Doesn't the payor always have an advantage, in that all they are trading is money, not themselves. — James Riley
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.
Coercion involves violence or the threat thereof. — Tzeentch
So individualist are in favor of antitrust laws? I thought y’all was all about FREEDOM!! — praxis
What does freedom entail to the individualist? How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion
This is almost right. We seem to have forgotten that a company or corporation is not an individual and therefore doesn't possess rights as an individual.The right to bodily autonomy, the right to self-determination, freedom of speech, among other things.
A state that protects those essential freedoms, and nothing else. — Tzeentch
But it doesn't seem convincing to argue that no-one really wants to do it, and everyone who claims to is either lying or has internalised misogyny or somesuch. It's too dogmatic to apply a category judgement like "all wage labor is slave labor" and be done with it. Personalities and aspirations differ, a market economy does get that part right. — Echarmion
You're thinking of the divine right of kings. — Tzeentch
This is almost right. We seem to have forgotten that a company or corporation is not an individual and therefore doesn't possess rights as an individual. — Harry Hindu
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. — NOS4A2
Then from a "legal standpoint" of corporations being individuals, these groups would engage in competition? Do you even remember what you said from one post to the next?Actually it is, from a legal standpoint, although the rights are not identical to an actual person. In any case, the president’s or CEO’s can be individualists, can’t they? — praxis
CEO's are individuals that have acquired their power not through their work alone. — Harry Hindu
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. — NOS4A2
What is arbitrary is any notion of responsibility toward others, towards some collective, even towards one's newborn. — NOS4A2
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. — NOS4A2
A system is a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network. Even you should be able grasp this rather simple concept. Your body, for instance, could be seen as a set of organs working together as parts of a, uh, largely functional individual. None of your organs functions are arbitrary, they each fit into the system in a particular way. There is an order, a system! If your bladder decided that it was an individual and had to express its individuality by peeing whenever you read the word "communist", well, you'd be sitting in a pool of urine right now and wishing your bladder were more responsible. — praxis
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. — NOS4A2
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
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
I can relate to this experience throughout my two pregnancies: the notion of a part of your bodily system ‘expressing its individuality’ by responding in its own way to certain foods, bodily movements/positions or environmental factors (sounds, temperature, etc)... — Possibility
Men too can certainly relate to a body part reacting to stimulus in a way that may not be inline with conscious will. The reaction nevertheless has a purpose and isn’t random or arbitrary. — praxis
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. — Tzeentch
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. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.