I don't require constraints to live in peace with others. — Tzeentch

That may be but it is evident that many do.

What about all the other individuals who do not need constraints? Are they are just to be considered collateral damage?

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.

Then shame on whoever did that claiming. — Tzeentch

Oh shame is not relevant, that is a human emotion. What is mandated comes from beyond and is not only ever-reaching but everlasting.

I believe what I stated, and this is just an underhanded (and sleep-inducingly old) attempt at framing it as selfishness.

What makes you believe I am so fond of the status quo? — Tzeentch

Human nature. One wants better for themselves. You believe that by toppling the giant greater enjoyment can be had, but perhaps it is protecting you from greater torment and despair. You wouldn't know. This is the folly of men.

Human nature. One wants better for themselves. — Outlander

I don't share that view of human nature, and frankly I think attempts at psychoanalyzing complete strangers sooner point towards projection.

From an early age individuals are taught what to believe. By their parents, by the educational system, politicians and so forth. This happens before the individual is capable of critical thought.

If the individual develops critical thinking, they have a chance to reevaluate all they know, and rid themselves of the false beliefs of others.

The "invisible bonds" are the beliefs of others, and one is still inherently free, because one by virtue of their own mental faculty holds the key to the lock. — Tzeentch

So for example if a kid were raised in a, oh I don't know, heavy libertarian culture and eventually applied their God given critical thinking skills to discover that they've been manipulated, would they throw off the invisible chains and go on to undo the damage and work to help empower the working class?

More seriously, if I'm following correctly it appears to be a catch 22 situation. The freer a person becomes the more responsibility they assume, but the more responsibility they assume the less free they become.

So for example if a kid were raised in a, oh I don't know, heavy libertarian culture and eventually applied their God given critical thinking skills to discover that they've been manipulated, would they throw off the invisible chains and go on to undo the damage and work to help empower the working class? — praxis

Sure, why not? If they are guided by reason and that is where it takes them. However, one would hope that since they had to undo the damage done to them, they would apply methods that do not do the same to others.

More seriously, if I'm following correctly it appears to be a catch 22 situation. The freer a person becomes the more responsibility they assume, but the more responsibility they assume the less free they become. — praxis

A free person more readily recognizes and accepts those responsibilities that are theirs, because they chose them voluntarily. They do not necessarily assume more responsibilities. While responsibilities limit one's freedom, since I believe responsibilities can only be assumed and not imposed they are an extension of one's own free will.

I don't share that view of human nature, and frankly I think attempts at psychoanalyzing complete strangers sooner point towards projection. — Tzeentch

Nor do you have to, for it was already done for you. You can ignore the hand that fed you and is responsible for your existence, but you'll never be free from it. Human history is human history, it is as plain as day to be observed, be it from a textbook or archeology. I make no assertions otherwise. Perhaps you're different, the exception. Oh but when salt pours, you'll be no different than the rest. You wouldn't be here now if so.

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

Give me an account of what you understand individualism to consists in, and I'll tell you what parts I agree with (if any) and what parts I don't (if any) and why. So far this thread looks like pissin' in the wind.

Presumably individualism is a view along the lines that society consists in individuals, and hence can be explained purely in terms of the actions of individuals.

One problem with that view is that there are social phenomena that cannot be explained away as the result of the actions of individuals; they involve the cooperative intent of many folk.

For example, an individual kicking a ball into a goal is not scoring a goal in a football game; the gaol cannot be scored except as a part of a collective enterprise.

Hence, individualism is inherently incapable of explaining many key social phenomena.

However, one would hope that since they had to undo the damage done to them, they would apply methods that do not do the same to others. — Tzeentch

They'd use critical thinking, of course, to free themselves from libertarian beliefs and those that have manipulated them with it.

A free person more readily recognizes and accepts those responsibilities that are theirs, because they chose them voluntarily. They do not necessarily assume more responsibilities. — Tzeentch

Does that make sense? There's literally mountains of evidence indicating that people don't freely accept responsibility. Take something as simple as driving. If someone applied their critical thinking they may come to realize that following traffic laws was in their best interest and in the best interest of other drivers, so rather than those law being imposed on them they would be freely accepted. An invisible chain being invisibly discarded, if you will. Both freer and no more free than before.

Agree. A succinct, no bullshit view.

the denial of basic human rights is another, — NOS4A2

How about the denial of the basic human right to life by those who have no regard for the lives of others and refuse to follow simple safety precautions and wear a mask?

How about the denial of basic human right to life by those who have no regard for the lives of others and refuse to follow simple safety precautions and wear a mask? — Fooloso4

Yes, this one simple statement encapsulates a key problem. What hope for a shared notion of common good when agreement on first principles seems unachievable.

Hence the stilted and artificial conception of 'freedom' that individualism has: the idea that freedom is emanative from some subjective core rather than environmental and dialogical, almost entirely conditioned by the world around any one person.

Living in place where covid is effectively non-existent thanks to a combination of lockdown, mask wearing, and social distancing measures, I am free as fuck right now. Almost none of those measures are currently in place anymore, and mingling in crowds is life giving rather than taking right now. And I can do this because the environmental and social conditons under which my freedom can be exercised have, to a large degree, been secured.

Incidentally and with reference to the idea that 'humans are born free', the only people who can get away with saying that are people who have never so much as laid eyes on a child before. There are few creatures as so hopelessly dependant and subserviant as children. Kant understood this well: that any measure of freedom was the result of a great deal of discipline and tutelage, such that, having mastered our abilities and rational capacities by way of education, only then could anyone be called free. The individualist notion of freedom is literally infantile.

The response to Covid was a collectivist project if I’ve ever seen one. — NOS4A2

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.

:point: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2021-03-25/countries-culture-matters-when-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic

Incidentally and with reference to the idea that 'humans are born free', the only people who can get away with saying that are people who have never so much as laid eyes on a child before. There are few creatures as so hopelessly dependant and subserviant as children. Kant understood this well: that any measure of freedom was the result of a great deal of discipline and tutelage, such that, having mastered our abilities and rational capacities by way of education, only then could anyone be called free. The individualist notiom of freedom is literally infantile. — StreetlightX

This is why Ayn Rand never wrote - could never write - about children in her novels, or as far as I'm aware, her non-fiction work. A philosophy incapable of approaching children is a philosophy without a future. Beyond infantile, individualism is inherently moribund - a dead ideology.

I agree that more collectivist approaches made a difference, but I think the list you made is too simplistic. China bungled in the very beginning but later did exceptionally well, Vietnam is also filled with sweatshops, South Korea is much more neoliberal/Capitalist than Europe economically but responded to the virus better (the difference is in state capacity), Sweden actually just let the virus go rampant, etc.

Irrelevant. Comparative infection & death rates from Covid-19 are relevant. Also, I said Scandanavia, which is a region that includes more states than Sweden. Stop trolling, Sap, it doesn't suit you.

China and Vietnam share a similar political economy (market developmentalism with a very authoritarian government), and we should understand why did more Capitalist South Korea & Singapore do better than most of Europe (contrary to what you say with respect to infection & death rates, Germany has a lot of deaths, and so does France) The particular features are what we need to understand what's necessary for dealing with future pandemics.

One would assume that the denizens of this forum would be intelligent enough to understand that the phrase "Man is born free" does not imply that babies are born in absolute physical freedom.

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual.

The individualist notion of freedom is literally infantile. — StreetlightX

Beyond infantile, individualism is inherently moribund - a dead ideology. — Maw

Luckily there is anti-individualism, and what delightful historical company do we find ourselves in!

And yet he is free. In fact, children are more free than most adults. — Tzeentch

Oh? So what are children free to do? Piss and shit their diapers? And scream?
And what are they free from? Certainly not from aging, illness, and death.

I heard somewhere that Kant said that children cry so much because they are angry because they can't do anything much, as not even their bodies obey them.

One would assume that the denizens of this forum would be intelligent enough to understand that the phrase "Man is born free" does not imply that babies are born in absolute physical freedom.

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual. — Tzeentch

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual. — Tzeentch

I just don't see that freedom. Where is it?

One would assume that the denizens of this forum would be intelligent enough to understand that the phrase "Man is born free" does not imply that babies are born in absolute physical freedom.

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual. — Tzeentch

But this is not true of any existing human being. It's a literal fantasy.

But this is not true of any existing human being. — StreetlightX

Oh, then by whom, by virtue of their existence, are they rightfully owned or to whom are they rightfully indebted?

I just don't see that freedom. — baker

If you don't see that man is in essence free, you must believe that his existence can belong to someone else. Who?

Both ownership and indebtedness are economic relationships (although I realize that some people have no other vocabulary to describe things; and let's not mention the enormous social infrastructure that needs to be in place for any economic relationship to hold), but pretty much any human is born into webs of social, political and even ecological relations which pretty much everything around it, webs upon which they are dependent upon for their very existence. One may rightfully contest the quality and composition of those webs, but to imagine they don't exist - we are 'free' in the fantasy manner you imagine - is Cinderella and the 7 Dwarves nonsense.

For one, the State owns your body, literally.

...but pretty much any human is born into webs of social, political and even ecological relations which pretty much everything around it, webs upon which they are dependent upon for their very existence. — StreetlightX

None of which, at least initially, a result of his voluntary choice.

Therefore I believe none of these to hold any moral claim to him.