Caitlyn Jenner hits from the woman's tee in women's golf tournaments. Maybe she's not the best person to ask after all.

https://golf.com/news/caitlyn-jenner-holes-out-for-eagle-at-ana-inspiration-pro-am/

You're missing out. They were right, brave, and decent. Perhaps give them a read and it might dispel your assumptions. Back in those times they were fighting for the right to vote, against slavery, against arbitrary power, against sexist laws—you know, against the state and other forms of mob rule. Who knows? Without their voices you might be a little more reserved in your support for government.

Each rocket Hamas fires is a war crime. If they commit these war crimes using civilian shields, it's a double war crime. Though it appears Israel does more to protect civilians (evacuation notices before hitting targets, for example) the disproportionate use of force is itself a war crime. Israel also needs to weigh the civilian costs, which, given the civilian deaths, I doubt it is doing. So it's war crimes all around. It makes no sense to pick a side in this affair.

I think the first to second wave of feminism was inherently individualist. It's hard to roll your eyes reading the abolitionist and woman's rights champions like Sojourner Truth, Angelina Grimke, or the anarchism of Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre.

People are too busy enjoying their rights to want to fight for them. This habit will be the deathknell of social democracy. Despite this, one must afford them their right to do this. Let justice reign though the heavens fall, and all that.

A governments role should be to secure the rights and freedoms of its citizens, but more often it secures its own interests and monopoly on power.

One can’t deny thrust of anti-individualist arguments, for instance against avarice, but they fit better as arguments against human nature rather than any individualist belief. Collectivists too are guilty of the same sins.

If it stands alone why didn’t you just leave it as is? Instead, much of the sentence is missing.

I clearly said it was fallacious. I’m not sure why you’d raise that question.

We will never forget that time millions were easily duped into believing gossip and lies.

Secret Sharers: The Hidden Ties Between Private Spies and Journalists

That’s easy to do when you can remove much of my sentence. Contextomy is also a fallacy.

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.

I think the superstition is to treat words as if they were not physical phenomena like any other.

That’s one aspect. Another is to treat words as poison, drugs, or pollution, capable of manipulating matter in fantastic ways.

This kind of meddling is little more than a racket at this point. It’s a hard no, for me, when that which is the cause of the problem presents itself as the solution.

And then there's that striking similarity between a zombie and an individualist ...

Zombies are not real, friend.

There was a case a few years back where a woman was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for texting her suicidal boyfriend that he should just get on with it. After her seemingly loving encouragement he killed himself with carbon monoxide in a Kmart parking lot. Though he died by his own hand, by his own volition, the court deemed her guilty of homicide as if a person could kill another by text message.

This is an age-old, superstitious problem that few have spoken about: an overestimation of the power of words. One can see it everywhere once one notices it.

Israel needs to end its military occupation and return the land it has annexed. Only then can it begin to claim victimhood. No one has to excuse Islamist terrorism and anti-semitism to concede this simple point.

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.

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 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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

You probably already know this, but the corporation is a state favor to investors. The corporation is a creature of Big Government and does not exist in nature. Big Government specifically holds investors harmless so they don't have to take personal responsibility of their own actions.

We can ignore, for now, the question of how investors (or anyone else for that matter) came into possession of "their" capital in the first place. Chase it back and you will find theft. You will find someone who was left alone to put their hands on someone else's private affairs.

That's true. The corporation is the child of mercantilism. The state often granted single corporations monopoly on entire industries, which often led to colonialism. So much for laissez-faire and free markets.

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.

That's not true.

The point is that all persons are individuals and I afford each of them certain rights. If her rights are violated I get concerned, not only for her but for me and others as well.

The hierarchy is usually something like family > religious or political affiliation > neighborhood > nation, abstract notions aside.

Sounds about right. Personally I find little affiliation with many of those groups but I am nonetheless concerned with how each member is treated by them.

That may very well be what happens to a man who is voluntarily isolated from the pub table: He starts to view this as a social activity. Regardless, he is drawn back into communication with others and a reliance upon them for honing and exposure. Real world would be better, but aren't we eschewing that?

Yes, I think you’re right. Communication with others is not only desirable, but necessary, or else we end up someone like Genie.

Well said and enjoyable to read.

Unfortunately for me I'm stuck at my desk, but I shall be out foraging for morels and oyster mushrooms in about 3 hours time, so long as the weather holds up. Like you I come here to hone my ideas and to read other points of view. But I would not recommend seeing this as a social activity, because we are each literally alone. I would argue this is anti-social behavior. Had we all been around a pub table I doubt these sorts of conversations would occur.

Then you’re not really talking about individuals but some abstract idea or collection of units, like ‘human beings’. In that case you have a lesser concern for units that are not human. I suppose that’s why oppressors dehumanize the oppressed.

"individual" is an abstraction, yes, but it fits on all human beings. Individualism is concern with human affairs, sure, but it does not prohibit concern for other beings.

If I were the primary unit of concern, for example, why would I necessarily have concern for all units?

Because all units are individuals.

I like what you wrote. It reminded me that the schism is chalked full of irony.

All collectives are composed of individuals. If you add it all up it becomes clear that collectivism is exclusive, individualism inclusive. If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons, refusing to sacrifice a single one of them for some collective. If you believe the collective is primary, you will sacrifice or discipline any individual who threatens its unity, excluding them from the will of the party.

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.

It’s true. Individualism is a problem for any collectivist project. Mao saw this well enough and wrote about it in his “Combat Liberalism. Mao’s solution was to “strengthen education”, “conduct affairs, make assignments and enforce discipline in a proper way”. I supposed it worked because the CCP will be celebrating its centenary this year.

And since we’re bringing up Hitler, anti-individualism was regnant in nazi and fascist ideology and for the same reasons: it was a threat to their statist projects and ideology.

The MLK quote is somewhat of a misquote, but the thrust is the basically same. And I’m not so sure he was against individualism because he was a fan of Emerson and Thoreau.

I appreciate your nuanced view. And who knows? Maybe all this stuff will turn out well in the end. If so I will undoubtedly hang my head in shame for opposing it. But I think it will get worse before it gets better.

Use my words as your tea-leaves all you wish, but I’ll add trauma and pain to my list of swings and misses.

I get that it might seem like CRT is repackaged racism, but many of the race-conscious policies that are being pushed for are being pushed to combat inequality, not increase it, and if we need to have, for example, quotas, to achieve maximum equality of opportunity, I'm fine with that; some inequality in the short term might lead to a more equitable outcome in the long. And I think that proponents of CRT don't think only white people have the power, but rather that they have a disproportionate share of it due to pervasive racism embedded in our institutions and such.

Aren’t race-conscious policies and quotas a form of exclusionary, institutional racism? It seems to me if we want to rid the system of embedded racism we should first start by refusing to institute it.

For instance, at the moment, white farmers are suing the federal government of the US because they are excluded from debt relief programs due to the fact of their skin color, and by no other measure. I think this is wrong for the same reason it is wrong to exclude any other race. How can it be said that this combats inequality?

Thanks, but I think you’re overestimating the power of words, praxis. The old child proverb “sticks and stones” still holds true, in my mind. So I see the attempts at insult and belittling as little more than group think and ideological back-patting, the basest form of propaganda.

Back in the day if we wanted to know why someone did something we asked him. But yourself and others like to invent little tall tales to fill the holes. So far I’m insane, a charlatan, a Russian bot, a nazi, a man living in his mother’s basement. Perhaps one of these days someone will get it right, but so far it’s all swings and all misses from people who fancy themselves philosophers. That they’re all fellow travellers is no surprise. I just want to know: is this a method of some sorts? a coping mechanism? catharsis?

I’m with you, but I fear CRT is the direct descendant of the old racism rather than its opposition. The idea that wider American society constitutes “white supremacy”, as if no other hand but a white one could influence it, change it, or benefit from it, is not only manifestly false debilitating to those who believe it. And the notion of viewing the world through a “racial lens”, which is common to all racists, is frightening given that such a pseudoscientific framework has led to injustice and atrocity, as it must.

CRT is dangerous because it holds a special status as being academic, which gives it an air of credibility. After a few decades since its conception it now finds itself in the highest echelons of politics and business and entertainment.

So-called cancel culture is pretty much a milquetoast struggle session, so the comparison between the woke and the red guard is apt.