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. — NOS4A2

But this raises the question; what rights exists without the State? Only moral rights. But moral rights will be ignored by most people if they can get away with it. It's quite obvious from history that rights are best preserved and protected in a civilised society. Human rights, unfortunately, really are a luxury not available to most and a recent invention.

I would therefore argue that rights are only meaningful, if they are legal and therefore protected by the legal order and organisation of a State. Morality still informs us about the content of what those legal rights should be. The "I can grant rights" doesn't exist - it's merely a sentiment. You're not capable of protecting me from Russian or Chinese interference, or indeed Facebook's abuses, or enforce a contract for me against an unwilling counterparty. Your "granted rights" are in that sense worthless and in any case a contradiction in terms if your position is that I have intrinsic rights (who are you to grant me my rights?).

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. — NOS4A2

It's not confiscation if you don't have a claim to the income.

The reason why it matters whether it's fair or equitable is that if your morality is merely procedural, then obviously the legal procedure creates the moral basis for taxes. If you want to have a moral claim to income, you need to prove your claim to specific income is fair and equitable. But this isn't "priced" into markets, so the income paid is not a reflection of moral worth but happenstance.

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 It might be an outdated term but I couldn't think of a better one. — NOS4A2

You cited writers and philosophers before that I have read a long time ago but I'm not familiar with this. What is this "outdated term" based on?

I think it was Benkei who pointed out that individual rights tend to diminish with government reduction. — praxis

Individual rights do not diminish. One right is exchanged for another. In the discussion between big vs. small government, the trade off is between freedom and security. Where security is given to one, freedom (in essence also a type of security) is taken away from another, which is why I don't see the extension of individual rights by governments as a more = better type of deal.

Further, I believe governments and the type of individuals that lead them end up undermining the individual rights they claim to uphold, due to the corrupting nature of power.

So using government as a tool to contiunously attempt to expand individual rights is a self-defeating ideal.

I don't know about that. Private people, organizations, charities etc. are quite capable. You yourself are as well, but you'd rather beg the state to do it for you. So much for concern.

But this raises the question; what rights exists without the State? Only moral rights. But moral rights will be ignored by most people if they can get away with it. It's quite obvious from history that rights are best preserved and protected in a civilised society. Human rights, unfortunately, really are a luxury not available to most and a recent invention.

I would therefore argue that rights are only meaningful, if they are legal and therefore protected by the legal order and organisation of a State. Morality still informs us about the content of what those legal rights should be. The "I can grant rights" doesn't exist - it's merely a sentiment. You're not capable of protecting me from Russian or Chinese interference, or indeed Facebook's abuses, or enforce a contract for me against an unwilling counterparty. Your "granted rights" are in that sense worthless and in any case a contradiction in terms if your position is that I have intrinsic rights (who are you to grant me my rights?).

It’s true. Rights are best secured by those in power. But those rights, whatever form they may take, are subject to their whim and can disappear with the scribble of the pen. History also shows that the state routinely denies human rights, even after they’ve been secured.

I don't believe in intrinsic rights because rights are man made, but I believe everyone is deserving of rights. Anyone can grant rights, king or commoner, because a right is little more than the promise of an obligation. When I grant you free speech I take it as an obligation to refuse censoring you; when I grant you the freedom of religion I take it as an obligation to refuse interfering in your religious customs; and I take it as my duty to defend your rights because I believe in your rights and freedoms as I do mine. This occurs with or without your consent or knowledge. Perhaps that’s worthless to you, and you would have no legal recourse if I violate the obligation, but to me it means a great deal.

It’s not confiscation if you don't have a claim to the income.

The reason why it matters whether it's fair or equitable is that if your morality is merely procedural, then obviously the legal procedure creates the moral basis for taxes. If you want to have a moral claim to income, you need to prove your claim to specific income is fair and equitable. But this isn't "priced" into markets, so the income paid is not a reflection of moral worth but happenstance.

I don’t understand the fair and equitable part or how it relates to the state’s claim to my money. If I want to prove a moral claim to the fruits of my own labor I need only refer to the consensual agreement between myself and whomever I’m doing business with. The state cannot refer to any such agreement.
The state doesn’t have a claim to my income as far as I’m concerned, nor does it have any claim to any other kind of tax: capital gains tax, property tax, federal and provincial sales tax, inheritance or estate tax, and on and on. I consider it confiscation because it takes it without my permission, without asking, without my input. I consider it forced labor because a portion of my labor is spent providing for the state.

You cited writers and philosophers before that I have read a long time ago but I'm not familiar with this. What is this "outdated term" based on?

I believe it is a term of sociology, but I do not quite know what it is based on.

using government as a tool to contiunously attempt to expand individual rights is a self-defeating ideal. — Tzeentch

I'm not sure what you mean or if anyone has claimed otherwise.

Typically wealthy people and organizations generally work together and coordinate with government agencies. At the very least they do not regard all government as the enemy as you seem to. No private entity has the ability to organize and implement on the massive scale of countries like the US.

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

Nothing, as long your individualism doesn't trample on another's right to be an individual. In this sense, you cease being pro-individualism the moment you think your individuality trumps someone else's. The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian.

It's really that simple. All the other complaints in this thread aren't about individualism, but about authoritarianism - when an individual ceases to recognize the individuality of others and impose their way of life on others, or when an individual thinks that they are the only individual.

The problem is that people in this thread that are complaining about individualism are actually complaining about people that believe that individualism entails only believing that you are the only individual. Individualism doesn't only entail that you are an individual, but others are too. Authoritarianism is the idea that you are the most important individual, not individualism.

What part don't you understand?

... you cease being pro-individualism the moment you think your individuality trumps someone else's. The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian. — Harry Hindu

Well said!

The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian. — Harry Hindu

Ohhhhh, I thought the whole point was freedom or personal liberty. Boy did I have it all wrong. :yikes:

Ohhhhh, I thought the whole point was freedom or personal liberty. Boy did I have it all wrong — praxis

Not all wrong - half wrong. Freedom and personal liberty for not just one individual, but all individuals. Seems like a pretty simple concept to grasp to me.

Sure, an individual in a weak socioeconomic position is entirely free to fuck-off and die, for instance. The problem, as stated from the beginning, is responsibility. Generally speaking, being responsible can result in increased stability and sustainability. Not exciting goals, and being responsible is a big bummer, but cooperation for mutual benefit has its benefits. It can be a more meaningful way of life. A rat race is for rats.

Sure, an individual in a weak socioeconomic position is entirely free to fuck-off and die, for instance. — praxis

Or free to make something better for themselves. Anyone trying to prevent that isn't a freedom-loving individualist, rather a freedom-is-only-for-me authoritarian. So your complaints are never about a fault in the idea of individualism, rather about the faults of the idea of authoritarianism. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Why is that so difficult to grasp? — Harry Hindu

I'd say it has something to do with physics. Everything you do has an impact on others. Just being consumes perfectly good space that could better be used by nothing. When you start moving beyond being, you start using what used to be perfectly good air, drinking what used to be perfectly good water, eating what used to be perfectly good food. But when you start procreating, oh man! Now you've really done it!

The point here is, there is no free lunch. The individual externalizes the cost of his existence onto the backs of those who did not agree to assume those costs in an arm's length, informed transaction. So, we get together and agree to look the other way while we all go about being.

So your complaints are never about a fault in the idea of individualism, rather about the faults of the idea of authoritarianism. — Harry Hindu

That doesn’t make sense because an autocrat can be a responsible autocrat that acts cooperatively with society for the benefit of all, or more likely act irresponsibly and take advantage of their position for personal gain, perhaps even going so far as to deliberately impoverish the citizenry to better secure their autocracy.

To me it seems that the basic whole point, as you say, is that the individualist wants to compete and the collectivist wants to cooperate. Some think that competition is the natural way and others think that, because we have the capacity of reason, there may be a better way.

The point here is, there is no free lunch. The individual externalizes the cost of his existence onto the backs of those who did not agree to assume those costs in an arm's length, informed transaction. — James Riley

Nor did the individual agree.

This situation you sketch is brought about by individuals who chose to have children, and by a state that facilitated a certain standard of living.

One cannot force these conditions on an individual and then claim one is entitled to their coorperation.

Nor did the individual agree. — Tzeentch

Yes, he did, and he did so by accepting the benefits of everyone looking the other way.

This situation you sketch is brought about by individuals who chose to have children, and by a state that facilitated a certain standard of living. — Tzeentch

The situation I sketch is brought about by individuals who have individuals, regardless of the state.

One cannot force these conditions on an individual and then claim one is entitled to their coorperation. — Tzeentch

Yes, one can. And so can many. Anyone who doesn't like it can kill themselves.

Do I understand you correctly that you believe people not killing themselves is a sign that they agree?

Do I understand you correctly that you believe people not killing themselves is a sign that they agree? — Tzeentch

That, or not leaving and going somewhere else. Oh, wait, they can't! Because individuals, exercising their god-given right to breed more individuals, have stepped on their own dick. There is no where left to go. Individualism brought this on itself. There is always going to be people. You see, the social contract is an adhesion contract and, as far as I know, the U.S. is the best deal going. So yeah, not leaving or not killing yourself is agreement to accept the benefits of society in return for them exercising sovereignty over you.

I live in an area where individualist go to get away from individuals. It's sad to see what they have done to the environment without regulation. They've ruined it and created exactly what they thought they were trying to get away from, with their stupid "Don't Tread On Me" and "Trump" flags. I'd love to regulate the hell out of them, but this is 'Merica, right? What really pisses me off, is half of them can't handle the isolation so they either leave their detritus behind and go, or they spend half their time in town. Jeesh.

Haha, alright.

Lets say I trap you in a cage and force you to work for me. Every moment you do not kill yourself by holding your breath until you die of asphyxiation is a moment you agreed to my terms, no?

Lets say I trap you in a cage and force you to work for me. Every moment you do not kill yourself by holding your breath until you die of asphyxiation is a moment you agreed to my terms, no? — Tzeentch

False equivalence. I'm not trapped in a cage and no one is forcing me to do shit. If, on the other hand, I voluntarily went into your cage to receive three hots and a cot and to have you protect me from getting trapped in a cage and forced to work for that other asshole, then yeah, I agreed. Especially when I could just leave if I wanted to.

Pick a cage: The one you can leave, or the one you can't leave. Of course, there is a third option: pick the cage you can leave, but don't. Sit around and whine about the cage you chose. The cage you helped create just by being. You are a bar in my cage.

P.S. I'd love to stay and play, but I'm going into the big city to get me some of that.

People didn't choose the society they were born into, so the analogy of a cage fits perfectly.

People didn't choose the society they were born into, so the analogy of a cage fits perfectly. — Tzeentch

Some individualist chose for them. But the cage analogy does not fit. You can leave.

Some individualist chose for them. — James Riley

Are you being serious?

Are you being serious? — Tzeentch

As a heart attack. The state isn't making individualists breed. They are doing that on their own. If an individualist doesn't like the cage they are in, and if they feel trapped in that cage like they can't leave (they can) then why bring another individual into the cage? That's on the individualist. It's a cage of their own making.

Anyway, the wife is pulling me out the door. The floor is yours. I'll catch up later.

One cannot force these conditions on an individual and then claim one is entitled to their coorperation. — Tzeentch

You can’t say that these conditions are forced on an individual that is at first completely unaware of them and then later at some point may realize they are dependent on them. If independence is ever reached then an individual may opt-out.

I don't see how that changes the fact that these conditions are forced upon the individual. That the individual only realizes these things at a later age, when he is firmly rooted in whatever system he finds himself in, only makes things worse because it reduces his chances of being able to leave.

I don't see how that changes the fact that these conditions are forced upon the individual. — Tzeentch

That's a bit like saying wetness is forced upon water. It is true that every individual finds themselves embedded in relations which they are not able to easily change or abrogate. But so do they find themselves subject to the laws of physics. Do we level a charge at the laws of physics for their tyrannical nature?

We can change the type and makeup of the social conditions "forced upon" the individual. But we cannot simply wish them away, because individuals cannot exist outside these conditions.

The most difficult aspect, or at least, most frustrating aspect, of attempting to extricate oneself from a society in which one is found is that either A: it can never be total, something from said society will always somehow manage to bite you in the ass, or B: you end up in yet another annoying society that you still don't want to play in, and once again, end up looking for the door.

If an individual manages to self-isolate effectively for awhile they tend to respond even more poorly to being disturbed by society later Think Unabomber here.

At best we can hope to achieve a modicum of individual freedom by playing well enough within societal rules (whichever one you are in) that one is never on the radar, and therefore no one around knows that you really are ambivalent to society. That's about as good as it gets.

Of course I agree.

In my mind the collectivist rhetoric only serves to disguise the authoritarian impulse. What’s feigned to be done for the whole is always done for one portion of it at the expense of another. That the anti-individualist creed is a veritable rogue’s gallery of tinpot dictators and authoritarians from all brands of ideologies makes this evident. Even though it is fallacious of me to dismiss the anti-individualist argument because of the company they keep, I no less pity them for having to stand on the sunken shoulders of these types of giants.