I think the opposite is the case: the overvalued (and abstract) notions of community are acted out at the expense of individual freedom and liberty. And the fact that all communities are composed of individuals makes any denial of individuals rights and freedoms all the more dangerous. — NOS4A2

Interesting, as I agree partially with the idea that parents/communities think that their abstract reasons to have a child make it okay to actually birth that child into existence, despite the negative consequences for that particular child, and despite that the child is being forced into existence by means/decisions other than its own. It's also interesting to note, just because the child does not have the means to have a say in the decision, it does not mean the default position is then "forcing a new person into existence is then okay (due to common notions, ideology, tradition, or that someone else wants that child forced into existence, so it must be okay)." Anyways, keep making the antinatalist case, unintentionally NOS!

Once born though, don't people have some duties and responsibilities to each other? I would say ethically-speaking, doing the least amount of harm to the most people is a good rule of thumb to go by when dealing with a disease with some knowns (that it can be deadly or cause severe illness to some people and some unknowns (how it affects certain individuals).

By NOT taking precautions as a leader, by spreading conspiracy theories, by not following the latest science, you are in fact DENYING people's individual right not to be made sick by others in the community. By not unifying people in a time of a large health crisis, you are in fact creating divisions that will lead to the whole systems downfall anyways, the very system intended to protect individual freedoms. We made individual sacrifices in WW2 in order to protect a greater global freedom and the community in general. Things are not as simple as "individual freedom vs. community". Individualism to the extreme often means less freedom in the end, not more. The freedom not to fight Nazism or Fascism could have led to the downfall of more "freer" liberal democracies in general.

Let's take an example. A company is allowed certain leeway in how it handles its employees. Let's call that "individual freedom of the employer". That manager decides that due to his preference to manage in person, he wants all workers to come into the office, exposing them to the virus at a higher likelihood. Now, this is not a job that needs to be in any location. It can be done from anywhere, but the manager has the freedom to do what he wants with his workers. The employee can quit, get fired, or go into the office. What about the employees freedom to do his job without being exposed to the virus? That doesn't matter? Again, this is a case of individual freedom actually being ENHANCED by thinking of the larger community- putting the community's interests before one's own in a time of crisis.

In the interview with George Friedman I cited earlier, he makes the claim that the myth of the individual is comparatively recent, coming into it's own after Nixon as part of the neoconservative economic reforms of the following twenty years.

If that's the case then perhaps these myths are not as fixed as it might seem. Will the failure of the myth of individualism see the rise of a more communally oriented United States? — Banno

Civic duty was supposed to be a part of the the whole freedom thing, and that is inherently community-oriented. But, it's going to take more than just the more liberal party winning the executive branch to do that. There is a large contingent of people who have the narrative that freedom is tied up in complete individualism. Rather, freedom often needs to be bolstered at a community-level. Freedom from and freedom to "what" is the real question? The way people answer that often will contradict themselves. The freedom to not wear a mask, might be another's freedom to not get sick.

The logical conclusion to any form of extreme individualism is that death is a preferable outcome than being forced to give up some money to pay for public goods. I don't even know what to say to that.

The point of a good morality is to encourage the individual to seek one's own well-being. Morality definitely must start with the individual. But "individual freedom and liberty" might not be an appropriate value to be assigned high priority. We observe that a good community is much more conducive to the individual's well-being than is freedom and liberty. So a good morality would inspire an individual toward producing a good community, rather than direct the individual toward freedom and liberty.

Neither you or I can tell another how to seek his own well-being, for how to live one’s life is best left for him to decide. That is why one must be at liberty to choose his own fate. If that means adopting a collectivist mindset, that’s fine, but without first the freedom to decide on his own he is little more than a slave.



That’s a very convoluted argument regarding anti-natalism. But it shows that even you subscribe to the notion of individual liberty. The difference is you only offer it to “potential children”, beings that cannot be found on any plane of existence. Let’s see if you can extend that sentiment to flesh and blood human beings.

An individual right not to be made sick by others? Of course intentionally infecting others with disease is a serious crime, and one has every right to hide in a padded cell to avoid community infection. But there is no right to not be infected by others, just like there is no right not to get wet from rain. Life is a risk. One must take the precautions he deems necessary in order to be safe.

If you feel unsafe at work you can refuse to work there. It’s that easy.

If you feel unsafe at work you can refuse to work there. It’s that easy. — NOS4A2

Ugh, if life just fit your "liberty" model so easily.. You don't recognize de facto unfreedoms, so we probably have nothing more to say to each other. If you don't recognize how de facto situations lead to "not really freedom" situations, I can't help you.

Ugh, if life just fit your "liberty" model so easily.. You don't recognize de facto unfreedoms, so we probably have nothing more to say to each other. If you don't recognize how de facto situations lead to "not really freedom" situations, I can't help you.

If you cannot find the strength and courage to alter your situation, I can understand why you wish you were never born to begin with. But things can change.

If you cannot find the strength and courage to alter your situation, I can understand why you wish you were never born to begin with. But things can change. — NOS4A2

Things can change is so vague. As I've said previously:

The logical conclusion to any form of extreme individualism is that death is a preferable outcome than being forced to give up some money to pay for public goods. I don't even know what to say to that. — schopenhauer1

But the answer is that in a world where "de facto" people can't just leave their job on a whim, or without causing much disruption, the better outcome is to have a policy that allows for maximum freedom without affecting people's personal health unnecessarily. Good day.

The difference is you only offer it to “potential children”, beings that cannot be found on any plane of existence. Let’s see if you can extend that sentiment to flesh and blood human beings. — NOS4A2

So I've mentioned before how birth is the only case where one can perfectly not cause harm and force. The simple act of NOT doing something (negative ethics) would allow this. However, once born, things change. People are now in the world. Prior to birth, it is inter-worldly considerations (birth and life), where once in the world, its intra-worldly affairs. This means a) there will ALWAYS be some violation of negative ethics. Thus any form of deontological ethics and utilitarianism in intraworldly affairs would have to be mitigated against what forms of violation are considered more valuable or lead to greater outcomes than others. Of course, this mitigation and negotiation of ethical dillemmas could have been avoided altogether if one prevented it at the inter-wordly consideration level.

My point being is that to live "in the world", you have to bite the bullet somewhere. Community and individuals go hand-in-hand. You are arbitrarily picking a line when you say "this" and not "that". What happens if you KNEW for a fact people's well-being would be increased by more community oriented policies. Would that change your mind? I am not saying this is a case of we don't know.. but all the info is there, and you yourself agree it indeed brings about positive well-being and its done equally at all levels of society.

But the answer is that in a world where "de facto" people can't just leave their job on a whim, or without causing much disruption, the better outcome is to have a policy that allows for maximum freedom without affecting people's personal health unnecessarily. Good day.

People can leave their jobs as countless people have proven. Whether they have the confidence to do so is another question. Either way, no policy can replace personal responsibility. And if policies is what one requires to guide him through life, quitting his job should be the least of his concerns. Cheers.

So I've mentioned before how birth is the only case where one can perfectly not cause harm and force. The simple act of NOT doing something (negative ethics) would allow this. However, once born, things change. People are now in the world. Prior to birth, it is inter-worldly considerations (birth and life), where once in the world, its intra-worldly affairs. This means a) there will ALWAYS be some violation of negative ethics. Thus any form of deontological ethics and utilitarianism in intraworldly affairs would have to be mitigated against what forms of violation are considered more valuable or lead to greater outcomes than others. Of course, this mitigation and negotiation of ethical dillemmas could have been avoided altogether if one prevented it at the inter-wordly consideration level.

Sure, if you prevent life you prevent any difficulties that come with it. But I still think pretending one is being ethical in doing so is a disguise for self-concern and personal failures. The anti-natalist is literally helping no one but himself while pretending he is. In that sense it is not so ethical as it is deceitful.

And if policies is what one requires to guide him through life, quitting his job should be the least of his concerns. Cheers. — NOS4A2

The policy would be for the manager in this case.. But I guess other employees not screwing each other over either. It's like you live in a dream world where everyone takes the responsible action. If that was the case, you're right, no need for government.. Shades of Locke and definitely Hobbes here.

Sure, if you prevent life you prevent any difficulties that come with it. — NOS4A2

You should have ended it there

But I still think pretending one is being ethical in doing so is a disguise for self-concern and personal failures. The anti-natalist is literally helping no one but himself while pretending he is. In that sense it is not so ethical as it is deceitful. — NOS4A2

Why would an antinatalist put so much energy into proving it, if it was selfish? This isn't just a personal lifestyle choice, it's a whole ethos and largely very passionate one. Even on its face you are incorrect.

You are backpeddling and now without justification.. Don't force others, don't cause harm to others unnecessarily.. I explained inter-wordly affairs and intra-worldly affairs. I gave justifications for why your own ethos actually only applies at one level and not another. You seem perturbed by this and cast ad homs at antinatalists. Not a great rebuttal.

The policy would be for the manager in this case.. But I guess other employees not screwing each other over either. It's like you live in a dream world where everyone takes the responsible action. If that was the case, you're right, no need for government.. Shades of Locke and definitely Hobbes here.

I don’t believe some legislator knows how to run my business better than I do. Likewise, I don’t need nor want the state to step in where my own employment is concerned. But no I do not believe everyone takes the responsible action. I just believe that they are capable of doing so.

Why would an antinatalist put so much energy into proving it, if it was selfish? This isn't just a personal lifestyle choice, it's a whole ethos and largely very passionate one. Even on its face you are incorrect.

You are backpeddling and now without justification.. Don't force others, don't cause harm to others unnecessarily.. I explained inter-wordly affairs and intra-worldly affairs. I gave justifications for why your own ethos actually only applies at one level and not another. You seem perturbed by this and cast ad homs at antinatalists. Not a great rebuttal.

Passionate or not, In my mind it’s a poor ethos that benefits no one but the one espousing it. I say this because no anti-natalist can point to a single person who benefits from it, lest he points to himself. These “others” you purport to be helping do not exist. So how can you, and why would you, claim that you are in some way refusing to force and cause them suffering? It’s an ethos that cannot serve anyone outside of your own imaginings.

I don’t believe some legislator knows how to run my business better than I do. — NOS4A2

But your employer knows what's best for your health better than what the general scientific consensus is? Do they have that right?

Passionate or not, In my mind it’s a poor ethos that benefits no one but the one espousing it. I say this because no anti-natalist can point to a single person who benefits from it, lest he points to himself. These “others” you purport to be helping do not exist. So how can you, and why would you, claim that you are in some way refusing to force and cause them suffering? It’s an ethos that cannot serve anyone outside of your own imaginings. — NOS4A2

Putting the cart before horse. In your view, we need to cause suffering to others in the first place in order for anything to be done about it. That is ridiculous but actually explains your other poor ethos. For example, one can take measures to prevent others from getting sick. They aren't sick yet, but we can anticipate them getting sick. In fact, we don't even know an actual person who will be the beneficiary of who might get sick, but we know that, X person (doesn't have to exist in actuality yet) can be prevented from getting sick if 1, 2, 3 measures are taken. C'mon, you know this.

Neither you or I can tell another how to seek his own well-being, for how to live one’s life is best left for him to decide. — NOS4A2

If this were true then there'd be no such thing as guidance counselling, and no such thing as the study of morality. Are you amoral?

That is why one must be at liberty to choose his own fate. If that means adopting a collectivist mindset, that’s fine, but without first the freedom to decide on his own he is little more than a slave. — NOS4A2

And there is no truth to this either. One cannot choose one's own fate because there are very many things which are beyond one's control. Therefore each one of us must learn to have the proper respect for all those things which are beyond one's control.

Do you recognize for example, that you were born into a very particular place in this world, and no matter how hard you try to "find the strength and courage to alter your situation", this situation cannot be altered? It makes no difference how much freedom and liberty you afford yourself, the situation you are in right now, being defined by what has come to pass, cannot be altered.

My pessimism has me thinking a move to the right is the more likely outcome. Along with it, a further rejection of scientific advice and rational discourse. — Banno

The Democratic convention is talking about a platform that moves to the left of where we are today, which isn't saying much. But, it's also left of where we were with Obama, which is a good start.

If we can get the monetary corruption under control, it would go a very long way to moving towards more community oriented thinking...

On another note(more relevant as a result of Harris)... "Defund the police" pretty much means "Fund the social/community programs"...

An individual right not to be made sick by others? Of course intentionally infecting others with disease is a serious crime, and one has every right to hide in a padded cell to avoid community infection. But there is no right to not be infected by others, just like there is no right not to get wet from rain. Life is a risk. One must take the precautions he deems necessary in order to be safe. — NOS4A2

There is no right to not be killed by drunk drivers either. Laws against it are to protect people from those who do not care enough about other people's lives, so they take that risk... with their own life and others'.

The exact same 'argument' holds good for wearing masks at this time.

For fuck's sake, get your head out of Trump's drunk driving ass for just one fucking minute.

Of course intentionally infecting others with disease is a serious crime ...
But there is no right to not be infected by others, — NOS4A2

So you accept the rule of law then? On what basis?

And when it comes to rights, doesn't jurisprudence usually say rights come with duties? For instance -

Every duty of the person must be the duty towards some person, in whom the right is vested and conversely every right must be against some persons upon whom a duty is imposed.

Your thoughts on this two-way street?

Yes if you afford someone rights you thereby have a duty not to break them. Your right to free speech is my duty not to censor you, and so on.

I accept the rule of law but only where it is just.

If this were true then there'd be no such thing as guidance counselling, and no such thing as the study of morality. Are you amoral?

I’m not amoral. I just don’t feel the need to adopt any one morality without first choosing to do so. There certainly is such a thing as guidance counselling. But it’s just advice, not some prescription on how to best live one’s life.

Do you recognize for example, that you were born into a very particular place in this world, and no matter how hard you try to "find the strength and courage to alter your situation", this situation cannot be altered? It makes no difference how much freedom and liberty you afford yourself, the situation you are in right now, being defined by what has come to pass, cannot be altered.

The fact that I can move something from one place to another proves I can alter my situation. I know I cannot go back and change the beginning, but I can start where am and change the ending. I think that was CS Lewis.

I accept the rule of law but only where it is just. — NOS4A2

What’s your definition of “just” then? For example, is it just for the law to impose a duty of care on you as a driver so that you could be charged with criminal negligence for injuring someone in an accident?

I’m not amoral. I just don’t feel the need to adopt any one morality without first choosing to do so. There certainly is such a thing as guidance counselling. But it’s just advice, not some prescription on how to best live one’s life. — NOS4A2

I don't really believe that one can choose one's own morality. Your morality is a product of your genetics and upbringing, as is your "self". If you are dissatisfied with yourself, you can choose to make changes to yourself, but if you think that you can "choose" whatever morality you want, your mistaken, because there are many limiting factors on what is possible. Evidence of this is that it is very hard to break a bad habit.

Furthermore, one would have to study moral philosophy, to determine various different moral precepts, in order to choose between them. Otherwise one's choice of "a morality" would just be a random selection of what appeals to that person at the moment, and the next moment there would be a selection of a different morality according to the situation, etc.. Of course you can see that this cannot be called "a morality", because a morality is supposed to give you a set of consistent principles according to which you would judge the correct action in a given situation, rather than being a whole lot of distinct and inconsistent "moralities" which you could select from according to what you desire in a particular situation. The latter does not provide one with any rigorous principles of guidance, allowing a person to choose principles (which would be make believe principles if one did not study moral philosophy), and therefore cannot be called "a morality".

The fact that I can move something from one place to another proves I can alter my situation. — NOS4A2

This is not quite true. To be true, the statement requires a deficient definition of "my situation" which gives the "situation" an undefined temporal extension. Notice that to change "my situation" requires that what is referred to as "my situation", extends from the way it is now to the changed condition, such that they are both referred to by "my situation". When you give "my situation" such an unwarranted temporal extension you prevent the law of non-contradiction from being applicable, because "my situation" may have the attributes of both before and after.

So you need to respect the fact that to move something from one place to another requires a passage of time. And when you see that the passage of time is a necessary condition for moving something, then you cannot validly conclude that you have altered your situation, because it may have been the passing of time, not you, which has caused the change. This is the determinist's argument, that free will is just an illusion. You believe that you are making changes, but it's really just the forces of nature with the passing of time which makes the changes.

Therefore, we must separate things which are determined, and caused by the passing of time, from things which are caused by the human free will, in order to get a proper understanding of how we can actually change things, and thereby derive conclusions about what is possible for me to do, and what is impossible for me to do. Hence "choosing a morality" requires understanding metaphysical principles.

Therefore, we must separate things which are determined, and caused by the passing of time, from things which are caused by the human free will, in order to get a proper understanding of how we can actually change things, and thereby derive conclusions about what is possible for me to do, and what is impossible for me to do.

I think you’re balancing two mutually exclusive ideas.


I’m sure that if a drunk driving victim had the opportunity to wear a mask that protected them from getting hit by a car, they would do so.

We need to operate with some historical perspective. Look at contraction rates, death rates, demographics. The fear is the real killer, the hatred for trump is another

I believe you can choose your own morality. One can be convinced of the value of certain moral principles, the danger of others, and can alter his beliefs thereby. People convert all the time, for instance, at least when given the freedom to do so.

Certainly genes influence behavior but they do not determine morality. People still choose and shape their lives because their genes have provided them the agency and the faculties to do so.

And I do not believe in the determinist position. Unless the determinist can point to something else in the world making the decisions, it cannot be said that anything else in the universe is making the decisions. No “force of nature” outside of myself makes me move something from one place to another. The decisions and actions begin and end in the self and nowhere else.

I think you’re balancing two mutually exclusive ideas. — Manbabyzeus

How are "some things I can change" and "some things I cannot change" mutually exclusive? They would only be mutually exclusive if I had said that the same things were both changeable and not changeable. But clearly I was talking about the need to be able to distinguish between what is changeable and what is not.

I believe you can choose your own morality. One can be convinced of the value of certain moral principles, the danger of others, and can alter his beliefs thereby. People convert all the time, for instance, at least when given the freedom to do so. — NOS4A2

Altering one's beliefs is not sufficient for changing one's behaviour, as my examples demonstrate. There is the further matter of one's disposition and will power. If an individual does not already have the moral disposition which allows one to adhere firmly to one's beliefs, and not give in to temptation, then altering one's beliefs is an ineffective procedure. The person would just become more and more hypocritical, believing that resisting certain actions is the good and right thing to do, but still lacking the necessary will power to abstain.

And I do not believe in the determinist position. Unless the determinist can point to something else in the world making the decisions, it cannot be said that anything else in the universe is making the decisions. No “force of nature” outside of myself makes me move something from one place to another. The decisions and actions begin and end in the self and nowhere else. — NOS4A2

Do you agree that things were happening, things were moving, prior in time to the existence of living beings capable of making decisions. If so, then you ought to see that it is not necessary for a "decision" to be made in order for something to move from one place to another.

The decisions and actions begin and end in the self and nowhere else. — NOS4A2

I note you carefully steered clear of my last question. How are you defining "just"?

So unless you are simply happy to keep chanting propaganda slogans, can you supply the argument that backs up this opinion.

Why is this something you merely say rather than something I ought to believe?

I don’t believe some legislator knows how to run my business better than I do. Likewise, I don’t need nor want the state to step in where my own employment is concerned. But no I do not believe everyone takes the responsible action. I just believe that they are capable of doing so. — NOS4A2

Oh look... the very privileged point of view.

I believe you can choose your own morality. One can be convinced of the value of certain moral principles, the danger of others, and can alter his beliefs thereby. People convert all the time, for instance, at least when given the freedom to do so. — NOS4A2

And if one's morality is such that they cannot do both, be free and help the society(by helping others in as many ways as they reasonably can) they have no business whatsoever having any power that affects/effects the lives and/or livelihoods of those others who they refuse to help.

Including employment. Employees are people, not a means to an end.

Everyone is not Einstein. Not everyone can successfully start from nothing and acquire a comfortable peaceful free lifestyle, not that he did, it's just another bullshit line of thought from those who believe that Einstein failed elementary school or some such shit supporting their own false belief that they are somehow 'self-made'. A fantastic self absorbed mental orgasm repeated all too often in today's popular narratives(rugged individualism).

In fact, no one can. We are by our very inevitable nature... necessarily... interdependent social creatures.

I’m sure that if a drunk driving victim had the opportunity to wear a mask that protected them from getting hit by a car, they would do so. — Manbabyzeus

That misses the point entirely. Trump, and each and every individual who refuses to wear a mask in public is taking a risk with another's life.

Drunk drivers do the same. The difference is that those in power acknowledged and honored the need to legally prohibit such things as drunk driving. However, had those in power not, but instead behaved in precisely such ways, then they would be guilty of taking serious risks with another person's life by driving while intoxicated.

Trump is the drunk driver who gets to write the rules governing his own behaviour. He clearly does not care or he does not know that he's placing other lives at serious risk. Neither is acceptable.

I wonder if George Floyd could have just moved some things around to improve his own life...

...a knee perhaps?

This talk as if anyone can achieve the American dream is such myopic nonsense on it's face. Common sense tells us all better. All we need to do is think about... for just a minute or two...

The resident Trump supporter suggested that because we can move a box, we ought be able to have whatever life we want, and by implication if we do not have a good life, it's our own fault(perpetuating the machismo individualism rubbish that is so rampant).

One can make some changes, therefore one can make all the necessary changes that need made in order to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, regardless of the socio-economic circumstances one may be born into. Hard work and keeping one's nose clean is all you need to become a poster child of the American wet dream... self made!

What a crock of horse shit.

Some... sure. Just because there are plenty of examples, it does not follow that anyone can do it. We create the socio-economic landscape, and it ought include opportunities for everyone, not just those fortunate and capable enough of making their own way in the current landscape, so to speak. We as a society owe it to ourselves to create as many different ways as we can for any and all individuals to be able to make it.

They all think they are moral ubermensch capable of lifting themselves up by their bootstrap regardless of whatever circumstances they find themselves in. At the same time foreigners are to blame because "dey touk our jabs!", liberals are to blame for every social ill and meanwhile they're totally blind to the fact its society and its welfare components that create the choices and freedom to choose among them instead of having to spend all our time just surviving.

You were arguing that a person moving an object in their room was actually time affecting matter and space (determinism). You used this to say that a person can’t be sure if they have the agency to proactively change their given situation. Then you said a person actually does have at least some control over certain things and can actually affect their situation. But If determinism is a reality, there is no free will. It’s not that it’s a grey area, it’s one or the other, determinism simply can’t exist with free actors.

“Therefore, we must separate things which are determined, and caused by the passing of time, from things which are caused by the human free will”

Do you mean things like weathering, chemical reactions, momentum? Or do you mean the framework of the human mind, as being the factor that’s determined? I fell like all animals already intuitively do this.

“That misses the point entirely. Trump, and each and every individual who refuses to wear a mask in public is taking a risk with another's life.”

I completely understand your point. I was pointing out how drunk driving and wearing a mask are two completely different interactions. Isn’t the carina virus only transmitted through the air. So shouldn’t the person wearing the mask already be protected? They make masks that filter in going and out going air. So whatever you’re afraid of is covered. I think fearful people react to situations like this eagerly. Then they see other people who aren’t abiding by the tribes costumes, and it angers them. Stop watching the news so much and don’t let people around you go on and on about all the scary shit. This whole situation is fucked, focus more on what you control. Don’t fill your mind with so much anger braaa