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

:100: :up:

Once again: What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is because of this that you cannot be left alone. The only way what you do would not affect others is if you lived in isolation. To be left alone you must be alone. And even then there would be an impact on others. — Fooloso4

Well said.

Concern for others, common welfare, the common good, the simple fact that what we do (or don’t do) has real consequences on the world (including people) around us, etc, has been so thoroughly beaten out of people’s heads that they come to admire Ebenezer Scrooge.

We know where this dangerous nonsense comes from, and why it continues: it comes from the mouths of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other (perhaps unwitting) apologists for the plutocrats — and it persists because it’s useful to said plutocrats. Plain and simple.

It’s a truly sick mentality, and leads to sick outcomes.

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

Dependecy is the argument that I have seen the most in this thread. I struggle to remember any others that were put forward. What else is there?

And may I assume you don't view the woman in my example as either a freeloader or a traitor?

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

I guess we could frame the question in the context of power (weakness/strength). Our weaknesses push us towards collectivism and our strengths pull us towards indiviualism. Between the push and pull of weakness and strength respectively, our psyche is, in a way, torn into two - we need to band together but we want to live alone. Individualism is going to be an uphill task for the simple reason that weaknesses have a greater weightage than strengths - ignoring the former spells doom but surrendering the latter only means you share. I suppose in some sense dying is worse than sharing, you be the judge.

On top of that, our values, even those related to individualism, seems to have evolved in the setting of collectivism which makes it harder for individualists to ground themselves outside of collectivism. What's the point of being able to do whatever what one wants if their significance is rooted in a collectivistic mise-en-scène?

Perhaps my reading of individualism is a caricature of sorts but I'm just following the scent of individualists in a manner of speaking and it led to what I outlined in the preceding few paragraphs.

And may I assume you don't view the woman in my example as either a freeloader or a traitor? — Tzeentch

Presumably she was enslaved against her will and in order to provide some value to the enslavers. Your scenario didn’t touch on betrayal.

I like what you wrote. It reminded me that the schism is chalked full of irony.

All collectives are composed of individuals. If you add it all up it becomes clear that collectivism is exclusive, individualism inclusive. If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons, refusing to sacrifice a single one of them for some collective. If you believe the collective is primary, you will sacrifice or discipline any individual who threatens its unity, excluding them from the will of the party.

I think it’s evident individuals do and should cooperate. I just don’t think any person should be sacrificed for an idea, whether it’s the “greater good”, the nation, the party, humanity itself.

If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons, refusing to sacrifice a single one of them for some collective. — NOS4A2

If I were the primary unit of concern, for example, why would I necessarily have concern for all units?

If I were the primary unit of concern, for example, why would I necessarily have concern for all units?

Because all units are individuals.

I just don’t think any person should be sacrificed for an idea, whether it’s the “greater good”, the nation, the party, humanity itself. — NOS4A2

I'm not going to dispute that. I will, however, remind that the idea of service is often justified by the individual as a recognition there is something greater than the self. I know most guys will say that when it comes down to it, they are fighting for the guy next to them, and not God, Country, Flag and all that. But the reasons they join in the first place, and find meaning in continued service outside of combat, are these ideals, or feelings of being part of something bigger. Something they believe in. A guy like you, for instance, may think he's joining up and fighting for the ideals of individualism that are expressed in our organic documents. But those documents were inclined toward a more perfect union, and "we, the people." If we were to undermine that motivation, I wonder if cooperation would suffer.

In short, as I've said before, you need people to be left alone. Counter-intuitive, but true nonetheless.

As a side note, having some sympathy for your position, as I've expressed before, I wonder why we engage. I don't know about you, but because of my circumstances, I have been blessed with an absolute metric shit-ton of opportunity to be left alone. Yet I come in here, as do you, and engage. What is it about me that seeks contact, seeks to hone, seeks to express? Why don't I just step away from the computer, the T.V., go read, go hunt, go hike, go fish, go practice the guitar, go write (not this stuff on web, but memoirs, books, poetry and whatnot), spend time immersed in the lives of family, loved ones and the few friends I have? Why do you and I feel it is important to spend our time here, engaging with community?

The more I read what I just wrote, the more I'm inclined to practice what you preach.

Then you’re not really talking about individuals but some abstract idea or collection of units, like ‘human beings’. In that case you have a lesser concern for units that are not human. I suppose that’s why oppressors dehumanize the oppressed.

Well said and enjoyable to read.

Unfortunately for me I'm stuck at my desk, but I shall be out foraging for morels and oyster mushrooms in about 3 hours time, so long as the weather holds up. Like you I come here to hone my ideas and to read other points of view. But I would not recommend seeing this as a social activity, because we are each literally alone. I would argue this is anti-social behavior. Had we all been around a pub table I doubt these sorts of conversations would occur.

Then you’re not really talking about individuals but some abstract idea or collection of units, like ‘human beings’. In that case you have a lesser concern for units that are not human. I suppose that’s why oppressors dehumanize the oppressed.

"individual" is an abstraction, yes, but it fits on all human beings. Individualism is concern with human affairs, sure, but it does not prohibit concern for other beings.

"individual" is an abstraction, yes, but it fits on all human beings. Individualism is concern with human affairs, sure, but it does not prohibit concern for other beings. — NOS4A2

The hierarchy is usually something like family > religious or political affiliation > neighborhood > nation, abstract notions aside.

But I would not recommend seeing this as a social activity, because we are each literally alone. — NOS4A2

That may very well be what happens to a man who is voluntarily isolated from the pub table: He starts to view this as a social activity. Regardless, he is drawn back into communication with others and a reliance upon them for honing and exposure. Real world would be better, but aren't we eschewing that?

The hierarchy is usually something like family > religious or political affiliation > neighborhood > nation, abstract notions aside.

Sounds about right. Personally I find little affiliation with many of those groups but I am nonetheless concerned with how each member is treated by them.

That may very well be what happens to a man who is voluntarily isolated from the pub table: He starts to view this as a social activity. Regardless, he is drawn back into communication with others and a reliance upon them for honing and exposure. Real world would be better, but aren't we eschewing that?

Yes, I think you’re right. Communication with others is not only desirable, but necessary, or else we end up someone like Genie.

Sounds about right. Personally I find little affiliation with many of those groups but I am nonetheless concerned with how each member is treated by them. — NOS4A2

Well I can only hope your love for family trumps your love for Trump and laissez-faire (fuck the working class) capitalism. Other than that, if I recall correctly, you claim to be a godless expatriate so no loyalties there.

Presumably she was enslaved against her will and in order to provide some value to the enslavers. Your scenario didn’t touch on betrayal. — praxis

You mentioned freeloaders and traitors, and I thought you were going somewhere with that.

Anyway, since we seem to agree the individual's dependency is not a sufficient basis for collectivism, what else is there?

Presumably she was enslaved against her will and in order to provide some value to the enslavers. Your scenario didn’t touch on betrayal.
— praxis

You mentioned freeloaders and traitors, and I thought you were going somewhere with that. — Tzeentch

I mentioned that "societies owe no loyalty to freeloaders and traitors."

we seem to agree the individual's dependency is not a sufficient basis for collectivism — Tzeentch

How did we arrive at this agreement exactlly?

Didn't we agree that the woman born into a Islamic fundamentalist society is not morally indebted to that society simply by virtue of dependency?

I mentioned that "Abused individuals owe no loyalty" meaning that any moral intuition or social norm could be justifiably considered invalid in that situation when looking at it from the perspective of interdependence and cooperation for mutual benefit. From the perspective of dog-eat-dog competition, slavery is cheap and offers an advantage that can't be shared by all.

I mentioned that "Abused individuals owe no loyalty" meaning that any moral intuition or social norm could be justifiably considered invalid in that situation when looking at it from the perspective of interdependence and cooperation for mutual benefit. From the perspective of dog-eat-dog competition, slavery is cheap and offers an advantage that can't be shared by all. — praxis

I ask you, pray do tell us: what is the trigger, and what is the response in Slave-keeping societies, and in Abused Uncles' Shelters where dog-eat-dog is the competitive norm of cooperative cannibalism, that establishes the morality or the lack thereof of invalid justification of interdependent perspectives?

Would that approach not reduce the number of dogs ultimately to one, by the processes of cannibalism and elimination, and their being a diploid species, not cause the extinction of these noble friends of man?

I mentioned that "Abused individuals owe no loyalty" meaning that any moral intuition or social norm could be justifiably considered invalid in that situation when looking at it from the perspective of interdependence and cooperation for mutual benefit. From the perspective of dog-eat-dog competition, slavery is cheap and offers an advantage that can't be shared by all. — praxis

Ok, as far as the first part of your response goes, I think we are in agreement.

Is there any perspective, other than dog-eat-dog competition (essentially "might makes right"), for which these moral intuitions or social norms, in the example we discussed, would not be considered invalid?

It is my view that there aren't. I'm also assuming that, like me, you don't find "might makes right" a convincing moral idea.

If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons — NOS4A2

Except it is not the individual that is the primary concern. The primary concern of individualism is ME.

If your primary concern is for all persons then your thinking has matured beyond individualism. If so then you have figured out what is wrong with individualism.

Is there any perspective, other than dog-eat-dog competition (essentially "might makes right"), for which these moral intuitions or social norms, in the example we discussed, would not be considered invalid? — Tzeentch

In your scenario the culprit is Islamic fundamentalism.

That's not true.

The point is that all persons are individuals and I afford each of them certain rights. If her rights are violated I get concerned, not only for her but for me and others as well.

the extinction of these noble friends of man? — god must be atheist

Perish the thought.

Well I can only hope your love for family trumps your love for Trump and laissez-faire (fuck the working class) capitalism. Other than that, if I recall correctly, you claim to be a godless expatriate so no loyalties there.

I don't mind the concept of laissez-faire because it implies the state keeping their hands off of private affairs. But when corporations seek favor from state power my defense ends.

But when corporations seek favor from state power my defense ends. — NOS4A2

You probably already know this, but the corporation is a state favor to investors. The corporation is a creature of Big Government and does not exist in nature. Big Government specifically holds investors harmless so they don't have to take personal responsibility of their own actions.

We can ignore, for now, the question of how investors (or anyone else for that matter) came into possession of "their" capital in the first place. Chase it back and you will find theft. You will find someone who was left alone to put their hands on someone else's private affairs.

You probably already know this, but the corporation is a state favor to investors. The corporation is a creature of Big Government and does not exist in nature. Big Government specifically holds investors harmless so they don't have to take personal responsibility of their own actions.

We can ignore, for now, the question of how investors (or anyone else for that matter) came into possession of "their" capital in the first place. Chase it back and you will find theft. You will find someone who was left alone to put their hands on someone else's private affairs.

That's true. The corporation is the child of mercantilism. The state often granted single corporations monopoly on entire industries, which often led to colonialism. So much for laissez-faire and free markets.

The state often granted single corporations monopoly on entire industries, which often led to colonialism. — NOS4A2

That is for sure the most egregious example.

But even without monopoly, the state, in it's wisdom, thought to entice capital, locked up in cowardly fear of loss, out into the markets for the benefit of everyone. That can be a good thing.

The only problem is, when "capital" starts getting uppity, believing that it grew on it's own hard or smart work, without any help, and as a "risk taker" who then whines like a little bitch when government seeks to tax as small portion of the profits to offset the corporation's externalized costs, or to otherwise build roads and bridges that benefit the corporation and everyone. The corporation says "government is not the solution, it is the problem." That's like saying it's time to kill your mom and dad and eat them, while your brother and sister starve.

The point is that all persons are individuals and I afford each of them certain rights. — NOS4A2

What are these rights that you afford them? Do you afford them the right to healthcare? Food and shelter for indigent minors?