The left was willing to accept money from Trump and accept Musk's electric vehicles until they decided to run for president as a Republican and supported a Republican president. The outrage is selective. — Harry Hindu

I wonder about that assertion without some context and citation. And of course, about how accepting a car is on par with mass deportations to a foreign prison without due process. Of course, one time, Trump called himself Democrat, so maybe it has to do with labels. There was nothing wrong with the cars, btw, many people still like them today; it's the Musk they enrich that smells bad.
Let us keep in mind that the people you mentioned as representing "the left" are not and have not claimed to be socialists. That false perception became prevalent only when the right was pushed so far that conservatives were dragged to the middle (unless culled entirely) and the beneficiaries of Corporateland found themselves on the 'left'. And a former state attorney-general was even branded a radical left lunatic. Funny how extremes are categorized.

On the whole, though, I'd prefer a return to the OP essay, rather than our subjective notions of the political spectrum.

I wonder about that assertion without some context and citation. — Vera Mont

There's plenty that can be found with a 30 second Google search. The fact that you can't do this yourself is evidence that you aren't willing to question your own party. Group-thinking is, by definition, the antithesis of progressive-thinking.

Donald Trump was once a registered Democrat and party donor. So why did he jump ship?

History of Donald Trump's political donations, 1989-2015

Most of Donald Trump's Political Money Went To Democrats — Until 5 Years Ago

So, his habits changed around 2011, around the time when this DEI BS started, and many Dems have "jumped ship" since then as well with Karine Jean-Pierre being the most recent.

Notice that he would donate to both Dems and Reps, which is what every smart business person would do since we have a two-party system where power shifts from one party to the other, and is evidence that it really doesn't matter which one is in power as they both work together (despite what they tell you) to ensure the status quo is maintained.

Trump is not right-wing. He supported the abortion bill and recreational marijuana amendments in Florida, but was thwarted by the real right-winger, Ron DeSantis who possibly used tax-payer funds to run commercials that lied about what the amendments actually said.

- :up:

The fact that you can't do this yourself is evidence that you aren't willing to question your own party. — Harry Hindu

The fact that you either do not have or refuse to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by these examples from the so-called 'left' that would in any way approach the wrongdoings by the examples of the so-called 'right' is evidence of something off-topic.
Is Trump's change of party attributable to the Clintons in some way? Do his political contributions attest to criminal behaviour? If so, it was perpetrated by Trump, not the candidates. Does receiving campaign contributions equal the 34 felonies of which Trump was convicted and the thousand more, including treason, that he hasn't been charged with?

Trump is not right-wing. — Harry Hindu

Obviously. Neither is the Republican party, anymore; they're a cult (unless they wake up soon and feel around under the bed for their lost vertebrae). How is that relevant to the discussion of hypocritical libertarian rhetoric?
I'm bored with this non sequitur now.

I am confused as to what is meant by 'Radical Individualism' especially in relation to Nozick?

I was expecting to see some mention of 'the hidden-hand'. Did I miss that?

Excellent essay.

The usual suspects are here, bending over backwards to pretend that it doesn't apply to them. What a sad lot they are... the self-made man has a fool for his creator.

Reading list:
Isaiah Berlin – Two Concepts of Liberty
Hegel – Elements of the Philosophy of Right
Hannah Arendt – The Human Condition and In Between Past and Future
Charles Taylor – Sources of the Self
Judith Butler – Precarious Life; The Psychic Life of Power
Michel Foucault – Discipline and Punish; The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1
Karl Marx – Capital Vol. 1
Robert Nozick – Anarchy, State and Utopia — Moliere

Would have been nice to see in-text citations to back up the claims made. I find the interpretation of Nozick to be taken at a stretch to say the least.

I felt reading this that there was an attempt to frame Nozick as stating his thoughts on these matters are to be applied to the real world. He quite explicitly give hypothetical scenarios to explore the workings of how justice is distributed through cooperative agreement and disagreement. It is necessarily simplistic as most hypotheticals are because they are exploratory tools not rules to live by.

It should also be noted that Nozick ends this book by on a very liberal individualistic note in saying no one should be forced to act against their own will, and that people can cooperate on likeminded schemes (nothing radical about this?).

The thrust of the argument seems to be more or less how the author of this piece equates what Nozick wrote to what certain individuals do in the real world today. This is missing the point of Nozick. Maybe this is the only claim here? That Nozick's exploration in 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' has been taken on in too literal a sense by some.

I personal found this a little perverse in the sense that it is a work of rhetoric that seems to steer away from the substance of Nozick's and looks to sully them with people as antagonistic to their own position.

Example of a problem I had when reading this:

Nozick assumes property, contracts and social status can be justified without examining how they arose. But our capacities and entitlements depend on historical contexts that shape access and recognition. — Moliere

No he does not. He outlines a hypothetical scenario in order to explore how concepts of ownership can arise. An equal critique could be leveled at Rawl's when he talks about the 'veil of ignorance'. We all know this is not actually plausible, but we understand the general idea behind it. It is a means of exploring morality on a societal level not a rule to dictate how we live.

All reflect Nozick’s suspicion of planned outcomes and preference for spontaneous association. — Moliere

Is this a vague finger pointing at 'hidden-hand'?

I am confused as to what is meant by 'Radical Individualism' especially in relation to Nozick? — I like sushi

I understand your confusion. I am still unsure. This essay needs to be read several times. To see the connections. However, the author describes his interpretation of 'Radical Individualism', starting here:

1. Radical Individualism: Core observations
The political and cultural individualism of Musk, Trump and Peterson follows a script rooted in Nozick’s Entitlement Theory. In Anarchy, State and Utopia Nozick defends a minimal state limited to protecting property and voluntary exchange, rejecting any patterned or redistributive justice. For Nozick, justice depends not on outcomes but on whether transactions are procedurally uncoerced.

This model, often adopted implicitly, informs much of today’s radical individualism. The typology below outlines key elements of this view:...

***
In an earlier post, I introduced the issue from psychology: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/992326

— Is Radical Individualism Destroying Our Moral Compass - Psychology Today — Amity

I searched for more on Radical Individualism and found an interesting pdf essay. I was slow to realise that it was from a Christian perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to be a careful examination of 'Individualism & Radical Freedom' by Dr. Gordon Carkner. I don't know enough to ascertain if the author has the best understanding.

From p1/18:

...Freedom, in Foucauldian language, is an ontological ground of ethics; freedom becomes the starting point, the norm and framework, the very goal of ethics, its alpha and omega. Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, with whom I place Foucault in critical dialogue, offers a critique of this radical notion of freedom; the two premier philosophers make excellent interlocutors. — ubcgcu.org

From the Conclusion, p11:

...it is quite evident that freedom is one of the values most appealed to in Western identity.
But Taylor wants to caution us, to call this into question and ask us to move away from a radical freedom as self-determination or self-sufficiency and toward a situated freedom of interdependence where he believes we can recover a healthier understanding of self in a larger and richer context. Complete freedom is absurd; it seeks to escape all historical-cultural situation and narrative. Pure freedom without limits is nothing; it has no context; it is chaos, destructive; it is no place, a void in which nothing would be worth doing.6 It is often abused. Foucault’s view of freedom, although attractive for its pioneering spirit and some of its tools for creative self articulation, is quite vulnerable to manipulation (a precarious autonomy); it is both exhilarating and dangerous. This empty freedom hollows out the self and can be filled with almost any moral trajectory or motive, whether constructive or destructive: community development or pure self indulgence, compassionate healing or violence, character development or self-trivialization, militarism or peace-making, philanthropy or a Ponsi scheme. — As above

* There is a useful Reading List at the end of this essay. Taylor and Foucault are referenced in Section 3.
(Taylor 3.1.1 and Foucault in 3.3 and 3.3.2):

3. What Kind of Individualism Are We Talking About?
The individualism examined here is not the moderate liberalism of dignity and mutual recognition. It is a more radical variant: anti-institutional, absolutist in its commitment to negative liberty and rooted in a metaphysical image of the self as a pre-social moral unit. This view rejects collective responsibility and treats the individual as both the source and end of all ethical concern. — Moliere

*

Reading list:
Isaiah Berlin – Two Concepts of Liberty
Hegel – Elements of the Philosophy of Right
Hannah Arendt – The Human Condition and In Between Past and Future
Charles Taylor – Sources of the Self
Judith Butler – Precarious Life; The Psychic Life of Power
Michel Foucault – Discipline and Punish; The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1
Karl Marx – Capital Vol. 1
Robert Nozick – Anarchy, State and Utopia — Moliere

Reading lists are helpful BUT when claims are made in-texts citations should be used.

I agree that in-text citations are useful. However, during initial discussions as to essay requirements for this event, it was decided that such were not essential. There were no stringent requirements. This was to encourage philosophy writing in the broader sense. As far as I recall. @Moliere ?

I guess it does help for open discussions. Would've helped though. What may end up happening now is a back and forth simply to understand why this person arrived at this point and how such and such a point is related to the topic.

Well, therein lies the fun of it, no? :wink:
It is thought-provoking. Stimulating and...frustrating...

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.

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.

Within this writing are two distinct and independent topics.

Topic one is saying that radical individualism as a political philosophy is both flawed and dangerous, and in section 3 a strong case is made for this claim.

Topic two is saying that Musk, Trump and Peterson are hypocrites in pretending that they don't believe in institutions whilst in fact making use of them, for which no evidence is given.

Topic one is basically a philosophical essay. Topic two isn't.

The problem is that these two different topics are jumbled up into one piece of writing, making it difficult to unpick them.

This writing, "The Authoritarian Liberty paradox", is basically a philosophical essay that does include evidence about radical individualism jumbled up with an attack without any evidence on Musk, Trump and Peterson.

The fact that you either do not have or refuse to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by these examples from the so-called 'left' that would in any way approach the wrongdoings by the examples of the so-called 'right' is evidence of something off-topic. — Vera Mont

You're moving the goal-posts. You asked:

I wonder about that assertion without some context and citation. — Vera Mont

in response to this:

The left was willing to accept money from Trump and accept Musk's electric vehicles until they decided to run for president as a Republican and supported a Republican president. The outrage is selective. — Harry Hindu

I provided the links to show that Trump supported Democrats. Now you are asking for links to the wrong-doings of Democrats. :roll:

I showed that you are unwilling to do your own research and to question your own party - effectively your are a group-thinker. The fact that the Democrats and Republicans ostracize any party member that questions the party just shows how deep group-think is embedded in both political parties.

You're moving the goal-posts. You asked:
I wonder about that assertion without some context and citation. — Vera Mont — Harry Hindu

in response to this:

The left was willing to accept money from Trump and accept Musk's electric vehicles until they decided to run for president as a Republican and supported a Republican president. The outrage is selective. — Harry Hindu

My objections were that the persons you mentioned do not represent "the left", and you have not shown that any of them personally accepted either money from Trump or gift cars from Musk. What you cited was legitimate contributions to earlier political campaigns. How's that relevant?
And how does that constitute being

just as self-centered and manipulative — Harry Hindu

on par with the Trump&Musk act of the past year?

Plus, you've got the essay all wrong. He's comparing rhetoric to reality.

Your focus is biased. There are plenty on the left that are just as self-centered and manipulative. It has nothing to do with political ideology.

I'm not aware that there are any Libertarians, or politicians using the libertarian memes in their speeches, anywhere on the left. So why would the author focus on them?
Perhaps the examples are less appropriate than they could have been; they were probably chosen for their high public profile. But there was no perceptible outrage. So what are you still on about?

What is the subject of this essay?

The author's thesis states that "This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose"

However, in section 3, the author makes a strong case that radical individualism is a coherent political philosophy.

The individualism examined here is not the moderate liberalism of dignity and mutual recognition. It is a more radical variant: anti-institutional, absolutist in its commitment to negative liberty and rooted in a metaphysical image of the self as a pre-social moral unit. This view rejects collective responsibility and treats the individual as both the source and end of all ethical concern.

The author concludes that radical individualism is a coherent political philosophy, even if it is flawed.

Radical individualism offers a seductive vision. It promises a world without interference, where each person is the sole author of their fate, untouched by history, insulated from obligation and immune to the needs of others. It is, at first glance, a philosophy of dignity and moral clarity. A defence of the self against the claims of society.

The thesis in the introduction is at odds with the body and conclusion.

I found this to be a good theoretical examination of what I have seen happening in America and England.

One of the aspects which I do wonder about in relation to this is the backlash against transgender and I was interested that the author included mention of Judith Butler, who has written extensively on gender.

In America, Trump has been harsh in his fundamentalist approach towards trans individuals. Even though the essay doesn't look at England there has been a legal ruling against self-identification of gender. The full impact of this has not become clear but it seems to be in conjunction with monitoring of people's choice of public toilets. It seems to be ushering in an approach in which transgender people are expected to use the toilets of their birth gender, even if they have had biological treatments to change gender. In some cases, it does seem that individuals may have to use disabled/unisex facilities only, which makes them vulnerable to violent attack.

Of course, the trans toilets issue is just one aspect of increasing authoritarian measures and there is lack of clarity over how it is going to be monitored. There is also the question of whether people who are not even trans may be affected. That is because some people get misgendered or have their gender questioned who don't have gender identity issues at all.

In general, it does seem that since the time of the pandemic the liberty/authoritarian paradox has become more apparent. It is as if the restrictive rules to protect others have ushered in a speedy form of authoritarian compliance.

What is the subject of this essay? — RussellA

I tend to start with the title. Then the subtitle:

The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: A Study in Contradictions and Nonsense — Author

The author introduces us to a worldview. A study. A way of looking at power and freedom.

This is what I call the Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: a worldview that denounces power, structure and constraint while glorifying individuals who wield all three. — Author

The effects of the Authoritarian Liberty Paradox are outlined and explored. The essay offers an interpretation of 'radical individualism' as exemplified in 3 globally recognised individuals. It relates to the issues of manipulation and morality. Is 'what is good for one, good for all'?

What makes this paradox politically dangerous is not just its incoherence but its corrosive effect on democratic norms and public solidarity. It promotes the illusion of self-sufficiency, undermines trust in institutions and casts redistributive policies as threats to liberty rather than its conditions. 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. — Author

I am grateful to the author for this helpful interpretation of what is new to me, 'Radical Individualism'. I realise that there is more than one perspective, including e.g. from psychology and religion. They seem to align with the ideas expressed. I posted earlier:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/992647

I think most people can see the paradox, or hypocrisy, but would not be able to put a name to it.
They would, however, recognise 'One rule for us, another for them'.
As exemplified in the UK's ex-PM, Boris Johnson, at the time of the covid pandemic.
In full: Boris Johnson's apology over lockdown drinks party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59969631

One rule for us, another rule for them’ will be Boris Johnson’s legacy
The prime minister is the foremost exponent of ‘one rule’ and always has been, but this sort of behaviour is far from unique to him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-one-rule-tory-party-b1992319.html

***

I agree with this:

When radical individualism is taken at face value, the result isn’t a flourishing of liberty but the quiet dismantling of its conditions: public goods erode, solidarities fray and those most in need are told their suffering is a personal failure, not a systemic injustice. It breeds cynicism toward democracy and opens the door for authoritarian figures to redefine freedom as obedience to themselves. What begins as a philosophy of personal sovereignty ends in the normalisation of power without accountability. — Author

Power without accountability. Think about it. Who comes to mind?

In America, Trump has been harsh in his fundamentalist approach towards trans individuals. — Jack Cummins

Do you have a better example?

Not wanting a man who self-identifies as a woman into teenage girls' changing rooms is more an example of common sense than authoritarianism.

I tend to start with the title. Then the subtitle:
The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: A Study in Contradictions and Nonsense — Amity

Who could disagree with the title?

Who could not dislike a public figure who says that they support liberty but in practice is an authoritarian. No one likes a hypocrite.

The problem is, the thesis of the essay is contradicted by the body and conclusion of the essay.

The thesis argues that radical individualism is a political philosophy that on the one hand publicly supports the individual against the institutions but on the other hand privately supports the institutions against the individual.

Yet the body and conclusion of the essay argue something totally different, that radical individualism supports the individual against the institutions.

The essay makes no case that radical individualism is an example of Authoritarian Liberty. In fact, it makes exactly the opposite case.

I am sorry to say that we have a completely different approach and understanding of this.
I don't see what you see, and you don't see what I see.
It happens. You are entitled to your views, I mine.
I will leave it there. Thank you.

It may appear as common sense, but it depends how far it goes. Some politicians have suggested always going by birth gender, which ends up with transmen who look completely male being expected to use women's toilets, which will upset women. It also means transwomen in male toilets. Okay, people say that there are unisex toilets but they aren't always available. It depends whether any flexibility and common sense will apply or simply rigid policies, which may occur within authoritarianism.

. It depends whether any flexibility and common sense will apply or simply rigid policies, which may occur within authoritarianism. — Jack Cummins

:100: I agree. Who would want authoritarianism. Common sense is better.

. It depends whether any flexibility and common sense will apply or simply rigid policies, which may occur within authoritarianism.
— Jack Cummins

:100: I agree. Who would want authoritarianism. Common sense is better. — RussellA

The common sense of an authoritarian:

Donald Trump signs order proclaiming there are only two sexes
In what Trump's administration has branded a "common sense" order, the government will recognise only two sexes, ending all federal funding or recognition of gender identities.

It is one of two branded as "common sense" orders and will end all federal funding or recognition of gender identities.
Mr Trump confirmed the move in his inaugural speech, saying: "As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female."

The definition of male and female will be based on whether people are born with eggs or sperm, rather than on their chromosomes.

Under the order, prisons and settings such as shelters for migrants and rape victims would be segregated by sex, based on this criteria.

Officials also said the order would impact federal documents including passports.

The order would also block requirements at government facilities and at workplaces that transgender people be referred to using the pronouns that align with their gender.

Mr Trump's team says those requirements violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion.

The second "common sense" order targets diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and ends their federal funding.

As part of this, officials said there would be a monthly meeting of relevant agencies to assess any DEI programs and whether they should be shut down.
— Sky News Trump - There are only two sexes

Edit to add:
Previous comment related to common sense as described in the essay:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/992326

The common sense of an authoritarian: Donald Trump signs order proclaiming there are only two sexes. In what Trump's administration has branded a "common sense" order, the government will recognise only two sexes, ending all federal funding or recognition of gender identities. — Amity

Also the Supreme Court in the UK, who have judged that legally the term "woman" means a biological woman.

Baroness Falkner, who heads the watchdog that regulates equality laws, described the judgement as a victory for common sense.

Regarding "the common sense of an authoritarian":

Are you saying 1) Trump is an authoritarian who happens to have common sense about this particular gender issue or 2) Trump is an authoritarian because he has common sense about this particular gender issue?

My thoughts about Trump and his common sense are revealed in previous posts.
No further comment.

Not wanting a man who self-identifies as a woman into teenage girls' changing rooms is more an example of common sense than authoritarianism. — RussellA

Why would a man be in a teenaged girls' changing room? Are random women welcome? If there is a boy who aspires to be a girl is in their gym, the girls already know him. If they feared him, they'd say so. What's the transgendered individual expected to do in there that would harm the girls? Is it just the odd glimpse of bare flesh you begrudge The Other? As if not enough of it were available on the internet?
How much molesting actually takes place in public rest-rooms? If a person with a penis sits down in a cubicle in the women's washroom, what bad thing happens?
I wonder why conservatives are so potty-obsessed.

In general, it does seem that since the time of the pandemic the liberty/authoritarian paradox has become more apparent. It is as if the restrictive rules to protect others have ushered in a speedy form of authoritarian compliance. — Jack Cummins

There is more to it than that. Some minorities are always suspect in the mind of ignorant masses, who are always eager to find a focus for their failures and frustrations. The authoritarian keeps a pocketful of witches and infidels in reserve, to use as scapegoats whenever they want to rile up the pitchfork-mob. While they're howling after the goat, the authoritarian's minions are quietly fastening in their leg-irons.

What is the subject of this essay?

The author's thesis states that "This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose"

However, in section 3, the author makes a strong case that radical individualism is a coherent political philosophy.

The individualism examined here is not the moderate liberalism of dignity and mutual recognition. It is a more radical variant: anti-institutional, absolutist in its commitment to negative liberty and rooted in a metaphysical image of the self as a pre-social moral unit. This view rejects collective responsibility and treats the individual as both the source and end of all ethical concern.

The author concludes that radical individualism is a coherent political philosophy, even if it is flawed.

Radical individualism offers a seductive vision. It promises a world without interference, where each person is the sole author of their fate, untouched by history, insulated from obligation and immune to the needs of others. It is, at first glance, a philosophy of dignity and moral clarity. A defence of the self against the claims of society.

The thesis in the introduction is at odds with the body and conclusion. — RussellA

Exactly. Was extreme collectivism also criticized? It seems to me that the answers lie between the two extremes - that we are individual members of a social species and that an individual can choose which collective they are a member of and to choose to not be a member of a group at all. Some people can choose to be hermits. How is their choice to be a hermit affecting others?

Why would a man be in a teenaged girls' changing room? — Vera Mont

Just ask a man!!! :rofl: