The great thing about 'rights' of course, is that they are obligations. Obligations for everyone else, upon you. The audacity!

The unit of analysis that is implict in any notion of rights is the group, and not the individual. Although 'individualists' like to forget this. Which says something too about the poverty of individualism. Its issue is not that that it elevates 'the indvidual' above the group: it's that it reifies an entirely false conception of the individual which leaves actual individuals worse off in every sense.

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. — NOS4A2

Even if the idea is individualism?

Like if I had some kind of weapon that allowed me to capture and control the minds of large masses of people and cause them to establish some kind of tyranny, would the prevention of that tyranny be grounds to sacrifice me as an individual?

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. — NOS4A2

Aren't all affairs private affairs from a strict individualist perspective?

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? — Tzeentch

Even if you're indebted to a society, you can still be justified in rejecting it. Those are not mutually exclusive.

The state is a paternalistic institution, so your analogy is quite apt. Unfortunately, I'm one of those whiny little bitches. I see taxes as forced labor and theft, the profits of which go to war, imprisonment, and ineffectual bureaucracy, as much as it does to roads and bridges. The state's modus operandi hasn't changed much since its conception in conquest and exploitation. All that has changed is the growing dependency on its existence, an increase in the religious fervor used to defend it, and all in inverse proportion to the decline of social power.

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

No, do you?

Even if the idea is individualism?

Like if I had some kind of weapon that allowed me to capture and control the minds of large masses of people and cause them to establish some kind of tyranny, would the prevention of that tyranny be grounds to sacrifice me as an individual?

Yes, because you are enslaving and denying the rights of individuals.

Aren't all affairs private affairs from a strict individualist perspective?

I've never heard of that angle but there might be some out there who hold that perspective.

You do realise this is totally a-historical? Rights were and are granted by the state. Human rights are a civilised luxury, nothing fundamental about it.

I see taxes as forced labor and theft — NOS4A2

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.

A moral right to pre-tax can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.

Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft.

decline of social power — NOS4A2

What do you mean with social power?

Yes, because you are enslaving and denying the rights of individuals. — NOS4A2

So are the individuals who stop our would-be overlord. If everyone is just individuals, then prima facie, any motivation is equivalent, and preventing a murder is equivalent to murdering someone.

. In fact, there is nothing wrong with individualism ...

. Follow this criterion ...

. Anything that goes against individuality is wrong ... Anything that spoils and poisons your individuality ... your very being ... your very uniqueness ... is essencially wrong ... Anything that tries to conform you to anything else but you and take away your singularity ... coming from your innermost core ... is absolutely wrong.

. Individuality is exactly what it means: it is individual. Personality is not individual, it is social.

. Society wants you to have personalities not individualities ... Society wants you to conform to others ... Society wants you unnintelligent ... because just unintelligent beings can be easily but subtly enslaved to monotonous and stupid jobs. For example, spend the whole Life being a clerk. That's tremendously insensitive.You are not allowed to be the way you are ... you are allowed to be carbon copys of others ... whose Life is meaningless ... so you can be easily manipulated through your so-called beloved politicians ...

. They perfectly know ... since 5,000 years ... that your individualities if not corrupted will create conflit. The society hides your individuality ... puts you a blind man ... and gives a personality ... a mask ... that's the meaning of personality ... from a greek root ... Did you know that? In Greek drama the actors used to wear masks to hide their real face and to show some other face. From persona comes the word personality, it is a mask that you wear, it is not your original face.

. When the personality disappears, don't be afraid. For the first time, you become authentic ... for the first time you become real ... for the first time you attain to essence. That essence, in India, has been called atma, the soul.

. The ego is the center of personality and godliness is the center of essence. That's why there is so much insistance from every corner that ego has to be dropped: unless you know what you are, not what you are expected to be ...

. Personality is false, it is the greatest lie. And because the whole society depends on personality, the state, the church, organizations, the establishment are all lies. The western psychology goes on thinking about the personality too much, that's why the whole of western psychology is a psychology based on the basic lie. The East is being westernized as well ... and ... unfortunately ... the ancient wisdom ... is being lost ...

. Human beings must think in terms of essence, not of the personality. That which you have brought, that which is your intrinsic nature, that which is your intrinsic essence has to be known and has to be lived ...

. Personality is that which you are not ... but ... cunningly ... try to show that you are. Personality is that which you have to use as a convenience when you move in society.

. But you'll see that ... when you're alone surrounding by nature ... personality ... spontaneously ... is dropped ... and ... in that moment ... you truly are ...

I'm not reading all that

Society wants you to have personalities not individualities ... Society wants you to conform to others ... Society wants you unnintelligent ... because just unintelligent beings can be easily but subtly enslaved to monotonous and stupid jobs. For example, spend the whole Life being a clerk. That's tremendously insensitive.You are not allowed to be the way you are ... you are allowed to be carbon copys of others ... whose Life is meaningless ... so you can be easily manipulated through your so-called beloved politicians — Anand-Haqq

This is one reason I'm against procreation. Birthing more people, is implicitly birthing people with the limitations of a socioeconomic creature (that is to say we become limited to the "options" of work, homelessness/poverty, free-riding (looked down upon), and death/suicide). Seems tyrannical.. an overlooking of an individual to put them in this game. It's needed once alive, but why does one need to go through it in the first place?

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

And yet that "concern for all persons" does not extend to their health or whether children have food and shelter.

Evidently your concern extends only to yourself and the principle of the right to be left alone.

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. — NOS4A2

Your defense of Trump has been nothing short of heroic. You've demonstrated such devotion that someone accused you of insanity the other day. I'd think that a virtue of individualism is in how individuals can abandon loyalties when what they've been loyal to becomes self-defeating.

In your scenario the culprit is Islamic fundamentalism. — praxis

I don't think so. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea. It is given power by individuals that choose to adopt it and impose it on others. I could have chosen various other examples, but I tried to make the injustice as clear as possible.

The principle at play here, is that the moral and physical impositions of the collective undermine the interests of the individual. We recognize that as injustice, especially when the injustice is magnified by one's own moral framework. Can you recognize it too when one's own moral framework is what hides it?


Well said!

You do realise this is totally a-historical? Rights were and are granted by the state, . Human rights are a civilised luxury, nothing fundamental about it.

I don't realize that because the state also denies rights, or otherwise granted themselves selectively: to nobles, the wealthy, members of certain races, members of certain sexes, and so on. The examples are myriad and not worth repeating.

I also grant rights, as can anyone else, and we don't need any legislation to do so. Should someone infringe on your rights I'll be right there defending you.

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.

A moral right to pre-tax can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.

Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft.

My point is it doesn’t matter if the confiscation is legal or not; it is still theft. If someone confiscates my resources without my permission and for their own use, whether state or man on the street, it’s theft. I don’t excuse someone for theft because he makes the laws or claims a right to my income.

I can’t see why it would matter if the income is fair and equitable. What matters is that someone is confiscating what another has earned.

What do you mean with social power?

Social power is often contrasted with state power. It’s wherever the locus of power is in society or the community and not in the government. It might be an outdated term but I couldn't think of a better one.

And yet that "concern for all persons" does not extend to their health or whether children have food and shelter.

Evidently your concern extends only to yourself and the principle of the right to be left alone.

Evidently you’re mistaken, because you didn’t ask if I was concerned with the poor and whether children have food and water.

Do you afford these rights?

In your scenario the culprit is Islamic fundamentalism.
— praxis

I don't think so. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea. — Tzeentch

Best I can make out you seem to be saying that Islamic fundamentalism considers itself invalid because it's an idea. I don't think that's what you're trying to say.

I see taxes as forced labor and theft, the profits of which go to war, imprisonment, and ineffectual bureaucracy, as much as it does to roads and bridges. — NOS4A2

The difference is, the state is, ultimately, under our control. When corporations control the state, we fascism (ala Mussolini). So, the state's train schedule sucks. I agree. But I'd rather that than corporate trains that run on time while hauling you off to work for them.

That essence, in India, has been called atma, the soul.

...

... the whole society depends on personality, the state, the church, organizations, the establishment are all lies. — Anand-Haqq

I don't know what's odd about what I wrote, but I rephrased it for you:

I don't think so. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea, and ideas don't oppress people. People oppress people. Ideas are given power by individuals that choose to adopt them and impose them on others. I could have chosen various other examples, but I tried to make the injustice as clear as possible.

The principle at play here, is that the moral and physical impositions of the collective undermine the interests of the individual. We recognize that as injustice, especially when the injustice is magnified by one's own moral framework. Can you recognize it too when one's own moral framework is what hides it? — Tzeentch

The principle at play here, is that the moral and physical impositions of the collective undermine the interests of the individual. — Tzeentch

What if a collective has little power and an individual has a lot of power, might not that individual undermine the interests of the collective? If the individual liked the power and wanted to stay in power they might intentionally take actions that weaken a collective in order to keep that power. The individual might try to make it difficult for the collective to organize, for instance, or promote the virtue of Individualism, and undermine their collective power. And of course divide and conquer has always been a crowd pleasing strategy.

We recognize that as injustice, especially when the injustice is magnified by one's own moral framework. Can you recognize it too when one's own moral framework is what hides it? — Tzeentch

I think moral frameworks rationalize behavior and not necessarily magnify or hide it.

What if a collective has little power and an individual has a lot of power, might not that individual undermine the interests of the collective? — praxis

You mean like Somalia?

Evidently you’re mistaken, because you didn’t ask if I was concerned with the poor and whether children have food and water. — NOS4A2

So, you are "concerned" but don't think they have a right to health care or help when needed. Do you recognize the rights to life, liberty, happiness, and property? Do you think they are rights only as long as people are lucky enough to have them?

You mean like Somalia? — James Riley

Or just grown-ups.



Not the best example but was too adorable to resist.

What if a collective has little power and an individual has a lot of power, might not that individual undermine the interests of the collective? — praxis

Yes, and in general terms I would consider it desirable that the interests of the individual are put before the interests of the state. Individuals are almost always going to be the weaker party in the relationship between them and the state, and therefore need to be protected.

If the individual liked the power and wanted to stay in power they might intentionally take actions that weaken a collective in order to keep that power. The individual might try to make it difficult for the collective to organize, for instance, or promote the virtue of Individualism, and undermine their collective power. And of course divide and conquer has always been a crowd pleasing strategy. — praxis

Power hungry individuals are, sadly, everywhere. And by not giving them strong states to hold power over, the evil they can do to the individual is at least limited. I believe this is in fact a good argument in favor of individualism.

So, you are "concerned" but don't think they have a right to health care or help when needed. Do you recognize the rights to life, liberty, happiness, and property? Do you think they are rights only as long as people are lucky enough to have them?

I think they should be helped, of course. Do you afford them these rights?

I think they should be helped, of course. — NOS4A2

But not by you and not with the tax dollars you are required to pay. You just want to be left alone.

Do you afford them these rights? — NOS4A2

I do not think of it in terms of rights. This is a fundamental problem with modern liberalism, everything is seen through the lens of individual rights. I do not "afford" people rights.

But not by you and not with the tax dollars you are required to pay. You just want to be left alone.

I can, will and have helped people in need both with my money and my efforts. My efforts and concern extend beyond begging the state to take care of people in need.

I do not think of it in terms of rights. This is a fundamental problem with modern liberalism, everything is seen through the lens of individual rights. I do not "afford" people rights.

Then what is the problem?

Power hungry individuals are, sadly, everywhere. And by not giving them strong states to hold power over... — Tzeentch

I think it was Benkei who pointed out that individual rights tend to diminish with government reduction. Dictatorships, for instance, are most secure with small coalitions of power and weak individual rights.

I can, will and have helped people in need both with my money and my efforts. My efforts and concern extend beyond begging the state to take care of people in need. — NOS4A2

But the state can do things much more effectively. Handling of the coronavirus is a good example. You as a individual are powerless. You are also incapable of providing healthcare, food, and shelter to large numbers of people.