Ugh, you’re trolling skillz are getting embarrassing.

Can you be banned for low quality trolls?

Meddling or interfering. I feel I shouldn’t meddle in the lives of others. — NOS4A2

I'm just thinking that to meet your needs we'd have to clear an area for you, which you could farm or hunt and gather or whatever, so you could live unbothered by others and without bothering them. There's a decreasing number of spaces of dwindling size and resources, unfortunately. Perhaps colonising another planet would suit you.

Perhaps colonising another planet would suit you. — bert1

I suspect that is where he is from.

The emphasis of this thread seems to be on relationships between individuals and groups of individuals. The vocal point of individualism is rather the relationship between the state and the individual. I think that's where much of this thread has gotten stuck on. Terms like "state", "society" and "collective", can be used somewhat interchangably, however caricaturing the issue individualism has with states as an issue with any kind of interaction at all, is just that; a caricature.

The opponents of individualism seem to believe that the state holds a moral claim over the individual on the basis of dependency. in that regard seems to be the only one to state this plainly, however it is implicit in what other opponents of individualism have claimed here.

He stated:

No man is an island, the individualist's actions inevitably affect others, Beyond some petty grab for control it is necessary to rein in the individual for the good of the collective. Devoid of any sense of obligation to the group a person quickly becomes detached, drifting without any firm anchor of reciprocality to caution them. — New2K2

To this I replied:

What if he (the individual) regards "the collective" that attempts to rein him in as an immoral enterprise? — Tzeentch

This is a crucial question.

Is a woman that is born into Islamic fundamentalism somehow morally indebted to a society that oppresses and enslaves her?

To me the answer clearly is 'no'.

Unless one wishes to answer 'yes' to that last question, one must come to the conclusion that the moral claim that is being forwarded by opponents of individualism cannot rest on dependency alone.

Relationships work both ways. A group, or rather the leaders of a group, can take advantage of or abuse individuals. Individuals can freeload or betray the group. People can cooperate for mutual benefit or compete for resources.

Abused individuals owe no loyalty just as societies owe no loyalty to freeloaders and traitors.

I'm just thinking that to meet your needs we'd have to clear an area for you, which you could farm or hunt and gather or whatever, so you could live unbothered by others and without bothering them. There's a decreasing number of spaces of dwindling size and resources, unfortunately. Perhaps colonising another planet would suit you.

This sounds to me like meddling. Surely it cannot be that difficult to leave someone alone.

This sounds to me like meddling. Surely it cannot be that difficult to leave someone alone. — NOS4A2

It's not difficult at all, if they get the hell out of the way. :grin:

We used to have a saying in the Marine Corps: "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." I always thought that a little shortsighted, because it didn't account for a fourth option, which is "actively resist." So those are the four options life gives you.

The problem, as explained before, is there is no where left to go to get out of the way. We are going to find you. Especially those of us who just want to be left alone to do so. Sorry. Sincerely, sorry.

You need help to be left alone. Figure that one out and get back to me.

Abused individuals owe no loyalty just as societies owe no loyalty to freeloaders and traitors. — praxis

Is the woman in my example a freeloader or a traitor? (Or neither?)

, I hear Baffin Bay, Greenland, is good.
The Sirius Patrol doesn't cover the area.
You could run into the occasional polar bear and Inuit hunter/fisher (the former might be more likely to "meddle"), but otherwise good.
No one's gonna' bother you, it'll be you and freedom. (y)

Not bad. But I fear it will be prime real estate once you’ve had your way with the rest of the world.

This sounds to me like meddling. Surely it cannot be that difficult to leave someone alone. — NOS4A2

It's really hard, I think! What if you become a disease vector?

It's really hard, I think! What if you become a disease vector?

All the more reason to go bother someone else.

All the more reason to go bother someone else. — NOS4A2

But what if you start running around infecting people?

It's really hard, I think! What if you become a disease vector? — bert1

He is an intellectual disease vector. Fortunately many here have been inoculated.

He is an intellectual disease vector. Fortunately many here have been inoculated.

The inoculation of fake fallacies and quibbling.

Not bad. But I fear it will be prime real estate once you’ve had your way with the rest of the world. — NOS4A2

In your lifetime? Doubtful. You'll be meddle-free.

In your lifetime? Doubtful. You'll be meddle-free.

Moving to Greenland and occupying land there is a problem because I’d have to contend with the Danish state’s monopolization of it all. I wager that had the Danes left the Inuit alone there wouldn’t be this problem. But they meddled and claimed the land as their own.

Moving to Greenland and occupying land there is a problem because I’d have to contend with the Danish state’s monopolization of it all. I wager that had the Danes left the Inuit alone there wouldn’t be this problem. But they meddled and claimed the land as their own. — NOS4A2

No one would know. (Hence the location.)
Greenland has been autonomous for half a century or so (from unreliable memory).

No one would know. (Hence the location.)
Greenland has been autonomous for half a century or so (from unreliable memory).

True, except in matters of immigration. The Kingdom of Denmark gets to pick and choose who gets a permit to reside in Greenland. No so autonomous, I suppose.

immigration — NOS4A2

No need for that nonsense. Just make your own way there.
No one will care. Unless you travel by (Iowa-class) battleship?

Interdependence as a rationalization for behavior is rather unusual, probably because it's far too abstract an idea to be popularly adopted. There's no natural intuition to step back and look at the bigger picture, even though that could lead to a more fulfilling and sustainable outcome. So yeah, certainly couldn't rest with that alone.

Interdependence as a rationalization for behavior is rather unusual, probably because it's far too abstract an idea to be popularly adopted. There's no natural intuition to step back and look at the bigger picture, even though that could lead to a more fulfilling and sustainable outcome. So yeah, certainly couldn't rest with that alone. — praxis

I agree there is no natural intuition to step back and look at the bigger picture. I don't think it's natural for people (or any animal) to look at the big picture. However, I think interdependence has always been seen close up, and that is the reason we are here today. I think there is a natural intuition to step forward and find interdependence as a rationalization for behavior. It used to include our fellow travelers, and not just human beings.

Also we're naturally endowed with the capacity of reason and can override baser instincts and condition ourselves in particular ways.

Also we're naturally endowed with the capacity of reason and can override baser instincts and condition ourselves in particular ways. — praxis

I'm working on that. :grin:

Me too. Not yet to NOS's satisfaction though. :cry: :razz:

Me too. Not yet to NOS's satisfaction though.

I’m rooting for you.

I’m rooting for you. — NOS4A2

Then I'm in poor company (with Trump his ilk).

There is no good reason why in theory the individual and responsibility, or the individual and solidarity, ought not to coincide. These are entirely compatible insofar as we make them compatible. It starts with better intuitive understanding of the terms involved, and the abandonment of rigid thinking.

I think the philosophical issue is that of the atomised individual ego becoming the locus of meaning in a universe that is now understood to be devoid of it. Whereas in earlier times, individuals were situated in a matrix of social relationships, underwritten by divine law, with the advent of modern liberalism, the individual conscience assumes more of the role or arbiter of values at the same time that the advent of modern science declared that these have no real foundation in objective reality. — Wayfarer

Have been binge watching A Handmaid's Tale and in the tale the US is taken over by a group with a "matrix of social relationships underwritten by divine [men] law". Thinking about this today while driving it occurred to me that such a society may necessarily have to be patriarchal, because otherwise a family unit could be united against any oppression from the ruling class. Women would need to be an underclass in society in general and in each and every household. In the handmaid's tale women aren't allowed to read, even the Bible, or rather especially the Bible.

Surely it's not such an exclusive either/or thing?

Individuals go about their business in societies all the time.

So, there are some thresholds in whatever direction, where things go extreme or unacceptable.

We surrender some freedoms (don't murder), worry less about others taking your freedoms (don't get assaulted), do yours (contribute), utilize commons (infrastructures, hospitals), act responsibly, employ some to carry responsibilities (military, schools, politicians), ... (long list I guess)

We then discuss where reasonable thresholds are, find examples of overstepping or insufficient responses or whatever, so as to continuously improve, yes?

There are all kinds of inter-dependencies in societies; it's not like we'd get as far without some cooperation.