It sees the social world not as the ground of freedom but as its main obstacle. Institutions are not tools of liberty but threats to it. What this view overlooks, and what the next sections explore, is the extent to which individuality is socially and historically formed and how real freedom depends on shared conditions, not their absence. — Moliere
At the same time it elevates figures who use public power for private gain and disguises domination as freedom.
The ideology enables policies that weaken safety nets, disenfranchise the vulnerable and concentrate power in unaccountable hands. It fosters political apathy and strengthens demagogues who promise freedom while dismantling its foundations. The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox is not just a contradiction. It is a script for democratic decline disguised as moral clarity. — Moliere
2.2 Liberty Through Coercion
Trump’s trade war illustrates liberty asserted through force. Tariffs and trade barriers, classic interventions, are reframed as tools of sovereignty and pride. That self-described libertarians embrace them shows how flexible freedom becomes. What matters is not principle but the actor. Coercion becomes liberty if used by the right person. Hierarchy is acceptable if it matches their ideals. — Moliere
2.4 Justice That Begins After the Crime
Nozick’s justice assumes holdings are legitimate if acquired justly, with a vague nod to rectifying past injustice. In practice, this clause is ignored. The theory becomes a cover for inequalities rooted in historical theft. Property is treated as legitimate unless clearly stolen. This conceals injustice rather than addressing it. — Moliere
I am sure that most would agree that the individual is sovereign and institutions are suspect. Institutions were created for the benefit of the individual. The individual is not there for the benefit of the Institution. — RussellA
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. … In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. — RussellA
I would disagree with that. Why would institutions be 'suspect'? It is akin to saying gravity is suspect. Also the second part of the sentence is questionable. There are all sorts of examples of people sacrificing themselves for a higher goal and lo and behold, they are not derided but revered as heroes. — Tobias
We focus on three figures: Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Jordan Peterson. Though differing in style and domain all present the image of a self-legitimating individual opposed to collective authority. Yet each depends on immense institutional power. Musk benefits from public subsidies and corporate scale, Trump commands state machinery and nationalist rhetoric, Peterson draws authority from platforms and institutional critique.
The EU in their publicity material may say that their goal is the benefit of its citizens, but in practice, the EU acts as if its citizens are there for the benefit of the EU. This is why institutions with immense power such as the EU are suspect. This is the type of institution referred to by the essay. — RussellA
The EU in their publicity material may say that their goal is the benefit of its citizens, but in practice, the EU acts as if its citizens are there for the benefit of the EU. This is why institutions with immense power such as the EU are suspect. This is the type of institution referred to by the essay. — RussellA
but to point out the gross simplifications that liberals and libertarians tend to make. Which the author indeed unmasks very strongly. — Tobias
This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose that conceals its reliance on collective institutions, rationalizes inequality and rebrands domination as personal freedom. By examining its philosophical roots and public champions we expose a paradox at its core: the celebration of liberty through authoritarian means.
The institutions mentioned in the essay are as diverse as the (federal) state, the corporation and academia. None of the three people discussed though, draw any power from the European Union — Tobias
That radical individualism may in practice be unworkable doesn't make it a paradox. It is no more a paradox than Icarus' attempt at flight using a pair of wax wings made by his father Daedalus. — RussellA
However, it seems that the author of the essay is not attacking radical individualism in itself, but rather is attacking the hypocrite who purports to be a radical individualist, yet in fact does not believe in it. — RussellA
The essay is about individuals who pretend to be radical individualists but in fact rely on authoritarian, collective institutions that wield immense power.
This is not a problem particular to the USA. — RussellA
If a philosophy is in practice unworkable, it may mean that its assumptions are flawed. — Tobias
Find problematic, counterintuitive or incoherent notions within the theory and then focus on how they shape the thoughts of notable figures. — Tobias
There is less of a following for radical individualism in Europe — Tobias
Yes, but that does mean that an unworkable philosophy must be a paradox. — RussellA
I'm not so sure. There are plenty of hippy communes in Europe who could be called radical individualists. They renounce the power structure of institutions and the constraints these institutions put on their lives. — RussellA
For example, there is the "free town" of Christiana in Copenhagen. It was founded in 1971 by a group of anarchic squatters and artists who took over an abandoned military base and proclaimed it a “free zone”.
Radical individualism is a coherent political theory that can work in certain contexts. — RussellA
No, but it is an indication that there might be paradoxes or incoherences within the theory — Tobias
The libertarian conception of the individual extends to the assertion that self-ownership entails ownership of the fruit of one's labour. — Tobias
Also Benkei did not attack all forms of radical individualism, but a specific libertarian variation of it, if I understand correctly. — Tobias
This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose that conceals its reliance on collective institutions, rationalizes inequality and rebrands domination as personal freedom.
He seemed to attack all forms of it. — RussellA
↪Tobias Lol. If anything, Christiana is a functioning illustration of how liberty is sustained by shared norms, internal constraints and community accountability. — Benkei
I am still missing where the paradox is. — RussellA
That said, I have to confess: I don't like Popper as a political philosopher. While his falsification theory of science was groundbreaking, his reading of Plato is a caricature. — Benkei
Using this same line of logic, an individual could pretend to be a radical collectivist but is actually an authoritarian radical individualist that consolidates power to become dictator. In essence they are an individual that views the citizens as their property. Stalin comes to mind.The essay is about individuals who pretend to be radical individualists but in fact rely on authoritarian, collective institutions that wield immense power. — RussellA
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.