, sadly, everywhere. And by not giving them strong states to hold power over, the evil they can do to the individual is at least limited. I believe this is in fact a good argument in favor of individualism.