No, it isn’t. The suffix ism and the way in which I used the term indicate otherwise.

I’ve already stated the extent of my own statism in the OP, which directly aligns with that of Paine. But in your febrile responses you need to pretend I know nothing about it. I suppose fakery and mischaracterization is how you get on in life.

Good insights.

We should remember that state institutions tend to outlive its creators, those it was designed to favor, and finally, its original purpose. The New Deal programs that still exist in the American administrative state are myriad. Fannie Mae was created to alleviate the burdens of the Great Depression, only to have the public bail it out in the Great Recession some 80 years later. The Farm Credit System is over 100 years old, and during its life other regulative institutions, associations, “government-sponsored enterprises” have popped up to keep it going. That the state might wither away over time, I fear, is mistaken.

That is a decent point about technology. Perhaps the state, too, is a technology. Over time it has made obedience, subjugation, oppression and exploitation at least manageable for those of us born into it.

The misinformation and censorship regarding the lab theory is quite the scandal. Facebook went so far as to ban any discussion of the theory on its platform, ironically to protect the public from misinformation. And these measures were all based on poor science. One has to wonder what sort of information and evidence has been lost during that time.

I cannot think of anyone, dead or alive, with enough moral sense to pick and choose what people can or cannot say, and by extension, what we can or cannot hear. I do not envy the censor because they find themselves among the worst humanity has ever produced.

That being said some enforcement is inevitable should one want to present a modicum of respectability.

I think there is a direct relationship between statism and population.

You're probably right. Perhaps it is inevitable, the product of proximity.

I don't understand your point, Tim. Perhaps this is because you insert quotes where your own thinking could have been.

You are right. I do not believe in any common good that must sacrifice its own members in order to reach it. That to me is a fundamental contradiction and ultimately an exclusionary project. But in practical terms I do not advocate for any abolition of the state because I think that would lead to misery.

All that you say is well and good, I suppose, but we should also remember the horrors of statism. If history is any indication, the state moves begrudgingly and only under great pressure towards any benefit to the citizenry, but with alacrity towards anything that increases its own power and benefit.

Theft, robbery and forced labor are evils the last time I checked. If it is true that the impact of these consequences depend on your circumstances, and not on morals or principle, then it seems the circumstances that favor this sort of relationship is one of servility and obedience to authority, and not much else.

I personally know some people, none of whom were well off, that were born stateless, born in anarchy, and happened to have parents who believed they could "go it alone". Indeed, they did go it alone for decades, their lives consisting of mostly surfing and fishing, but state enforcers burned their houses to the ground because the government wanted to expand a provincial park. So it's just untrue that a sheltered life begets disdain for state meddling, theft and taxation.



No one wields similar power to the state, is my point, and I still do not understand how one can conflate state power with anything else. Perhaps you can explain it because no one seems to be able to move beyond simply repeating it. The state has the monopoly on violence, with military and civilian enforcement at its beck and call. It can defend its interests from domestic and foreign threats with violent force, with little accountability. The only vague comparison I can make between state and private power are organizations of the criminal variety, like the mafia.

I am not persuaded. To me, willingly paying for goods and services are not the same as having my wealth coercively taken from at every transaction. If I refuse to buy from private hands I do not receive their service; if I refuse to buy from state hands I go to jail and have to pay anyways, and with interest. I fear the latter, not the former, and I am unable to see how one could say otherwise.

You can also evade the tax authorities and live in a cave. Theoretical options abound. But you must eat, have shelter, etc. So in a practical sense you are not free to decline any offer, just as you're not free to not pay taxes or refuse someone with a gun to your head.

In the case of food and shelter, one can choose between a variety of options. If a loaf of bread is too expensive or too stale I can decline to purchase it and choose another. The fact that I must have food doesn’t mean that I must eat the first thing that’s offered to me, though that is probably not possible with the destitute and those trapped in command economies.

Then you must be quite wealthy. Lots of people are less lucky then you are and don't really have the option to think about their consent.

Well no, it’s just that I understand the basics of trade. Which private actors take your wealth without your consent, and how are they able to do it?

The idea that lab mishaps are rare is piffle. According to this report from 2014:

More than 1,100 laboratory incidents involving bacteria, viruses and toxins that pose significant or bioterror risks to people and agriculture were reported to federal regulators during 2008 through 2012, government reports obtained by USA TODAY show.

More than half these incidents were serious enough that lab workers received medical evaluations or treatment, according to the reports. In five incidents, investigations confirmed that laboratory workers had been infected or sickened; all recovered.

Earlier this summer, other researchers at CDC potentially exposed dozens of agency staff to live anthrax because of mistakes; nobody was sickened. Meanwhile, at the National Institutes of Health, long-forgotten vials of deadly smallpox virus were discovered in a cold-storage room where they weren't supposed to be.

The reports, released by CDC in response to a request from USA TODAY, contain few details beyond a count of incidents by categories, such as incidents involving bites or scratches from infected animals, needle sticks, failures of personal protection equipment, spills or specimen packages that temporarily went missing after they were shipped. No thefts were reported.

Data for incidents reported in 2013 is not yet finalized, CDC said. In 2012, lab regulators received 247 reports of potential releases of dangerous pathogens. They also received 247 reports in 2011. There were 275 reports in 2010; 243 in 2009; and 116 in 2008. The reports come from regulated select agent research labs as well as clinical or diagnostic labs that are exempted from registration with federal officials but still must report incidents if they identify a select agent.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/reports-of-incidents-at-bioterror-select-agent-labs/14140483/

There were hundreds of reports of potential releases of dangerous pathogens per year, in one country alone.

I suppose this is why, in 2012, the bulletin of atomic scientists released this warning:

Awful as a pandemic brought on by the escape of a variant H5N1 virus might be, it is SARS that now presents the greatest risk. The worry is less about recurrence of a natural SARS outbreak than of yet another escape from a laboratory researching it to help protect against a natural outbreak. SARS already has escaped from laboratories three times since 2003, and one escape resulted in several secondary infections and one death.

https://thebulletin.org/2012/08/the-unacceptable-risks-of-a-man-made-pandemic/

I assume by “a say in government policy” you mean I get to tick a box next to someone’s name once every few years, the effect of which is slim to nothing. I do get a say in the private arena, however, by accepting or refusing the terms of their contracts. I, too, am a part of this arena after all. If I don’t like the offer I can find one elsewhere and they can do the same in a reciprocal fashion.

In any case, private actors are not taking my wealth without my consent. Only the state has that sort of unmitigated power.

It is unacceptable wherever faulty generalizations are of any concern. But that concern rarely exists.

Provided you live in a democracy, you do have a say. Merely that you do not get what you want is not the same as not having a say.

The transfer of my wealth to the state occurs at the point of every single purchase I make. In which of these transactions do I get a say?

If I do not pay my taxes I am subject to many penalties, up to and including jail time. If I do not pay a the federal or provincial sales tax on food I do not eat. If I do not pay property taxes I lose my home. Do you suppose I have a say in this?

That’s true. Taxes and the spoils of taxes are ubiquitous. Those in power have confiscated the wealth from the citizenry since time immemorial and have spent it on things such as infrastructure and the like. But for me the benefits received from stolen money do not outweigh the moral costs.

Maybe you should just skip to your argument be done with it. It’s unbecoming wen you start begging me to answer your questions.

Only servile soyboys are glad to pay taxes. You don’t know whether your money goes to blowing up children or Joe Biden’s pencils.

What it is is obvious word-salad.

Not much of an argument, I’m afraid, though I did put a comma where a period should have been.

This is exactly backwards. It's the private wealth that is completely unaccountable and gives you no say in how it is used. If every service was privatised tomorrow, you'd be less able - not more, to refuse any terms. You can refuse any terms as much as you can refuse to have over your money to a robber with a gun - the freedom is there, just the consequence is obvious.

I never wrote about having a say in how private health is used or accountability. I said I had no say in the transfer of my wealth to the government. So you not only have it backwards, you’re trying to mislead.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll take a look.

Maybe I do underestimate the harm of private money. That’s why I’m wondering why I should believe I am deprived wherever wealth or capital is concentrated. I see opportunity in private concentrations of wealth and capital. It’s approachable, reasonable, and ultimately, through varying degrees of effort, accessible, I can provide services, seek employment, investment or opportunity. This is an obvious oversimplification, but the basics hold, I think. If the terms are not to my liking I can refuse them. Nothing leaves my pocket that I have not willingly given them. So I have trouble seeing what it is that deprives me of anything.

On the other hand there is an all-powerful institution dedicated to taking my wealth every day and skimming from every purchase I make. This transfer of wealth is what concerns me because I have no say in it. I am unable to bargain or engage in common enterprise with it, or refuse its terms. It sets the rules and enforces them. And it is for this reason private wealth tries to curry favor with them, at everyone’s peril.

Anyways I’m just trying to understand the fear.

How is it exactly that concentrated wealth deprives a few million individuals from fielding and developing new ideas? I ask because if I see concentrated wealth or capital I see an opportunity, so long as it isn’t in state hands.

Racism is a form of prejudice. And no, it’s not ok to be racist against a person or people because someone who has similar racial characteristics happens to be in power.

I like your way of considering things. Thanks for the insights.

What system would that be? I ask because when I look for these things I only ever see individual people, separated by the fact of their position in time and space. A relation, no matter what size, is no system. We live in parallel, not in series. The responsibility lies upon these beings themselves and not to any grand abstraction such as a “system” or “the general good”. That’s my view, anyways.

Shortly after birth one is excised from his mother, thereby severing any connection to anyone else. There's nothing arbitrary about this very real uncoupling. Indivisibility beyond this point means death. What is arbitrary is any notion of responsibility toward others, towards some collective, even towards one's newborn. The history of infanticide attests to this.

I always understood coercion to be persuading someone with the use of force or threat of ruin, like extortion, torture, blackmail. It's like "duress". Perhaps the word is open to interpretation. At any rate, I wouldn't put the scenario you outlined on the same scale.

I cringe every time someone evokes the "social contract" because it is always in the service of power. But there is no such contract between you or I or anyone else, and at any rate, uttering it doesn't justify any use of force over any individual.

We need to somehow define coercion, force and aggression with respect to all kinds of freedoms though. Most of these terms, if they are used in a legal context, refer to specific violations of specific rights. There are usually specific characteristics that the coercion or aggression needs to have in order to be considered a legal problem. For example, you can demand that someone who works in your company change some behaviours, possibly including how they dress, what they say in a professional capacity etc, but you cannot demand they have sex with you.

That’s true, and you’re right. If someone works for me I expect and demand a modicum of professionalism. But these terms are based upon mutual agreement between free men. I don’t think any coercion is required to uphold such an agreement. He is free to walk away should he disagree, as I am I free of any obligation towards employing him.

The problem I have is with imagining how the interface between individuals functions based on individualism. Ok so noone interferes in "your affairs" so long you don't violate the freedoms of others. But how is this violation established? It seems in principle possible to conceive a notion of individual freedoms and their actions to account for every possible result.

If I understand your problem correctly, I would argue the interface functions as it always would, except that each would refrain from coercing or otherwise using force and aggression against the other. One could look wherever coercion and force and aggression is being applied and establish where that violation occurs.

What does freedom entail to the individualist? How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice?

In my mind individual freedom entails the polar-opposite of slavery, allowing the right of an individual to control his own person and property.

In practice it is refusing to interfere in the affairs of one so long as he doesn't violate the freedoms of others.

Caitlyn Jenner hits from the woman's tee in women's golf tournaments. Maybe she's not the best person to ask after all.

https://golf.com/news/caitlyn-jenner-holes-out-for-eagle-at-ana-inspiration-pro-am/

You're missing out. They were right, brave, and decent. Perhaps give them a read and it might dispel your assumptions. Back in those times they were fighting for the right to vote, against slavery, against arbitrary power, against sexist laws—you know, against the state and other forms of mob rule. Who knows? Without their voices you might be a little more reserved in your support for government.

Each rocket Hamas fires is a war crime. If they commit these war crimes using civilian shields, it's a double war crime. Though it appears Israel does more to protect civilians (evacuation notices before hitting targets, for example) the disproportionate use of force is itself a war crime. Israel also needs to weigh the civilian costs, which, given the civilian deaths, I doubt it is doing. So it's war crimes all around. It makes no sense to pick a side in this affair.

I think the first to second wave of feminism was inherently individualist. It's hard to roll your eyes reading the abolitionist and woman's rights champions like Sojourner Truth, Angelina Grimke, or the anarchism of Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre.

People are too busy enjoying their rights to want to fight for them. This habit will be the deathknell of social democracy. Despite this, one must afford them their right to do this. Let justice reign though the heavens fall, and all that.

A governments role should be to secure the rights and freedoms of its citizens, but more often it secures its own interests and monopoly on power.

One can’t deny thrust of anti-individualist arguments, for instance against avarice, but they fit better as arguments against human nature rather than any individualist belief. Collectivists too are guilty of the same sins.

If it stands alone why didn’t you just leave it as is? Instead, much of the sentence is missing.

I clearly said it was fallacious. I’m not sure why you’d raise that question.