I'm just thinking that to meet your needs we'd have to clear an area for you, which you could farm or hunt and gather or whatever, so you could live unbothered by others and without bothering them. There's a decreasing number of spaces of dwindling size and resources, unfortunately. Perhaps colonising another planet would suit you.

This sounds to me like meddling. Surely it cannot be that difficult to leave someone alone.

Virtue out of one side of the mouth, pettiness out the other. Perhaps the stoicism isn’t working.

An odd statement considering deeply imbedded it is in Western, or at least American culture.

I'm not so sure about that anymore.

I imagine there could be if you were to present one.

Is a critic still a critic if he is unfamiliar with the literature?

I guess there is nothing for the individualist to whine, worry, or ring their hands about in consternation. Time to get back to individualizing while sucking the tit of civilization.

P.S. Revolutionary France is, like, two seconds ago in the scheme of things.

One can see, even from this thread alone, that individualism is held in fear or contempt. Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. So I have to wonder how much of it is premised on the typical misrepresentation, and further, how much ignorance mounts because of it. This to me is worthy of whining about.

Critics have been promising the failure of individualism since revolutionary France. Any day now, I guess.

I was merely explaining theory of state formation, and where our differences might lie. This was right before you called it a resentment-fuelled fantasy and tacitly threatening me if I was to act on it. When I try to show I have justification for my beliefs you submit what I wrote to contextomy, then quibble about my use of one word, while avoiding any and all arguments I present. So I no longer care about your analysis of what I wrote.

I never suggested disobedience to the state. I never suggested all conquest and confiscation in history was the result of the state.

What you most fear, the state taking over what used to be provided by the collective.

I wouldn't say the state provided me with any moral framework. Has it done so in your case?

What is the thing that gave rise to this moral framework? In my own case, it was writers such as Humboldt, Mill, Smith, Locke, Hume, Popper, Orwell, AJ Nock, de Cleyre.

First it was a resentment-fuelled fantasy, and now all you can do is quibble about my use of the word "any".

Sure. The United States.

Tell that to the people who lived there. There was once a statue (The Rescue) that existed outside the capitol building depicting the white man's domination of the natives. Maybe that too was a fantasy, but "Indian Removal" wasn't.

You will be able to give a more reasoned response if you change my words, but I said nothing about your fantasy being "absent any example".

The absence of reason is evident in the assumption that what holds true for one state holds true for all.

That was my poor writing. I was trying to say your conclusion about my conclusion was absent any example or reason, implying you were guilty of that which you accused me of.

So what is it that led to your conclusion about "the state" and "all states"? One example is not sufficient. Examples are not sufficient unless you include the example includes all states.

More examples would be the Middle eastern partition, colonialism, slave states, every empire that expanded beyond its own borders. Any counter examples?

Do you really not understand or are you just being obstinate?

You said "the state" and "any state" These are all inclusive claims about all states, each and every state. To conclude something about any state from one state is a logical fallacy. We cannot conclude that all dogs have three legs because Tripod does.

I do understand, but I didn’t make the conclusion from one example. I provided one example after you concluded it was a resentment-filled fantasy absent any example or reason altogether.

Someone who tries to bully others on the internet, miles away from any accountability, shouldn't try to lecture others on virtue. You're the asshole, Tim, and about as useful as one on an elbow.

to the Islamic State. Is it necessary to explain the logical fallacy to you?

I recall you dismissing the theory and resorting to ridicule. So please, explain the logical fallacy.

Yes, mine is based on actual regimes, your's on a resentment fueled fantasy. If that is far as it goes then that is your problem. If you act on it it becomes our problem. And then you may lose whatever precious little freedom you now have. You no doubt will call this injustice but I call it justice.

We watched just recently as the Islamic State (an actual regime) formed before our eyes. This was not due to any absurd notion of a social contract or anything else, but by expropriation, terror, murder and the enslavement of the people who lived there. Anyone who resisted were met with your kind of justice, stoned to death or murdered on the spot. So what a complacent and statist fantasy you have there.

I've read research that the original intentions were pretty much as you describe, and only relatively recently has civilazation been worth the price of forced admission for the average Joe. That's history though, today we could emigrate to any country that would have us and perhaps find ourselves in a better situation than where we came from. You're an expatriate yourself, aren't you?

It’s been over a year since the government seized the economy. Just a week or so ago we’ve been told we cannot leave our health authority, and if we leave we should expect roadblocks and fines. My right to work, to travel, gone with the stroke of a pen. So I’m a little salty.



That was a good story. Thanks for writing and sharing. But I’ve stated numerous times no one is suggesting doing it alone. It’s more refusing to be a drain on others than escaping others.

You don’t have to, yet you do, 180proof. If you ever care to know don’t hesitate to ask. I don’t hide my views.

It means that we work from within the system to make necessary corrections to promote justice. Justice, as I understand it, goes beyond your desire to be left alone or the absolute protection of every right you might claim.

We probably have different conceptions of the state. I see any state system as an imposition, formed by conquest and confiscation, designed to enrich the conquerors by exploiting the vanquished. To me it is fundamentally criminal and anti-social institution no matter how far it has strayed from its original intentions.

Yeah, NOS, you must be one of those disingenuous damn Incel-fools running around with MAGA hats & rebel flags on your pick-up trucks and blaming "Antifi & BLM" for looting during mass protests against unaccountable killer cops and "Islamic terrorists" for waging asymmetric warfare against globalist, client-state, manifestations of the American Empire all the while ignoring (or materially supporting and/or participating with) Alt-Right/Proud Boys/QAnon and ethno-tribal White Supremacist "free men" have been, respectively, looting the US Capitol and terrorizing unarmed, fellow American citizens with near-daily mass-shootings. That you're freely using this site's bandwidth with your (I'll be charitable) deplorably trollish commentary, NOS, testifies to the eusociality of accessible commons and, therefore, of your infantile "individualist" demand to be "left alone" which you aren't wo/man enough to reciprocate by leaving this site, or any public commons, alone.

Oh sure, I must be—or these are the fantasies you like to tell yourself. I don't need to pop your bubble as you've already accepted your status as drone.

Your obedience is apparent. But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice.

Tough titty, fella. Move as far off the grid as you can then (i.e. for consistancy sake, treat society / civilization itself as the egregious "externality" that you believe it is). And good luck with that! For the rest of us, however, the synergistic benefits of eusociality still far-outweigh the notional costs.

No thanks. We've seen your "eusociality" descend into rank tribalism and murder too many for it to be something to be proud of. I'll seek the company of free men.

...and yet here you are.

Note: discussing topics on the internet is meddling in someone's life to Banno.

I think there was a discussion on reincarnation some time ago. However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincingly justify it in philosophical terms?

It isn't possible. We have the cadaver farms to prove what happens to us after death, and as far as I know, exactly zero of those cadavers have been reborn. I suppose the only way to justify reincarnation is to posit a sort of dualism between that which is proven to turn to dust and that which is hoped, fantasized, imagined to arrive in another body.

Would my extended parking be a violation of the laws of the state or municipality? Are you authorized by a government agency to collect fines?

Obviously I have no authority.

It depends on what I am doing and how it affects others.

What if I came over and demanded you pay a fine for parking too long?

Once again: What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is because of this that you cannot be left alone. The only way what you do would not affect others is if you lived in isolation. To be left alone you must be alone. And even then there would be an impact on others.

Should I meddle in your life because what you do affects others?

Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

I don’t, though I tend in that direction.

How do you feel about you meddling in the lives of others? (Whatever meddling means in this context)

Meddling or interfering. I feel I shouldn’t meddle in the lives of others.

What you fail to recognize is that you are not alone. What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is possible to live in isolation, but you choose not to, and so you cannot at the same time choose to be left alone.

I don’t want isolation. By “leave me alone” I mean I want them to quit meddling in my life. That’s what you fail to recognize.

In nations where the public health responses so far have been efficient and effective (e.g. Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, Iceland, Germany, (Scandinavia), Australia, New Zealand, etc), you are quite right, NOS: their approaches have been much more collectivist than not. However, nations mislead by individualistic, reactive, populist governments like the former Trump maladministration, BoJo's clown show, Modi's "Raj", Xi's sweatshop gulag, Putin's klepto-czarship & Bolsonaro's junta, for example, demonstrate yet again that not working collectively – collaboratively – on common complex problems is disastrously self-defeating.

You’re right, but I don’t want my governments to be efficient and effective—welding people in their apartments is efficient and effective. I just want them to leave me alone.

NOS, I may have missed it, but did you give some kind of definition? This is interesting but I can't get a firm grip on the concept. What are we discussing? Is individualism a value, attitude, belief, social policy, practice or what?

I did not. It’s a nebulous term. Mostly I wanted to see what others thought it was. No one has cited any individualist argument but the criticisms all resemble each other. I think that’s telling.

I do oppose mandatory state-clothing across the board, whether it is the burka or a mask, and I oppose such measures for the same reasons. That is to say nothing of the efficacy of masks, or of burkas for that matter.

The benefits of not dying is one thing, the benefits of rule-by-decree and the denial of basic human rights is another, and I refuse to confuse the two. One can still protect himself from infection without the government penalizing him if he refuses to do so.

I am a militant agnostic. It's unknown. It's unknowable*. What's for lunch?

How do you know?

An agnostic necessarily believes in the possibility of god, or else he wouldn’t leave the question open. My question is, how can the agnostic believe in the possibility of god?

Individualism here in the Anglo-American world, meaning classical liberalism & Right-Libertarianism, is B.S. and a pathology that destroys everything. You only need to see the reaction to COVID the past year to see the culmination to it. It mostly means pursue wealth at the expense of others.

Equating individualism with avarice is a common argument. However avarice is a vice of individuals, not of individualism. Individualism encompasses the charitable as much as it does the self-interested, but we wouldn’t say individualism is charitable.

The response to Covid was a collectivist project if I’ve ever seen one. Entire industries were at the mercy of governments; civil liberties were scattered to the wind; prison terms were used to describe our situation. As such, certain individuals benefitted while others were mostly restrained from even trying, their livelihoods sacrificed on the alter of “national security”, “the common good”, which, in the mouths of those in state power, is always their own interests.

Then why would you yourself make such a remark, as if someone actually believed it?

But neither should we lie to ourselves about how the individual rights we honor some how make us self-sufficient loners against the world; wild stallions to be let free to run through and eat the crops of others hard labor.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just curious where this notion comes from.

Again, we need not go to a system of ants on an ant pile, all working is some communist utopia. But neither should we lie to ourselves about how the individual rights we honor some how make us self-sufficient loners against the world; wild stallions to be let free to run through and eat the crops of others hard labor.

Exactly true. Except no individualist (as far as I’m aware) conceives of individuals as hermits or wild stallions, as if every single human was Robinson Crusoe. So who is spreading this lie, exactly?

We were discussing the passage by Blanc that you cited, not Marx.

I was discussing the recurring themes in anti-individualist argument, of which isolation is one. Blanc was just one example. We can find more if need be. Except no individualist argues conceiving of individuals as separate from society. Even those whom Marx accuses, Smith, Ricardo, Bastiat, conceived of the individual in relation to his tribe or nation.

Modern liberalism and individualism are the same thing - the freedom and rights of the individual.

I don’t think so. Modern Liberalism, in my reading, is a more social, statist version of classical liberalism.

This is not meant literally as is clear from what he goes on to say. Man is taken out of society in the sense that he recognizes no authority but his own and no responsibility to anyone but himself. He rejects the idea of the common good. The only good is what he deems good for himself.

It has been used literally (and as a straw man) in Marx, for example.

The modern philosophy of Liberalism attempts to frame political and social issues on the model of the emerging science. "Space" is a neutral term. The failure to recognize responsibility to anyone but yourself is not a matter of "increasing space" but of disregard for others.

I’m not a fan of modern liberalism myself. But point taken.

I suppose it's not wrong per se. It only becomes a problem if your individualism is such that it can harm other people. How we define harm is obviously very much debatable.

I can only say that we aren't born out of holes in the ground, alone. We are born belonging to a family, a city a country, etc. The closer the relationship between people, the closer the bond. So individualists at least have to contend with dealing with the social unit of family. Beyond that, things get very murky very quickly.

I’m not sure how individualism can harm other people because much of individualism is concerned with the protection of individual rights.

No individualist (as far as I know) denied the social aspects of life, family or community. I would argue that this is a common strawman against the position.

Naturally, because it's worked out okay for you so far.

There's a lot of irresponsibility in 'free society' and it has an ever escalating cost. I can only imagine that either you deny the cost or simply don't give a fuck. Whatever the case may be, it's a free society so you're cool.

I don’t deny the cost. I just think the cost is a small price to pay knowing the opposite.

In a word: responsibility. People like freedom but responsibility is a big bummer.

That’s very true. Increasing the space of individual freedom gives opportunity to the irresponsible individual as much as to the responsible one. Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Both leftist and right-wing populism tries to create a juxtaposition between "us" and "them" and seek basically to dehumanize the other side as the culprit of all problems in the society. Things don't deteriorate because nobody does anything and people let problems to grow bigger: the idea is that some people are on purpose creating the problems. With classic Marxism it's obvious with talking about the class-enemy, but the far right is totally on board with similar rhetoric, just with different culprits and scapegoats. It is the political extremes who see politics literally as a battlefield where the other side is the enemy.

That’s one of the frightening aspects of identity politics: the corresponding reactionary identity politics that is almost certainly to follow. Neither side can prevail until the other is vanquished.

Young jedi, you yet have a lot to learn.

Let's try it. Use your words and thoughts to set the power hierarchy between yourself and I.

A question that commonly arises around free-speech discussions is: "Who sets the grounds for what is permissible?" Personally I cannot think of any individual or group of individuals throughout history with enough intelligence, foresight, or moral fortitude to decide what should or should not be believed and said.

Much of the rules and reasoning of censorship (or in this case, banishment and ostracism) is, at least rhetorically, centered around the fear of some future effect of speech and beliefs on the public welfare, as if someone could make such predictions. Examples include the "bad tendency" test of British common law and the "clear and present danger" standard once used to punish anti-war activism in the United States. Of course, the danger was never clear nor present, the tendency undefined, and such fears were as fatuous as any fever-dream. We should be wary of these people. For the simple reason that there is no known way of gauging the future influence of rhetoric on human action, I would argue these predictions were used to disguise threats to orthodoxy beneath an air of concern for the general welfare.

In short, we shouldn't give anyone the power to make such decisions, and we should tolerate everything short of action that impedes another's liberty.

Everyone is conservative about what he knows best. If you read the Saint-Simonians one could come away thinking socialism was entirely reactionary.

While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live.

No power hierarchy exists in this scenario. It’s just two individuals in a community. The thoughts he has or expresses are unable to elevate him to any position of power. And upon refusing your olive branch you could laugh in his face and flip the bird.