You're missing out. — NOS4A2
You claimed that individualism seeks to secure power over others. This is not the case, as individualism recognizes such things as every individual's right to self-determination.
What you're doing is trying to blame individualism for negative human traits like greed and will to power, which is exactly the type of mischaracterization that Harry Hindu pointed out earlier. You're framing individualism as a form of egotism, which it is not. — Tzeentch
That's a lie, I never claimed that individualism seeks to secure power over others. I said there may be the implication that an individualist wants to secure their power by eliminating the competition, ... — praxis
I hope you two kids are having fun playing with your little strawmen. — praxis
That isn't what you said. EIther way, it doesn't follow.I said there may be the implication that an individualist wants to secure their power by eliminating the competition — praxis
All you are doing now is repeating yourself without providing any evidence for what you are saying. All you have to do is read your own words here and in other threads, and look at history to understand that groups are just as competitive as individuals.Actually if there's any implication along this line it's that the Individualist wants to desimate the competition in order to secure their position of power. — praxis
That's a lie, I never claimed that individualism seeks to secure power over others. I said there may be the implication that an individualist wants to secure their power by eliminating the competition, ...
— praxis
That would make them a non-individualist, then. — Tzeentch
So individualist are in favor of antitrust laws? I thought y’all was all about FREEDOM!! — praxis
Individualism really isn't a model for economics. In general individualism promotes freedom, but I think what you are not understanding is that while that is the case, it may not necessarily agree with what individuals use that freedom for. Much in the same spirit of the famous quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". — Tzeentch
How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion
So individualist are in favor of antitrust laws? I thought y’all was all about FREEDOM!!
— praxis
Individualism really isn't a model for economics. In general individualism promotes freedom, but I think what you are not understanding is that while that is the case, it may not necessarily agree with what individuals use that freedom for. Much in the same spirit of the famous quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". — Tzeentch
What does freedom entail to the individualist? — Echarmion
How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion
What does freedom entail to the individualist? How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice?
The right to bodily autonomy, the right to self-determination, freedom of speech, among other things. — Tzeentch
A state that protects those essential freedoms, and nothing else. — Tzeentch
In my mind individual freedom entails the polar-opposite of slavery, allowing the right of an individual to control his own person and property.
In practice it is refusing to interfere in the affairs of one so long as he doesn't violate the freedoms of others. — NOS4A2
so long as he doesn't violate the freedoms of others. — NOS4A2
The problem I have is with imagining how the interface between individuals functions based on individualism. Ok so noone interferes in "your affairs" so long you don't violate the freedoms of others. But how is this violation established? It seems in principle possible to conceive a notion of individual freedoms and their actions to account for every possible result.
What is the right so self-determination? — Echarmion
Does it include the necessary material preconditions for that self-determination? — Echarmion
I wasn't referring to "state" in the more general sense of "state of affairs", though I should have made that clear. I'd be interested in a more "colourful" description of how you envision such a society to look. Do you have real life examples which are closer to this ideal than most? — Echarmion
And if I’m following correctly, the disapproved of antitrust violator will be kicked out of the Individualists club, even though they’ve done nothing to restrict the rights of other individuals. — praxis
How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion
Somalia. — James Riley
Pretty old and idiotic argument nurtured by leftists. — ssu
Yet a tribal society like Somalia with clans and clan structure with hierarchical system of patrilineal descent groups being so important has hardly anything common with individualism (or libertarianism/liberalism). — ssu
Wait, what? You mean even in failed states people tend toward clan and group? Who'd a thunk it? I don't think that is the flex you think it is. — James Riley
I think Somalia had it clan based society far before the civil war that made it what it is now. — ssu
If I understand your problem correctly, I would argue the interface functions as it always would, except that each would refrain from coercing or otherwise using force and aggression against the other. One could look wherever coercion and force and aggression is being applied and establish where that violation occurs. — NOS4A2
Essentially it is the right of every individual to pursue those things that they deem comprise a good life.
No. It is up to the individual to decide what they wish to do with their lives, and it is also up to them to accomplish their goals. — Tzeentch
Assuming you are living in a free country, it is the life you are leading every day. Interaction based on voluntariness and respect for the other's wishes, individuality and freedom. — Tzeentch
We need to somehow define coercion, force and aggression with respect to all kinds of freedoms though. Most of these terms, if they are used in a legal context, refer to specific violations of specific rights. There are usually specific characteristics that the coercion or aggression needs to have in order to be considered a legal problem. For example, you can demand that someone who works in your company change some behaviours, possibly including how they dress, what they say in a professional capacity etc, but you cannot demand they have sex with you.
But there is no such contract between you or I or anyone else, and at any rate, uttering it doesn't justify any use of force over any individual. — NOS4A2
He is free to walk away should he disagree, as I am I free of any obligation towards employing him. — NOS4A2
That’s true, and you’re right. If someone works for me I expect and demand a modicum of professionalism. But these terms are based upon mutual agreement between free men. I don’t think any coercion is required to uphold such an agreement. He is free to walk away should he disagree, as I am I free of any obligation towards employing him. — NOS4A2
Any coercion is also a transaction and can be framed as a mutual agreement. — Echarmion
Isn't that a bit like saying you have the right to bodily autonomy, insofar as you're allowed to defend yourself, but don't count on the state to interfere? Usually when people say the state should safeguard bodily autonomy they refer to proactive safety. That is to say they assume that there will not just be a determination after the fact of who was right and who was wrong, but instead an attempt to prevent a set of behaviors in the first place, on the basis that those generally violate someone's bodily autonomy. Is that not how you envision things to go? — Echarmion
Let's say A and B have a mutually agreed upon contract. Both get something out of that that they want. A wants to change the agreement. B prefers it to stay as it is, but prefers to change it's terms over loosing it entirely. At what point does A threatening to walk away become coercion? — Echarmion
It is an adhesion contract and you will obey or you will suffer the consequences. Full stop. — James Riley
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.