Once again: What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is because of this that you cannot be left alone. The only way what you do would not affect others is if you lived in isolation. To be left alone you must be alone. And even then there would be an impact on others.

Should I meddle in your life because what you do affects others?

Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

I don’t, though I tend in that direction.

How do you feel about you meddling in the lives of others? (Whatever meddling means in this context)

Meddling or interfering. I feel I shouldn’t meddle in the lives of others.

What you fail to recognize is that you are not alone. What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is possible to live in isolation, but you choose not to, and so you cannot at the same time choose to be left alone.

I don’t want isolation. By “leave me alone” I mean I want them to quit meddling in my life. That’s what you fail to recognize.

In nations where the public health responses so far have been efficient and effective (e.g. Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, Iceland, Germany, (Scandinavia), Australia, New Zealand, etc), you are quite right, NOS: their approaches have been much more collectivist than not. However, nations mislead by individualistic, reactive, populist governments like the former Trump maladministration, BoJo's clown show, Modi's "Raj", Xi's sweatshop gulag, Putin's klepto-czarship & Bolsonaro's junta, for example, demonstrate yet again that not working collectively – collaboratively – on common complex problems is disastrously self-defeating.

You’re right, but I don’t want my governments to be efficient and effective—welding people in their apartments is efficient and effective. I just want them to leave me alone.

NOS, I may have missed it, but did you give some kind of definition? This is interesting but I can't get a firm grip on the concept. What are we discussing? Is individualism a value, attitude, belief, social policy, practice or what?

I did not. It’s a nebulous term. Mostly I wanted to see what others thought it was. No one has cited any individualist argument but the criticisms all resemble each other. I think that’s telling.

I do oppose mandatory state-clothing across the board, whether it is the burka or a mask, and I oppose such measures for the same reasons. That is to say nothing of the efficacy of masks, or of burkas for that matter.

The benefits of not dying is one thing, the benefits of rule-by-decree and the denial of basic human rights is another, and I refuse to confuse the two. One can still protect himself from infection without the government penalizing him if he refuses to do so.

I am a militant agnostic. It's unknown. It's unknowable*. What's for lunch?

How do you know?

An agnostic necessarily believes in the possibility of god, or else he wouldn’t leave the question open. My question is, how can the agnostic believe in the possibility of god?

Individualism here in the Anglo-American world, meaning classical liberalism & Right-Libertarianism, is B.S. and a pathology that destroys everything. You only need to see the reaction to COVID the past year to see the culmination to it. It mostly means pursue wealth at the expense of others.

Equating individualism with avarice is a common argument. However avarice is a vice of individuals, not of individualism. Individualism encompasses the charitable as much as it does the self-interested, but we wouldn’t say individualism is charitable.

The response to Covid was a collectivist project if I’ve ever seen one. Entire industries were at the mercy of governments; civil liberties were scattered to the wind; prison terms were used to describe our situation. As such, certain individuals benefitted while others were mostly restrained from even trying, their livelihoods sacrificed on the alter of “national security”, “the common good”, which, in the mouths of those in state power, is always their own interests.

Then why would you yourself make such a remark, as if someone actually believed it?

But neither should we lie to ourselves about how the individual rights we honor some how make us self-sufficient loners against the world; wild stallions to be let free to run through and eat the crops of others hard labor.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just curious where this notion comes from.

Again, we need not go to a system of ants on an ant pile, all working is some communist utopia. But neither should we lie to ourselves about how the individual rights we honor some how make us self-sufficient loners against the world; wild stallions to be let free to run through and eat the crops of others hard labor.

Exactly true. Except no individualist (as far as I’m aware) conceives of individuals as hermits or wild stallions, as if every single human was Robinson Crusoe. So who is spreading this lie, exactly?

We were discussing the passage by Blanc that you cited, not Marx.

I was discussing the recurring themes in anti-individualist argument, of which isolation is one. Blanc was just one example. We can find more if need be. Except no individualist argues conceiving of individuals as separate from society. Even those whom Marx accuses, Smith, Ricardo, Bastiat, conceived of the individual in relation to his tribe or nation.

Modern liberalism and individualism are the same thing - the freedom and rights of the individual.

I don’t think so. Modern Liberalism, in my reading, is a more social, statist version of classical liberalism.

This is not meant literally as is clear from what he goes on to say. Man is taken out of society in the sense that he recognizes no authority but his own and no responsibility to anyone but himself. He rejects the idea of the common good. The only good is what he deems good for himself.

It has been used literally (and as a straw man) in Marx, for example.

The modern philosophy of Liberalism attempts to frame political and social issues on the model of the emerging science. "Space" is a neutral term. The failure to recognize responsibility to anyone but yourself is not a matter of "increasing space" but of disregard for others.

I’m not a fan of modern liberalism myself. But point taken.

I suppose it's not wrong per se. It only becomes a problem if your individualism is such that it can harm other people. How we define harm is obviously very much debatable.

I can only say that we aren't born out of holes in the ground, alone. We are born belonging to a family, a city a country, etc. The closer the relationship between people, the closer the bond. So individualists at least have to contend with dealing with the social unit of family. Beyond that, things get very murky very quickly.

I’m not sure how individualism can harm other people because much of individualism is concerned with the protection of individual rights.

No individualist (as far as I know) denied the social aspects of life, family or community. I would argue that this is a common strawman against the position.

Naturally, because it's worked out okay for you so far.

There's a lot of irresponsibility in 'free society' and it has an ever escalating cost. I can only imagine that either you deny the cost or simply don't give a fuck. Whatever the case may be, it's a free society so you're cool.

I don’t deny the cost. I just think the cost is a small price to pay knowing the opposite.

In a word: responsibility. People like freedom but responsibility is a big bummer.

That’s very true. Increasing the space of individual freedom gives opportunity to the irresponsible individual as much as to the responsible one. Personally I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Both leftist and right-wing populism tries to create a juxtaposition between "us" and "them" and seek basically to dehumanize the other side as the culprit of all problems in the society. Things don't deteriorate because nobody does anything and people let problems to grow bigger: the idea is that some people are on purpose creating the problems. With classic Marxism it's obvious with talking about the class-enemy, but the far right is totally on board with similar rhetoric, just with different culprits and scapegoats. It is the political extremes who see politics literally as a battlefield where the other side is the enemy.

That’s one of the frightening aspects of identity politics: the corresponding reactionary identity politics that is almost certainly to follow. Neither side can prevail until the other is vanquished.

Young jedi, you yet have a lot to learn.

Let's try it. Use your words and thoughts to set the power hierarchy between yourself and I.

A question that commonly arises around free-speech discussions is: "Who sets the grounds for what is permissible?" Personally I cannot think of any individual or group of individuals throughout history with enough intelligence, foresight, or moral fortitude to decide what should or should not be believed and said.

Much of the rules and reasoning of censorship (or in this case, banishment and ostracism) is, at least rhetorically, centered around the fear of some future effect of speech and beliefs on the public welfare, as if someone could make such predictions. Examples include the "bad tendency" test of British common law and the "clear and present danger" standard once used to punish anti-war activism in the United States. Of course, the danger was never clear nor present, the tendency undefined, and such fears were as fatuous as any fever-dream. We should be wary of these people. For the simple reason that there is no known way of gauging the future influence of rhetoric on human action, I would argue these predictions were used to disguise threats to orthodoxy beneath an air of concern for the general welfare.

In short, we shouldn't give anyone the power to make such decisions, and we should tolerate everything short of action that impedes another's liberty.

Everyone is conservative about what he knows best. If you read the Saint-Simonians one could come away thinking socialism was entirely reactionary.

While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live.

No power hierarchy exists in this scenario. It’s just two individuals in a community. The thoughts he has or expresses are unable to elevate him to any position of power. And upon refusing your olive branch you could laugh in his face and flip the bird.

And you talk to them, greet them, as if all was well?

I would. Think of someone like Daryl Davis. Extending an olive branch is sometimes the antidote to hatred.

Expressing hatred is a breach of (potential) trust. It's a declaration of war terms.

Can you live peacefully next to someone who tells you don't deserve to exist?

Yes, I can.

Right, but suppose there are acts, like masturbating, what then? Is it permissible to let pedophiles accumulate photos/videos/blow-up dolls of children that will then be used for the distinct purpose of getting off to? After all, who is the victim?

The victims are those in the photos and videos. That's why such materials are considered contraband, I believe. So I do not think it is permissible to accumulate such materials.

I’ve had this thought quite often, and for the most part agree. The only issue then is that, in order for us to be consistent, we must not object to pedophiles lusting after our children. Emotionally, I’m just not able to stomach this. So I’m at a bit of an impasse...

I don't see why you must not object. Just like the racist, such beliefs are worthy of suspicion, contempt and ridicule. The only point is we shouldn't blur the line between words and beliefs on the one hand, and acts on the other.

No, the scenario in the OP specifies that the racist clearly verbalizes their racist stance toward the target and that the rest of the community know about this.

In the scenario the racist also verbalizes that she would treat the person with common courtesy. Where exactly does the injury occur?

For being targeted for racism, in this case.

I don't think a person can become a victim of another's thoughts. Even if the racist imagined murdering the other, the so-called victim would be completely unaware, let alone injured by it.

Governments are worse because they have the force of law and the monopoly on violence. It's no wonder, then, that private interests seek its favor and protection. If the market was free, and governments didn't take it upon themselves to meddle in the economy, I suspect no such relationship would exist.

It's what people do, every day, and it seems worth it to them. Just blame the victim, just blame the one who is worse off.

Blame the victim for what?

A negligible price to pay.

Hardly. You would only ossify the very beliefs you oppose. And someone could use the same argument to expel the minority.

Fair enough and credit to you if you can ignore him. I would have a hard time and it would be on my mind anytime I saw the neighbor or passed the neighbor's house. How would you deal with other neighbors who engaged with the bigot in conversation? You see what I mean when I said earlier that there's now possibly something resembling a mini-Cold war in the community.

I wouldn’t ignore him. I just wouldn’t expel him or sanction him for what he believes, just as I wouldn’t let the community expel the minority, and for the same reasons. Rather I would attempt to foster conversation between opposing parties.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? Which belief did we expel them for? How do we draw the line between a difference of opinion and something that someone ought to be expelled for?

The community ought to leave them alone and afford them the right to believe what they want. Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise.

That is the course of humanity: liberals dragging conservatives into the future and progress.

That’s an important point. It’s the same with the modern welfare state. State welfare in imperial Germany and Austria, for example, were reactionary and religious creations. That progressives nowadays champion such measures, and conservatives oppose them, is somewhat ironic.

I would argue, though, that both conservatives and progressives have led us into a future of abject statism rather than something desirable. But as you say that’s the course of right-left politics.

My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world?

I think it should. But manhood is a question of maturity as much as it is masculinity. In an infantilizing society one can get away without both.

If any harm is derived from seeing others smoke weed, or knowing that a dispensary exists in the neighborhood, it is entirely self-inflicted. The bellyacher is both perpetrator and victim.

I can understand the reticence when it comes to doing the right thing in a corrupt system. Doing so can lead to adverse consequences, maybe some sort of sanction or violence. I cannot oblige someone to do something that may risk his livelihood, and therefor he is under no obligation from me. The motivation to do the right thing must come from his own conscience.

If a man of newsworthy importance speaks, I would prefer the journalists inform me of what he said, and not withhold that information due to some fear or other of how that information may be used. Even if that information is false, inflammatory, or injurious to someone’s reputation, to suppress it is to suppress the fact that it was spoken and the facts of what was said, denying me an accurate account of the truth.

Journalists report facts, as best they can be determined to be facts. Period. Argument is the province of commentary on the news. And to be sure, there is good and bad commentary, and commentary not worthy of name. In a restaurant you may not like the meal, fair enough, but you do not expect to be served a plateful of s***, nor would you expect a restaurant that served such be allowed to remain open. And the same with commentary, although there is no Health Department to control as to what is being served - beyond some very broad limits on free speech.

The point here being not to confuse journalism with commentary.

It is often the case that people make arguments the journalist doesn’t like. They need not suppress those arguments. Period. I wouldn’t expect a server to hide burgers from the menu if he doesn’t like beef.

Again, from the code of ethics at the society of professional journalists: “Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

“Decisions to not give unsupported arguments equal time are not a dereliction of journalistic responsibility or some kind of agenda, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”

- Lester Holdt

Lester’s argument is, ironically, unsupported. The journalist’s role is to inform us, not to decide which arguments we can or cannot hear. He fails in this regard.

Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

The Questions of King Milinda is an interesting exchange between a Buddhist scholar and the Indo-Greek King Menander.

Imagine thinking you can pick and choose what pronouns you want to use but others are not allowed. But it’s more than just pronouns. There are a variety of odd demands that people make of others in order to satisfy their own personal wants and comforts. This sort of solipsism is regnant in some circles. I’m reminded of the Democratic Socialists of America conference that went viral a couple years ago and how tedious it all is.

I think there are a few instances where insult is appropriate in debate. Insult can make debate enjoyable and accessible when it is used as a rhetorical flourish or to provide pathos to an otherwise boring argument. It can be used as a form of banter and camaraderie between two opponents. It should be used, without exception, whenever it is used against you—one cannot give a snide little bully the satisfaction. But on its own and without argument, insult is the basest propaganda.

There is something it is like to be a bat. That something is the bat. I could never understand the supposed profundity of Nagel’s arguments.