I provided one example after you concluded it was a resentment-filled fantasy absent any example or reason altogether. — NOS4A2

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.

You claim:

I didn’t make the conclusion from one example. — NOS4A2

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.

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?

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. — NOS4A2

I think it is more a matter of your poor thinking. You made a claim about all states. It is up to you to defend that claim. You did not.

More examples ... — NOS4A2

Once again, more examples are not examples of every state.

Any counter examples? — NOS4A2

Sure. The United States.

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.

In short, your answer seems to be "Yes, they are simply collateral damage". — Tzeentch

This implies that I'm for the project of the development of the state, regardless of the incalculable suffering that it may cause. As though I wish that any hunter-gatherer societies that exist today were developed into states, or worse, annexed by a state. I'm evil, but I'm not that evil. It seems your arguments have degenerated somewhat and now include ad hominem attacks.

The system that facilites and promotes the birthing of individuals, then promptly attempts to claim them for its own purposes, like a failed parent, has no other answer than "If you don't like it here, you can leave".

Of course, this isn't even a realistic option for the vast majority of individuals. To emancipate oneself from the mental clutches of the state is a lengthy process, by the end of which one finds themselves rooted in the system. To emancipate oneself from the physical clutches of the state, a near-impossibility.

Luckily, the individual has other options. Namely, to dispose any of the state's mental and intellectual impositions in the trash bin where they belong, leaving the state with only its most primitive tool, the cement of "society"; coercion, which the average individual is insignificant enough to evade. — Tzeentch

It's curious that the individualism that you appear to value so much is a consequence of the development of the state, and now you and NOS pooh-poohing the thing that gave rise to your moral framework. Shouldn't you guys be grateful?

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.

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

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?

This implies that I'm for the project of the development of the state, regardless of the incalculable suffering that it may cause. As though I wish that any hunter-gatherer societies that exist today were developed into states, or worse, annexed by a state. — praxis

You seem to miss my point, as it was not a personal attack but what I consider to be a valid summary of your reply.

In your defense of societies, which in the modern era manifest as states, you seem to point towards the good societies do for individuals. I'm pointing out that it also causes evil to individuals, and asking you whether you simply accept this as collateral damage. "For the many to thrive, some must suffer," seems to be the reigning sentiment on the opponents of individualism "You will have to suffer, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". That there is no valid reason why the individual would have to accept such a bad deal seems obvious to me.

It's curious that the individualism that you appear to value so much is a consequence of the development of the state, and now you and NOS pooh-poohing the thing that gave rise to your moral framework. Shouldn't you guys be grateful? — praxis

If I understand correctly that you are proposing that states enable individualism, then we must have wildly different definitions of that term.

Which, I will add, is not entirely strange considering the term has been used popularly to describe selfishness in society.

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. — NOS4A2

I can relate. Honestly. I just find within that moral framework the seeds of it's own destruction. I guess that would make me conservative, or even better, reactionary; wanting to go back to a time when the planting of such seeds occurred where there was still room to grow. That time has passed. So successful was that morality that our growing has choked out the space, and the current crop demands the even older, tried and true morality of cooperation; a morality that sprung into existence back when space seemed to overwhelm us, demanding a tilling, taming, reduction and domestication of the land.

All of that latter morality purchased for us the luxury of the morality of individualism. Time to pay. Sad, really, but again, we brought this on ourselves.

It's okay to pine for the days of yore, but such conservatism, such reaction, will not long be tolerated by the young and powerful fruit of our own loins. Best to offer them what little wisdom we have, while honoring what it is they propose to do with the mess we left to them.

P.S. I have an analogy to kids turned loose, unsupervised, into a giant, well-stocked mall. Anyone can run with that analogy so I won't belabor it.

Let's look back to what you previously said:

Your obedience is apparent. But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice. — NOS4A2

And prior to that:

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. — NOS4A2

And:

Should I meddle in your life because what you do affects others? — NOS4A2

Once again you shift from one thing to another. We were talking about what occurs today, here and now, your desire to be left alone, your disregard for how this might affect others,"my governments", the laws and authority as they exist today, how they are abused and lead to injustice. Rather than defend those claims you shift to what happened in the past.

Conquest and confiscation is a significant part of human history and is not the result of "the state". Such activities predate the state.

Do you imagine that through disobedience to the state you are rectifying the wrongs of the past? That somehow you are making restitution?

Honestly. I just find within that moral framework the seeds of it's own destruction. — James Riley

That sounds rather theoretical, whereas the destruction caused by states and collectives is tangible, real and overwhelming.

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.

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

That sounds rather theoretical, whereas the destruction caused by states and collectives is tangible, real and overwhelming. — Tzeentch

And yet here we are.

It reminds me of the social media memes where some of my generation list all the wonderful suffering we engaged in during our youth, and how it didn't hurt us. All the while complaining about the younger generation.

Not once do my peers engage in any self-reflection about how the younger generation was our clay to mold, and look what we did with it. I won't go into how our fathers and mothers rolled their eyes at us.

It's not theoretical when the states and collectives are ours. We can't absolve ourselves of responsibility for their actions while eating the gruel they slop on our plate. They are us. If we don't like it, we should have kept our cranks in our pants and legislated for a place to be free in.

Critics have been promising the failure of individualism since revolutionary France. Any day now, I guess. — NOS4A2

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.

"For the many to thrive, some must suffer," seems to be the reigning sentiment on the opponents of individualism "You will have to suffer, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". That there is no valid reason why the individual would have to accept such a bad deal seems obvious to me. — Tzeentch

Doesn't make sense. Were those who forced non-state societies into the drudgery and disease of developed agriculture working with them cooperatively or exploitively?

I think there are two basic strategies for social living, which are living cooperatively for mutual benefit or competing for resources. In competition there is always winners and losers, so in that strategy some are guaranteed to suffer. That's not the case in a society that cooperates for mutual benefit. The Libertarian moral framework is designed to rationalize the competitive strategy.

Yeah, being individualists, they sure have an awful lot to say and need an audience. Hm.

Were those who forced non-state societies into the drudgery and disease of developed agriculture working with them cooperatively or exploitively? — praxis

Exploitatively. What is your point?

I think there are two basic strategies for social living, which are living cooperatively for mutual benefit or competing for resources. In competition there is always winners and losers, so in that strategy some are guaranteed to suffer. That's not the case in a society that cooperates for mutual benefit. — praxis

The problem arises when such societies force individuals to participate against their will.

I was merely explaining theory of state formation — NOS4A2

You have not presented a theory of state formation.

... formed by conquest and confiscation — NOS4A2

This is not a theory of state formation. It is what a band of marauders do.

... tacitly threatening me if I was to act on it. — NOS4A2

Pointing to the consequences of your actions is not a threat. The fact that I would play no part in those consequences means that I am not threatening you, tacitly or otherwise.

you submit what I wrote to contextomy — NOS4A2

This is a common retreat tactic when the argument fails.

... while avoiding any and all arguments I present. — NOS4A2

I will let the record speak for itself.

I never suggested disobedience to the state. — NOS4A2

Really? You said:

Your obedience is apparent. But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice. — NOS4A2

Are you saying that you too are obedient to questionable authority, but it is not apparent? Is it that your obedience is not apparent? Why are you obedient when law and authority mean nothing?

I never suggested all conquest and confiscation in history was the result of the state. — NOS4A2

No, you didn't. You presented your "theory" about the formation of the state. I pointed out that these things predate the state. In other words, if they already occurred then how can they explain the formation of the state?

So I no longer care about your analysis of what I wrote. — NOS4A2

Okay, we can leave it here.

an awful lot to say and need an audience. — baker

:up: Politicians. :grin:

The problem arises when such societies force individuals to participate against their will. — Tzeentch

I guess that's why democracy tends to work best for the average Joe.

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.

One can see, even from this thread alone, that individualism is held in fear or contempt. — NOS4A2

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

Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. — NOS4A2

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

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?

One can see, even from this thread alone, that individualism is held in fear or contempt. — NOS4A2

I don't hold life in fear or contempt, yet I understand that it's not all it's cracked up to be. Same with individualism.

Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. — NOS4A2

I guess everyone (especially you?) is floundering around trying to nail down what individualist argument actually is. I've seen a metric shit-ton of refutations of what many people think it is. But yeah, if we're missing something, or wrong, maybe you should nail it down for us. But please don't move the target around every time someone hits the bulls eye, and then say they missed.

So I have to wonder how much of it is premised on the typical misrepresentation, and further, how much ignorance surmounts because of it. This to me is worthy of whining about. — NOS4A2

I see your point. Again, what is individualism and what are the misrepresentations of it? I remember we already tackled the false attribution of isolation and anarchy. So you don't need to go there. I don't remember what, if anything, has been done with alleged selfishness. But for the sake of argument, lets say individualists are not selfish.

However, simply saying the critiques ring hollow if maintained long after the opposite has been proven disastrous, is not getting to the point. Individualism should stand on it's own two feet, regardless of the quality of any opposite.

The two-valued orientation, I think, has been debunked. So we are left with the question: What, exactly, are you concerned about? And again, since we are not pitting either against or, I think it is incumbent upon you to show where the line is drawn between what individualism is, any misrepresentation thereof, and that which is pitted against it. If you want to avail yourself of this, while eschewing responsibility for that, I'm sorry. We will not allow you to do that. Your only option is the isolation which we've already taken off the plate.

Where most, if not all governments have some combination of each, at what point do we start whining? When I, personally, subjectively, feel put upon by others? When I just want to be left alone? That seems an impossible ask. "We the people" are not going to ask you for permission to make you pay for the costs of your existence that you externalize onto the backs of the rest of us. If you don't want to play, take your ball and go home. Oh, wait, there is no where to run anymore. Tough. (No thanks to individualism.)

I'm left with this feeling that individualism is like a religious good that can do no bad. Every blow against it must be wrong, simply because of this. Sorry, but if individualism wants to maintain any traction in the decades to come, it should come to the table, not only with a list of it's attributes, but with a list of ways that it will not externalize it's costs onto the backs of the rest of us. Or, at the very least, how it will pay for itself without subsidy.

It reminds me of the corporation, a creature of the state (it does not exist in nature), pleading to governments about all the investment capital it will free up from hiding, all the jobs it will create, all advancements that will be made, all the social benefits, if only the shareholders thereof can be protected by big government from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions.

That's all well and good, but a condition of this ability to hide behind big government skirts should include taxation on a paltry portion of the profits earned so the state can partially offset all the externalize costs born by those who would not voluntarily assume them. If the corporation wants to be allowed to shit in the river or pour tons of poison into the air, it should include a stipulation to abide regulation of the offending activities to ameliorate the downsides. The later is AKA meddling in individual affairs. Tough.

Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. — NOS4A2

Yes, I can understand how it might appear that way to you when you shut your eyes and ignore the refutations that have been given.

You are like the person who has been checkmated but thinks he has not lost because he continues to move pieces around.

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

Is a critic still a critic if he is unfamiliar with the literature? — NOS4A2

Yes, just not a good one.

I went straight to the punchline and didn't read your OP until now. Turns out you've thoroughly thwarted all criticisms yourself with:

"No individualist suggested 'taking man out of society'"

"Selfishness is present among collectivists, too"

And last but not least...

"Anarchy has never arrived"

These three aspects have been addressed in the topic and your reading comprehension seems good, so the issue must be the same as it frequently is with you, your honesty.

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