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? — 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.

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".

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.

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.

The forces against which feminism seems to be struggling are perceived by me as individualist males who don't extend the individualist notion to include women. — James Riley

Case and point.

Actually if there's any implication along this line it's that the Individualist want to desimate the competition in order to secure their position of power. — praxis

As pointed out, individualism includes recognizing the rights of other individuals and not just one's own. If one is consistent in their beliefs, an individualist actually would shy away from positions of power over others.

Who in this thread has actually visited Israel and Palestine? — Tzeentch

Anyone?

That's a bit like saying wetness is forced upon water. It is true that every individual finds themselves embedded in relations which they are not able to easily change or abrogate. But so do they find themselves subject to the laws of physics. Do we level a charge at the laws of physics for their tyrannical nature? — Echarmion

People are conscious, moral agents; the laws of physics are not. That is a fundamental difference to me.

We can change the type and makeup of the social conditions "forced upon" the individual. But we cannot simply wish them away, because individuals cannot exist outside these conditions. — Echarmion

My point is not that all possible changes should be made to "right the wrong". However, the realization that the individual does not necessarily participate in society voluntarily is an important factor in why I believe states/societies/collectives cannot claim to hold moral authority over individuals (at least not by default).

I don't see how that changes the fact that these conditions are forced upon the individual. That the individual only realizes these things at a later age, when he is firmly rooted in whatever system he finds himself in, only makes things worse because it reduces his chances of being able to leave.

Some individualist chose for them. — James Riley

Are you being serious?

People didn't choose the society they were born into, so the analogy of a cage fits perfectly.

Haha, alright.

Lets say I trap you in a cage and force you to work for me. Every moment you do not kill yourself by holding your breath until you die of asphyxiation is a moment you agreed to my terms, no?

Do I understand you correctly that you believe people not killing themselves is a sign that they agree?

The point here is, there is no free lunch. The individual externalizes the cost of his existence onto the backs of those who did not agree to assume those costs in an arm's length, informed transaction. — James Riley

Nor did the individual agree.

This situation you sketch is brought about by individuals who chose to have children, and by a state that facilitated a certain standard of living.

One cannot force these conditions on an individual and then claim one is entitled to their coorperation.

Who in this thread has actually visited Israel and Palestine?

What part don't you understand?

... you cease being pro-individualism the moment you think your individuality trumps someone else's. The whole point of individualism is realizing that you are not the only individual, else you cease being pro-individual and begin being authoritarian. — Harry Hindu

Well said!

There's few Palestinians who would defend the methods of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Unlike some people in this thread, they have long since realized that such violence fuels only one agenda, and that is Israel's.

I think it was Benkei who pointed out that individual rights tend to diminish with government reduction. — praxis

Individual rights do not diminish. One right is exchanged for another. In the discussion between big vs. small government, the trade off is between freedom and security. Where security is given to one, freedom (in essence also a type of security) is taken away from another, which is why I don't see the extension of individual rights by governments as a more = better type of deal.

Further, I believe governments and the type of individuals that lead them end up undermining the individual rights they claim to uphold, due to the corrupting nature of power.

So using government as a tool to contiunously attempt to expand individual rights is a self-defeating ideal.

What if a collective has little power and an individual has a lot of power, might not that individual undermine the interests of the collective? — praxis

Yes, and in general terms I would consider it desirable that the interests of the individual are put before the interests of the state. Individuals are almost always going to be the weaker party in the relationship between them and the state, and therefore need to be protected.

If the individual liked the power and wanted to stay in power they might intentionally take actions that weaken a collective in order to keep that power. The individual might try to make it difficult for the collective to organize, for instance, or promote the virtue of Individualism, and undermine their collective power. And of course divide and conquer has always been a crowd pleasing strategy. — praxis

Power hungry individuals are, sadly, everywhere. And by not giving them strong states to hold power over, the evil they can do to the individual is at least limited. I believe this is in fact a good argument in favor of individualism.

I don't know what's odd about what I wrote, but I rephrased it for you:

I don't think so. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea, and ideas don't oppress people. People oppress people. Ideas are given power by individuals that choose to adopt them and impose them on others. I could have chosen various other examples, but I tried to make the injustice as clear as possible.

The principle at play here, is that the moral and physical impositions of the collective undermine the interests of the individual. We recognize that as injustice, especially when the injustice is magnified by one's own moral framework. Can you recognize it too when one's own moral framework is what hides it? — Tzeentch

In your scenario the culprit is Islamic fundamentalism. — praxis

I don't think so. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea. It is given power by individuals that choose to adopt it and impose it on others. I could have chosen various other examples, but I tried to make the injustice as clear as possible.

The principle at play here, is that the moral and physical impositions of the collective undermine the interests of the individual. We recognize that as injustice, especially when the injustice is magnified by one's own moral framework. Can you recognize it too when one's own moral framework is what hides it?


Well said!

I mentioned that "Abused individuals owe no loyalty" meaning that any moral intuition or social norm could be justifiably considered invalid in that situation when looking at it from the perspective of interdependence and cooperation for mutual benefit. From the perspective of dog-eat-dog competition, slavery is cheap and offers an advantage that can't be shared by all. — praxis

Ok, as far as the first part of your response goes, I think we are in agreement.

Is there any perspective, other than dog-eat-dog competition (essentially "might makes right"), for which these moral intuitions or social norms, in the example we discussed, would not be considered invalid?

It is my view that there aren't. I'm also assuming that, like me, you don't find "might makes right" a convincing moral idea.

Didn't we agree that the woman born into a Islamic fundamentalist society is not morally indebted to that society simply by virtue of dependency?

Presumably she was enslaved against her will and in order to provide some value to the enslavers. Your scenario didn’t touch on betrayal. — praxis

You mentioned freeloaders and traitors, and I thought you were going somewhere with that.

Anyway, since we seem to agree the individual's dependency is not a sufficient basis for collectivism, what else is there?

Interdependence as a rationalization for behavior is rather unusual, probably because it's far too abstract an idea to be popularly adopted. There's no natural intuition to step back and look at the bigger picture, even though that could lead to a more fulfilling and sustainable outcome. So yeah, certainly couldn't rest with that alone. — praxis

Dependecy is the argument that I have seen the most in this thread. I struggle to remember any others that were put forward. What else is there?

And may I assume you don't view the woman in my example as either a freeloader or a traitor?

Abused individuals owe no loyalty just as societies owe no loyalty to freeloaders and traitors. — praxis

Is the woman in my example a freeloader or a traitor? (Or neither?)

The emphasis of this thread seems to be on relationships between individuals and groups of individuals. The vocal point of individualism is rather the relationship between the state and the individual. I think that's where much of this thread has gotten stuck on. Terms like "state", "society" and "collective", can be used somewhat interchangably, however caricaturing the issue individualism has with states as an issue with any kind of interaction at all, is just that; a caricature.

The opponents of individualism seem to believe that the state holds a moral claim over the individual on the basis of dependency. in that regard seems to be the only one to state this plainly, however it is implicit in what other opponents of individualism have claimed here.

He stated:

No man is an island, the individualist's actions inevitably affect others, Beyond some petty grab for control it is necessary to rein in the individual for the good of the collective. Devoid of any sense of obligation to the group a person quickly becomes detached, drifting without any firm anchor of reciprocality to caution them. — New2K2

To this I replied:

What if he (the individual) regards "the collective" that attempts to rein him in as an immoral enterprise? — Tzeentch

This is a crucial question.

Is a woman that is born into Islamic fundamentalism somehow morally indebted to a society that oppresses and enslaves her?

To me the answer clearly is 'no'.

Unless one wishes to answer 'yes' to that last question, one must come to the conclusion that the moral claim that is being forwarded by opponents of individualism cannot rest on dependency alone.

Were those who forced non-state societies into the drudgery and disease of developed agriculture working with them cooperatively or exploitively? — praxis

Exploitatively. What is your point?

I think there are two basic strategies for social living, which are living cooperatively for mutual benefit or competing for resources. In competition there is always winners and losers, so in that strategy some are guaranteed to suffer. That's not the case in a society that cooperates for mutual benefit. — praxis

The problem arises when such societies force individuals to participate against their will.

Honestly. I just find within that moral framework the seeds of it's own destruction. — James Riley

That sounds rather theoretical, whereas the destruction caused by states and collectives is tangible, real and overwhelming.

Which, I will add, is not entirely strange considering the term has been used popularly to describe selfishness in society.

This implies that I'm for the project of the development of the state, regardless of the incalculable suffering that it may cause. As though I wish that any hunter-gatherer societies that exist today were developed into states, or worse, annexed by a state. — praxis

You seem to miss my point, as it was not a personal attack but what I consider to be a valid summary of your reply.

In your defense of societies, which in the modern era manifest as states, you seem to point towards the good societies do for individuals. I'm pointing out that it also causes evil to individuals, and asking you whether you simply accept this as collateral damage. "For the many to thrive, some must suffer," seems to be the reigning sentiment on the opponents of individualism "You will have to suffer, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". That there is no valid reason why the individual would have to accept such a bad deal seems obvious to me.

It's curious that the individualism that you appear to value so much is a consequence of the development of the state, and now you and NOS pooh-poohing the thing that gave rise to your moral framework. Shouldn't you guys be grateful? — praxis

If I understand correctly that you are proposing that states enable individualism, then we must have wildly different definitions of that term.

No man is an island, the individualist's actions inevitably affect others, Beyond some petty grab for control it is necessary to rein in the individual for the good of the collective. — New2K2

What if he (the individual) regards "the collective" that attempts to rein him in as an immoral enterprise?

Devoid of any sense of obligation to the group a person quickly becomes detached, drifting without any firm anchor of reciprocality to caution them. — New2K2

Do you believe this to be true for all individuals? If yes, on what basis? And if no, why should those for whom this is not true contend with being imposed upon?

In short, your answer seems to be "Yes, they are simply collateral damage".

The system that facilites and promotes the birthing of individuals, then promptly attempts to claim them for its own purposes, like a failed parent, has no other answer than "If you don't like it here, you can leave".

Of course, this isn't even a realistic option for the vast majority of individuals. To emancipate oneself from the mental clutches of the state is a lengthy process, by the end of which one finds themselves rooted in the system. To emancipate oneself from the physical clutches of the state, a near-impossibility.

Luckily, the individual has other options. Namely, to dispose any of the state's mental and intellectual impositions in the trash bin where they belong, leaving the state with only its most primitive tool, the cement of "society"; coercion, which the average individual is insignificant enough to evade.

I've read research that the original intentions were pretty much as you describe, and only relatively recently has civilazation been worth the price of forced admission for the average Joe. — praxis

And what about those for whom it has not been worth it? Are you happy to accept them as collateral damage? Do you believe they should too?

I'll readily concede that attempting to sell one's will to power as philanthropy is much more complicated.

I don’t think that any of us knows what it would be like to somehow erase all our conditioning and achieve a kind of moral blank-slate, if a ‘moral blank-slate’ makes any sense. Would such a way of being value liberty as much as you appear to? — praxis

I don't think the result would necessarily be a moral blank state, as you put it. There are still the self, reason and the laws of nature that can provide a basis for personal morality. And whether one values liberty or not, it would be the product of this process. Intellectual liberty at least, which in the modern world is perhaps the most under pressure.

It's a metaphysics of and for monkeys. — StreetlightX

I'll take a monkey over a tyrant any day. :kiss:

But can't you opt out of it? What if I voluntarily choose to abandon that because I want to do something else right now? It's my free choice after all. — BitconnectCarlos

If one could simply opt out, then there wouldn't be much point to calling something a moral duty.

The choices we make are largely shaped by the culture and environment we develop in, or at least the way we rationalize our choices. It’s as though you’re claiming that we choose the way we choose. — praxis

Our world views are, at least initially, largely based on the beliefs and opinions of others. That is an obstacle to freedom and one's ability to make conscious, voluntary decisions.

Assuming the decision to have a child was conscious and voluntary, then a moral duty is accepted.

If you have good parents, for instance, who raise you right are you not duty-bound to them? If your parents provided you with a great upbringing and did everything for you are you really going to tell me that you have no moral duty to them unless you voluntarily choose it? — BitconnectCarlos

One cannot force conditions on someone and then tell them what they expect in return.

On the other hand, one would assume that sometime during one's lifetime one's interactions with one's parents become conscious and voluntary, and perhaps on that basis a moral duty can develop.