You're missing out. — NOS4A2

So long as I am missing out, we all have to stand here on our own two feet.

You see all those evils against which they fought as the state and the mob. I see their appeal (somewhat successful) was to the very state you decry, in an effort to overcome a mob composed of a bunch of individualists demanding their right to be left alone to oppress them. Regardless, they didn't get what they got by going it alone. And they were realistic about that.

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, in response to Harry's silly strawman about collectivists wanting no dissonance in society.

I hope you two kids are having fun playing with your little strawmen. :roll:

Harry wrote: "Nothing [wrong with individualism], as long your individualism doesn't trample on another's right to be an individual."

How is beating another individual in a competition trampling on their right to be an individual?

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.

I hope you two kids are having fun playing with your little strawmen. — praxis

Oh please. They're your words.

I said there may be the implication that an individualist wants to secure their power by eliminating the competition — praxis

That isn't what you said. EIther way, it doesn't follow.

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

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.

Groups are not only competitive against each other, but against individuals. Just go back and read your statements about racial injustice, sexism, transphobia, etc. You are simply ignoring the fact that just as there are multiple individuals, there are multiple groups, and as such they can either compete or cooperate with other individuals or groups.

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!!

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".

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? How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice?

How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion

Somalia.

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

This seems to mean that while an individualist may disapprove of antitrust violations they will defend to the death the right to commit antitrust violations.

What does freedom entail to the individualist? — Echarmion

The right to bodily autonomy, the right to self-determination, freedom of speech, among other things.

How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion

A state that protects those essential freedoms, and nothing else.

This seems to mean that while an individualist may disapprove of antitrust violations they will defend to the death the right to commit antitrust violations. — praxis

Sure.

What does freedom entail to the individualist? How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice?

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.

The right to bodily autonomy, the right to self-determination, freedom of speech, among other things. — Tzeentch

Bodily autonomy and freedom of speech have fairly well practiced contours. What is the right so self-determination? Does it include the necessary material preconditions for that self-determination? And is some form of property on the list of other things?

A state that protects those essential freedoms, and nothing else. — Tzeentch

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?

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.

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

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 interactions to account for every possible result.

so long as he doesn't violate the freedoms of others. — NOS4A2

Good luck with that. Merely being here takes up perfectly good space that could better be utilized by nothing. Yet we champion the right to procreation, the swinging of a fist before the nose, and at the nose.

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.

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.

Cletus is exercising his right to self-determination, making widgets. A necessary by-product is hazardous waste he doesn’t want. He tosses it in the crick that runs through his place. Sally, down-stream, pulls a ladle out, drinks it and goes tits-up. Her pappy gets his cordless hole punch, goes up stream and runs and round through Cletus’ brain pan. We all good? Is that how it works?

Or can we have big gubmn’t regulate Cletus, meddle in his affairs, interfere with his right to self-determination, make him get a permit, and regulate his generation and disposal of hazardous waste? But then, of course, we’d have to sit around and listen to him whine like a little bitch about the evils of gubmn’t as he’s shopping at Healthy Sally’s for dangerous chemicals that came in on the gubmn’t highway that morning.

I get the idea of the Bill of Rights, Natural Law, defending against the tyranny of the majority, and all that. I'm a strong proponent. But there is a sovereign for a reason, a social contract of adhesion. Life is not fair, there is no justice, and there is always someone bigger and stronger. I'd rather that someone be the state than some individualist asshole who came into his capital by being first, being bigger than me, being more rapacious than me, having gained enough to purchase the state as his tool to lord over me.

The state is indeed my big brother and he will kick your ass if you mess with me. If he has to hold me down and give me a noogie once in a while, so be it. I wouldn't need his help if all the individualists would leave me the hell alone.

What is the right so self-determination? — Echarmion

Essentially it is the right of every individual to pursue those things that they deem comprise a good life.

Does it include the necessary material preconditions for that self-determination? — Echarmion

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.

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

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.

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

If they've not acted in contradiction to the ideas of individualism, then no.

:clap:

How does the state of realized individualist freedom look in practice? — Echarmion

Somalia. — James Riley

Pretty old and idiotic argument nurtured by leftists.

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). Nonexistent or non-functioning states aren't so rare.

But ignorance make the memes work:


And of course, the part of the economy that works even with the problems hardly makes it to the news.

Pretty old and idiotic argument nurtured by leftists. — ssu

The reason it's not old or idiotic is because Somalia falls-four square under the definition of "failed state."

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.

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.

I think Somalia had it clan based society far before the civil war that made it what it is now. — ssu

I'm sure you are right. They did. Again, it's that inclination natural and necessary to man.

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

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.

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

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?

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

Sure, but then my country also has projects that could be characterized as collectivist: Socialised healthcare, for example, mandatory schools, a social safety net with mandatory contributions.

I cringe every time someone evokes the "social contract" because it is always in the service of power. 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.

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.

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.

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

Actually, there is. And it exists whether you like it or not. It is an adhesion contract and you will obey or you will suffer the consequences. Full stop. See what cringing gets you. :razz:

He is free to walk away should he disagree, as I am I free of any obligation towards employing him. — NOS4A2

What if you have created an increase in the supply of labor by patronizing emerging communist and dictator markets, driving the price down and making any agreement between you and the employee one of unfair dealing? He is as free to walk away as you are to step away from the state and go it alone.

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. If there is something I can coerce you with, that implies there is something in my power that you want me to do / refrain from doing.

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? One might say that the parties simply also need to agree on the rules to change the rules. But this causes a nested doll situation where there is always a meta-agreement which is not agreed on (this actually happens in actual disputes sometimes).

Any coercion is also a transaction and can be framed as a mutual agreement. — Echarmion

Thinking out loud. I'm not married to any of these ramblings.

I've been thinking about prostitution lately. Leaving aside for now the issue of whether or not it should be legal, let's assume it is legal. I think that most people would rather not sell sexual access to their body for money. But they could be convinced to do it if the price were right. The same would be true for labor in general, would it not? Most people would not want to work for someone else for money. But they could be convinced to do it if the price were right. So there really isn't much daylight between prostitutes and any other laborer. Even those who own their own business "work for" their clients/customers/guests. Aren't we all whores?

Doesn't the payor always have an advantage, in that all they are trading is money, not themselves. They are all johns. We are all whores and johns, sometimes one, sometimes the other. I guess if you enjoy your work, then there would be no need to pay you to get the work done. Yet we can and will charge for the work.

Was there ever a time when we just did something for nothing?

As they used to say on SNL: "Discuss among yourselves."

Or not.

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

I'm leaning towards not being in favor of proactive action in this instance. At least, not in the shape of the use of force or coercion, unless there's a direct indication that physical violence is about to take place.

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

Coercion involves violence or the threat thereof.

It is an adhesion contract and you will obey or you will suffer the consequences. Full stop. — James Riley

You're thinking of the divine right of kings.