Surely, the only reason one can object to an individual choosing the path of freedom is because one fears one may lose their hold on him. — Tzeentch

So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2

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

Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way. — NOS4A2

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.

So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2

No individualist suggested “taking man out of society” — NOS4A2

Increasing the space of individual freedom gives opportunity to the irresponsible individual as much as to the responsible one. — NOS4A2

But the upshot was this: Many folks are raised with a sense of "rights" where as he was raised with a sense of "obligations." — James Riley

Assuredly, the one and only reason, no other option you dictate and expect or will look down on or dismiss others if not agreed upon. — Outlander

Far too often men confuse freedom with abandonment of responsibility, — Outlander

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

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. — NOS4A2

Man is born free and without responsibility. — Tzeentch

Responsibility can only be a result of his own voluntary actions. Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

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.

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 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. — NOS4A2

No individualist (as far as I know) denied the social aspects of life, family or community. — NOS4A2

Man is born free and without responsibility. — Tzeentch

Responsibility is assumed, and not imposed. — Tzeentch

It has been used literally (and as a straw man) in Marx, for example. — NOS4A2

I’m not a fan of modern liberalism myself. — NOS4A2

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

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

Except no individualist argues conceiving of individuals as separate from society. — NOS4A2

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.

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? — NOS4A2

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 just curious where this notion comes from. — NOS4A2

Modern Liberalism, in my reading, is a more social, statist version of classical liberalism. — NOS4A2

So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2

Durkheim foresaw that with the shift from premodern to modern society came, on the one hand, incredible emancipation of individual autonomy and productivity; while on the other, a radical erosion of social ties and rootedness.

An heir of the Enlightenment, Durkheim championed the liberation of individuals from religious dogmas, but he also feared that with their release from tradition individuals would fall into a state of anomie — a condition that is best thought of as “normlessness” — which he believed to be a core pathology of modern life 1 .

Weber supposed that all previous ethics – that is, socially accepted codes of behaviour rather than the more abstract propositions made by theologians and philosophers – were religious. Religions supplied clear messages about how to behave in society in straightforward human terms, messages that were taken to be moral absolutes binding on all people. In the West this meant Christianity, and its most important social and ethical prescription came out of the Bible: ‘Love thy neighbour.’ Weber was not against love, but his idea of love was a private one – a realm of intimacy and sexuality. As a guide to social behaviour in public places ‘love thy neighbour’ was obviously nonsense, and this was a principal reason why the claims of churches to speak to modern society in authentically religious terms were marginal. He would not have been surprised at the long innings enjoyed by the slogan ‘God is love’ in the 20th-century West – its career was already launched in his own day – nor that its social consequences should have been so limited.

The ethic or code that dominated public life in the modern world was very different. Above all it was impersonal rather than personal: by Weber’s day, agreement on what was right and wrong for the individual was breaking down. The truths of religion – the basis of ethics – were now contested, and other time-honoured norms – such as those pertaining to sexuality, marriage and beauty – were also breaking down. (Here is a blast from the past: who today would think to uphold a binding idea of beauty?) Values were increasingly the property of the individual, not society. So instead of humanly warm contact, based on a shared, intuitively obvious understanding of right and wrong, public behaviour was cool, reserved, hard and sober, governed by strict personal self-control. Correct behaviour lay in the observance of correct procedures. Most obviously, it obeyed the letter of the law (for who could say what its spirit was?) and it was rational. It was logical, consistent, and coherent; or else it obeyed unquestioned modern realities such as the power of numbers, market forces and technology.2

So what, then, is the problem with individualism? — NOS4A2

The only problem with individualism is individualists who like to externalize their costs. That, and folks who think everything has to be either/or. — James Riley

Man is born utterly dependent, actually, and compared to other mammals remains that way for a very long time. Man is also a social species and is therefore irrevocably tied to others of his kind. Man is also completely dependent on his env[iro]nment and is not independent or free in that way. — praxis