It seems to me that the answers lie between the two extremes — Harry Hindu

So it seems to me. Neither radical individualism nor radical institutionalism.

The trouble is that thinking has been based around 'Silence of the Lambs' stereotypes of motivation. Lawyers may have once erred in the direction of presumptions that women who dressed in certain ways were asking for rape. The leaning may now have gone in the opposite direction, that all 'biological males', including those who wish to become women should be viewed as potential 'rapists'. Feminism was needed to alter fear and, now, it is a basis for generating authoritarian ideologies of fear.

The leaning may now have gone in the opposite direction, that all 'biological males', including those who wish to become women should be viewed as potential 'rapists'. — Jack Cummins

Yes, radical positions are not helpful, whether radical individualism or radical institutionalism. Voyeurism might be a less radical explanation. Even so, 3.8 billion years of life's reproductive evolution on Earth is difficult to ignore.

So it seems to me. Neither radical individualism nor radical institutionalism. — RussellA

What would real world examples of radical individualism and radical institutionalism look like?

I gave an example of radical individualism as a hermit. How does a hermit's choice to live in the Canadian or Alaskan wilderness affect you the life you choose to live? How does that compare to the influence radical institutionalism would have on your life's choices?

What would real world examples of radical individualism and radical institutionalism look like? I gave an example of radical individualism as a hermit. How does a hermit's choice to live in the Canadian or Alaskan wilderness affect you the life you choose to live? How does that compare to the influence radical institutionalism would have on your life's choices? — Harry Hindu

Our daily lives are more impacted by radical institutionalism than radical individualism.

The hermit in Alaska, as an example of radical individualism, has little affect on my life. However, the European Union, as an example of radical institutionalism, does have a wide-ranging negative affect on the lives of European citizens.

Radical institutionalism is either authoritarian or very close to it.

Therefore, it is the radical institutions that we should be the most wary of, especially when they present themselves as supporters of the individual.

It is not so much an Authoritarian Liberty Paradox, but rather an Authoritarian Liberty Hypocrisy.

It is not so much an Authoritarian Liberty Paradox, but rather an Authoritarian Liberty Hypocrisy. — RussellA

:up:
Which is exactly what Democrats and Republicans are doing. Neither wants to appear authoritarian because in a culture that values freedom and individualism over authoritarianism, that would look ugly. So they have to run cover for their authoritarian stances on some issues by talking almost exclusively about their libertarian views on the other issues and their opponents authoritarian views on those other issues. Both parties share authoritarian and liberal tendencies but only the libertarian rejects all authoritarian tendencies.

Just ask a man!!! — RussellA

Have a lot of men pretending to identify as women asked to be in the teenaged girls' dressing rooms? Or maybe they all snuck in via the public toilets. What did they do? Anything a man who didn't claim to be a woman wouldn't do?

Was extreme collectivism also criticized? — Harry Hindu

Why, in an essay about one ideology would the author be criticizing another ideology? Shouldn't the essay be about what the author says it's about? There will be plenty of critics to drag in completely unrelated topics.

Neither wants to appear authoritarian because in a culture that values freedom and individualism over authoritarianism, that would look ugly. — Harry Hindu

:100:

Have a lot of men pretending to identify as women asked to be in the teenaged girls' dressing rooms? — Vera Mont

It doesn't need to be a lot to make a problem, a few is sufficient.

That there are not a lot of deaths in road traffic accidents in London on a particular day does not mean that deaths in road traffic accidents is not a problem.

As the article in "Feminist Current" writes

In recent years, prisons across the Western world have been allowing men who identify as women to be housed alongside female inmates, leading to sexual harassment, sexual assaults, pregnancies, and complaints from women both in prison and among the general public. These complaints have been mostly ignored by governments and those with the power to do something.

The difficulty is being able to distinguish between someone identifying as something and someone pretending to identify as something, which is one of the themes of this essay "The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox".

Why, in an essay about one ideology would the author be criticizing another ideology? Shouldn't the essay be about what the author says it's about? There will be plenty of critics to drag in completely unrelated topics. — Vera Mont

I look forward to reading the author's feedback. Until then, then. The 16th June.

Why, in an essay about one ideology would the author be criticizing another ideology? Shouldn't the essay be about what the author says it's about? There will be plenty of critics to drag in completely unrelated topics. — Vera Mont

If the author does not want to appear biased then they would take a more objective position. By focusing on the lesser of the two "evils", your intent does not appear to be to solve the problem they are showing but to simply bash one ideology.

This is why I asked:

What would real world examples of radical individualism and radical institutionalism look like?

I gave an example of radical individualism as a hermit. How does a hermit's choice to live in the Canadian or Alaskan wilderness affect you the life you choose to live? How does that compare to the influence radical institutionalism would have on your life's choices? — Harry Hindu

It seems to me that, while both extreme, one is worse than the other, and the worse one is not the one the author is focused on.

It doesn't need to be a lot to make a problem, a few is sufficient. — RussellA

How many, exactly? What were the outcomes?
I mean, are teenaged boys' and girls' locker rooms really open to the general public in the USA and UK?
I heard the artificial ruckus about public toilets and the huge enormous giant problem of boys and girls wanting to compete in each other's sports, but I've heard no scandals involving random adults walking into kids' change rooms. All the youth-molesting I've heard of was done by coaches, scout leaders and pastors who stuck staunchly to their birth-gender. Of course, transgendered people are harassed and abused all the time, wherever they try to relive themselves.

That there are not a lot of deaths in road traffic accidents in London on a particular day does not mean that deaths in road traffic accidents is not a problem. — RussellA

And yet the city fails to make changes to intersections where no accidents have taken place, but some imaginable accident might on some future Thursday. (How many roundabouts will Londoners tolerate?)

The difficulty is being able to distinguish between someone identifying as something and someone pretending to identify as something, which is one of the themes of this essay "The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox". — RussellA

Exactly!
Some crimes are committed by some transgendered people, who must therefore all be judged, punished and prevented from being able to commit potential crimes.
Most crimes are committed by some birth-gendered people, who must therefore be judged and punished individually.
By their actions shalt thou know them. And according to their actions - rather than your imagination or their rhetoric - should you judge them.

If the author does not want to appear biased then they would take a more objective position. — Harry Hindu

Every essay takes the position it takes on the subject it discusses. The author talking about Kierkegaard makes no appeal to Schopnehauer. The one discussing past and present doesn't get into a critique of Judaism. An op-ed piece on cinema hardly mentions what's wrong with painting and a recipe for bean soup doesn't even consider pumpkin pie.

By focusing on the lesser of the two "evils", your intent does not appear to be to solve the problem they are showing but to simply bash one ideology. — Harry Hindu

Where does the author say this essay is intended to solve a problem? Or the relative size of evils?

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. — Moliere

It's not bashing the ideology; it's showing its shortcomings as a philosophy. It points out the gaps between the stated tenets of the ideology, political theory and social reality, as illustrated by some high-profile figures who claim to be its embodiment.

What makes this paradox politically dangerous is not just its incoherence but its corrosive effect on democratic norms and public solidarity. — Author

The institutions radical individualists reject are the very structures that allow people to act safely and intelligibly. Moving through public space without fear, challenging injustice in court or accessing healthcare are not natural conditions. They support agency and to treat them as constraints is to misunderstand how freedom is obtained in fact. — Author

Hannah Arendt distinguishes between private freedom from interference and public freedom through action. The latter, she argues, is the political kind: appearing, speaking and acting with others in a shared space. Retreating into the household, the market or the self does not protect freedom. It eliminates it. — Author

the celebration of liberty through authoritarian means. — Author

Trump commands state machinery and nationalist rhetoric, — Author

The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox: A Study in Contradictions and Nonsense

The liberty paradox - more dangerous than mere hypocrisy - is shown in its extreme form.
Trump, the current criminal in charge of the USA, uses the common sense of authoritarianism.
Threated by protest, he brings all his power to bear. He is free so to do. He celebrates this and commands the state institutions to oppress those against him. Freedom not for them. Quite the opposite.

California on Monday filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing the US president of “unlawfully” federalizing the state’s national guard to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles.

Trump’s extraordinary deployment of troops to Los Angeles exceeds federal authority and violates the 10th amendment in an “unprecedented usurpation” of state powers, according to the court filing. — Guardian - Los Angeles ICE protests

Trump sends thousands more troops to LA as mayor says city is being used as an ‘experiment’
California leaders condemn ‘authoritarian’ president as demonstrations over immigration raids continue in Los Angeles and beyond. — The Guardian

Defence secretary Pete Hegseth went further, announcing that active-duty Marines stationed nearby had been placed on "high alert" for mobilisation.

Posting on X, Governor Newsom responded: "The Secretary of Defence is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens. This is deranged behaviour." — Sky News

No longer an academic exercise. An essay in power and liberty. This is happening.
The author's choice of high profile Trump vindicated.

the image of a self-legitimating individual opposed to collective authority. Yet each depends on immense institutional power. — Author

The common sense of an authoritarian. To protect himself from the protesting public. Public freedom in action will not be tolerated. Trump. The criminal, bully and coward in charge.

By their actions shalt thou know them. And according to their actions - rather than your imagination or their rhetoric - should you judge them. — Vera Mont

It is not about crimes committed. It is about, as you said:

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

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

The liberty paradox - more dangerous than mere hypocrisy - is shown in its extreme form. — Amity

I don't understand where the paradox comes from.

If someone denounces power yet glorifies an individual that wields power they could be called a hypocrite or could be said to be talking nonsense.

Where is the paradox?

I don't understand where the paradox comes from. — RussellA

Try reading the essay carefully. Not only what the paradox is, but its effects.

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

Recent events have shown the danger of Trump to American democracy.
Trump believes that he, as President, is above the rule of law. He is in aggressive pursuit of expanding presidential power. He feels he has the authority to do whatever he wants.
His MAGA freedom is only for those who are in agreement with him. Objectors are traitors and will be punished accordingly. And more. He is an autocrat if not a dictator.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-tells-us-the-u-s-is-heading-toward-a-dictatorship/

Hypocrisy is only a part of it.

Try reading the essay carefully. Not only what the paradox is, but its effects. — Amity

That is avoiding the question.

The author describes the Authoritarian Liberty Paradox as, for example, a worldview that denounces power while glorifying individuals who wield power.

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

Nowhere in the article does the author explain how a worldview that denounces power while glorifying individuals who wield power is a paradox.

It may be hypocritical, it may be nonsense, but that doesn't make it a paradox.

George Bernard Shaw's "youth is wasted on the young" is a paradox, because although initially it seems contradictory, on reflection it makes sense.

"A worldview that denounces power while glorifying individuals who wield power" is certainly contradictory, but also makes no sense.

Can you explain in your own words why it is a paradox?

Every essay takes the position it takes on the subject it discusses. The author talking about Kierkegaard makes no appeal to Schopnehauer. The one discussing past and present doesn't get into a critique of Judaism. An op-ed piece on cinema hardly mentions what's wrong with painting and a recipe for bean soup doesn't even consider pumpkin pie. — Vera Mont

Exactly. And I am not off topic discussing authoritarianism and libertarianism in a thread titled: The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox. This is a typical tactic of not agreeing with what said but instead of making an argument against what was said, you assert it is off-topic. Well, my posts have not been deleted for being off-topic, so.... next.

Where does the author say this essay is intended to solve a problem? Or the relative size of evils? — Vera Mont

I don't know. Why would the author write the essay asserting that Libertarianism is actually Authoritarianism unless they planned on inciting others to do something about it? The whole essay is a straw-man. It appears to be an authoritarian describing libertarianism. It's like a man describing what it is like to be a woman.

It's not bashing the ideology; it's showing its shortcomings as a philosophy. It points out the gaps between the stated tenets of the ideology, political theory and social reality, as illustrated by some high-profile figures who claim to be its embodiment. — Vera Mont

Just because someone claims to be a woman does not mean they are a woman. Just because someone claims to be a Libertarian does not mean they are. One is a woman by the way they are born. One is a Libertarian but the way one behaves and treats others with a healthy understanding and respect that others have the same freedoms as you do.

Any unbiased, intelligent person understands that ALL politicians lie and manipulate the facts. I have already pointed out that both Dems and Reps hide their authoritarian tendencies by covering them up with their Libertarian tendencies. Just as you telling me what pronouns I have to use is not an expression of freedom and inclusion. It is a form of authoritarianism. Just as the right likes to talk about religious freedom but that is just cover talk for Christianity is the state's religion and there is no separation of church and state. So the essay appears to be describing the two-party system, not Libertarianism.

The political parties don't want you thinking for yourself, and people typically join political parties to be told what to think because thinking for yourself and doing the research is difficult and time-consuming.

That is avoiding the question. — RussellA

No. It isn't. It is a suggestion. Take it or leave it. I am not about to spoon-feed you.

It is not about crimes committed. It is about, as you said:

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

The essay we're supposed to be discussing never mentioned changing rooms.... Although, speaking of, since you're so deeply invested in them, what exactly was Donald J. Trump doing in the Miss America contestants' locker room? Oh, yeah, I remember... Not wearing a dress.

Why would the author write the essay asserting that Libertarianism is actually Authoritarianism unless they planned on inciting others to do something about it? — Harry Hindu

Aside from the misrepresentation of this topic, are you saying the only reason to write an essay to incite?

Just because someone claims to be a woman does not mean they are a woman. Just because someone claims to be a Libertarian does not mean they are. — Harry Hindu

The essay is about one of those subjects.

It appears to be an authoritarian describing libertarianism. It's like a man describing what it is like to be a woman. — Harry Hindu

It's not describing either of those things. It's pointing out discrepancies between theory and reality, rhetoric and action. Yeah, it's hard to discern those subtle nuances.

One is a woman by the way they are born. — Harry Hindu

How do you know? Do you recall being born and knowing what gender you were? Are you speaking of every woman's experience, or are you a man describing what it is to be a woman? What so troubles you about women and who's allowed to be one? I've been one most of my life, and it's not that special. I'm willing to share womanhood with anyone who wants it.

Any unbiased, intelligent person understands that ALL politicians lie and manipulate the facts. — Harry Hindu

I've never met an unbiased person, and damn few intelligent ones. I have, however, known politicians who didn't tell ginormous lies or borrow the philosophical stance of people they don't understand or agree with.

I have already pointed out that both Dems and Reps hide their authoritarian tendencies by covering them up with their Libertarian tendencies. — Harry Hindu

You've asserted that, yes. Wanna do it again? Go ahead, we've got time.

Just as you telling me what pronouns I have to use is not an expression of freedom and inclusion. — Harry Hindu

I'm not telling you any such thing. Someone who prefers to be addressed in a way you don't approve of might you ask you politely to use the correct pronoun, but no Democratic president has passed an executive order forcing people to an assigned gender.
Your notion of equivalency could benefit from a review.

Aside from the misrepresentation of this topic, are you saying the only reason to write an essay to incite? — Vera Mont

Well, "incite" could be one possible reaction according to some on these forums. Why would someone write an essay with a faulty analysis of the facts?

It's not describing either of those thing. It's pointing out discrepancies between rhetoric and reality. — Vera Mont

Then we agree that people are not always what they claim to be. An individual is what they are based on natural causes (in the context of mating and medicine) and their actions since becoming a legal adult (in the context of the laws of the society they live in) that preceded their existence at this moment in time.

How do you know? Do you recall being born and knowing what gender you were? Are you speaking of every woman's experience, or a man describing what it's like to be a woman? — Vera Mont

Exactly. I was a male regardless of what I knew or believed until I acquired more information.

Why would someone write an essay with a faulty analysis of the facts? — Harry Hindu

Lots of people would, for lots of reasons - climate change denial comes to mind... or the benign uses of coal power.... This author hasn't.

Then we agree that people are not always what they claim to be. An individual is what they are based on natural causes (in the context of mating and medicine) and their actions since becoming a legal adult (in the context of the laws of the society they live in) that preceded their existence at this moment in time. — Harry Hindu

That's a bit of a snag for authoritarians proclaiming themselves liberators.

I was a male regardless of what I knew or believed until I acquired more information. — Harry Hindu

And once you acquired more information, you learned what it is to be a woman? Well, all right, sister. Welcome to our rest room!

That's a bit of a snag for authoritarians proclaiming themselves liberators. — Vera Mont

I don't get your point. If you don't judge people based on past behavior you just end up believing the same people that have lied to you and engaging in useless conversations with people that refuse to be intellectually honest. There's nothing authoritarian about that. It's just simple logic.

I was a male regardless of what I knew or believed until I acquired more information.
— Harry Hindu
And once you acquired more information, you learned what it is to be a woman? Well, all right, sister. Welcome to our rest room! — Vera Mont

Ok, so I was in a hurry in typing that last part, but I'm sure that you knew what I meant.

I'll re-phrase:
My sex was determined at the moment of fertilization despite what I, my mother, father or the doctors knew at that time. It was only in making observations over time that my sex became known to the doctors, my mother and my father. I had to wait to acquire this information (not create it) by making my own observations.

My sex was determined at the moment of fertilization despite what I, my mother, father or the doctors knew at that time. It was only in making observations over time that my sex became known to the doctors, my mother and my father. I had to wait to acquire this information (not create it) by making my own observations. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, it's hard to peek over the baby belly when your head is too heavy to lift. But eventually, you became an expert on what a woman is. Amazing!

I don't get your point. — Harry Hindu

That, at least, is evident.

@ucarr @Baden @Banno @Vera Mont @Amity Thanks for reading and your kind words! Also particulary Vera and Amity for arguing my case better than I could myself and the obvious charitable reading of my essay. Since there weren't any specific questions or critiques in your posts (or I forgot about them), the following tries to engage what I considered relevant comments or critiques of the essay. That's of necessity shorter than this paragraph but my gratitude to you is no less for it.

On that note, I'm only replying once, hoping to clarify some questions that arose and comments I thought were relevant enough to engage with. What I wanted to say is in the essay itself and I don't feel like revisiting it after having already spend so much time on it.

On another note, I would really have liked to have seen some comparisons with Popper's views. I would be really interest see the author's thoughts on what Popper had to say in regards to 'Open Society And It's Enemies'. There seems to be a direct parallel to what is being discussed in this essay. — I like sushi

I agree there are surface-level parallels with The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper also warns against ideologies that, under the guise of grand principles (historicism, in his case), end up justifying authoritarianism.

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.

Even so, my essay shares some of his concerns. Especially the idea that freedom can collapse into its opposite but I approach it from a different angle. Popper was reacting to collectivist historicism; I’m critiquing an atomized conception of liberty that pretends to transcend power while covertly depending on it.



Thanks for this constructive reply. There’s a lot I agree with here and some clarifications I should probably have made more explicit.

First, you're right that Nozick often writes hypothetically and Anarchy, State, and Utopia is also a thought experiment. Nozick presents entitlement theory as a hypothetical and he’s explicit that it’s not a comprehensive vision for society. But my disagreement runs deeper than just how others have appropriated him; I’m also directly critiquing the structure of Nozick’s theory itself.

Here’s where I take (the most) issue: Nozick’s framework assumes that we can assess justice in holdings without attending to the prior social and historical processes that shape how property, status and capacity emerge. Even granting his “justice in acquisition” and “justice in transfer,” the theory has virtually no resources to address how initial entitlements are formed in practice. How power, history, violence and exclusion precondition what looks like a “voluntary” exchange. Nozick acknowledges the importance of historical injustice but provides no account of how to redress it. He offers no guidance how far back to look, what counts as evidence, if we're going to pay reparations or redstribute, who should pay and who should benefit. Justice in rectification is just a rest category for anything that doesn't fit justice in acquisition or transfer - which, unfortunately, is where almost every transaction lies.

The Wilt Chamberlain example is meant to dissolve patterned principles of justice by showing how free choice can lead to inequality. But it does so without questioning the background conditions that make some people Wilt Chamberlain and others anonymous ticket buyers. That’s not just an omission, it’s a profound limitation. Because once you bracket social embeddedness and historical injustice, the resulting model will systematically obscure domination as long as it's mediated by consent.

So I’m not just saying “people took Nozick too literally.” I’m arguing that even in its ideal form, entitlement theory builds in an atomism that cannot adequately account for structural injustice. And when that framework is imported into political discourse, it becomes a rhetorical shield for power: inequality becomes merit, and domination becomes choice.

I do take your point that my treatment of Nozick is compressed (and perhaps a little sharp). A more academic version of this argument would give him a more thorough and charitable reading. But I stand by the critique in its essence: not just of how he’s used but of what he proposes. And I believe it's a critique that becomes more urgent as these frameworks, however hypothetically introduced, bleed into real-world moral reasoning.

It's hard to see how a focus on three non-philosophers who the author dislikes amounts to anything more than ad hominem. A philosophy essay needs to avoid such strong reliance on ad hominem. The piece is more than that, but it is bogged down by it. — Leontiskos

I would agree if the essay would hinge too heavily on the critique of these public figures. I tried not to focus on personalities but principles, tried to connect their (sometimes implicit) assumptions to underlying principles and ideas and don't think I show particular disdain for them individually. From an academic standpoint, it is indeed not a purely technical exploration of liberty, statehood and liberal theory and can accept you would find their inclusion as distracting or even unrigorous but ad hominem seems to be a step too far.

I chose Musk, Trump and Peterson not because they are philosophers in the strict sense but because their public rhetoric, popularity and institutional power make them emblematic of a wider cultural phenomenon. Their behavior and speech illustrate how the celebration of personal liberty often relies on invisible structures of power and how individualism can slide into authoritarianism under the banner of freedom. The critique is of the logic they embody; not merely the personalities involved.



Thank you for your detailed and generous engagement. A few clarifications might help explain where I'm coming from and where I agree with you.

You're absolutely right that the figures I chose (Musk, Trump, Peterson) are not systematic philosophers. My intent was not to treat them as such, but to use them as emblems of a broader cultural logic: one where radical individualism is performed, celebrated and weaponized in ways that conceal structural dependency and authoritarian drift. They're not my targets as people; they’re case studies. They represent styles of political and cultural power that dominate media and public imagination and through which certain ideological patterns become visible. If anything, they are incoherent, and that’s part of the point: incoherence is a feature, not a bug, of the spectacle of liberty masking domination.

That said, you're absolutely right to point out that this ideological terrain is more fractured than the piece could cover. You may very well be correct about a "civil war" within the Right. I'm alas not fully aware of it in a way you seem to express it. I also think that it happens to be outside the scope of my essay. It isn't called Why the Right is Authoritarian, but rather about a paradox (that quite frankly annoys me): how certain forms of liberty, when stripped of institutional humility or shared obligation, collapse into their opposite.

Your observations about appeals to tradition, aesthetics and thymos are appreciated. I also agree that progressive liberalism shares in this paradox and I gesture toward that in the piece’s broader implication: that liberty, detached from collective structure and moral obligation, becomes cannibalistic wherever it shows up (Power is everywhere: when we call the Other "stupid" or "uninformed" or "voting against their interest" we are creating a basis for denying them a say by not having to take them seriously). I chose this specific style of right-wing libertarianism because it's particularly visible right now, steeped in structural contradictions and shapes global discourse disproportionately.

Thanks again for giving the piece such serious thought. I'd be interested in reading your version of this argument; perhaps one that dives deeper into the tragic tension between the individual and the polis in pre-modern sources. That’s a tradition worth recovering, not just referencing.

Thank you for reading and engaging with my essay. While thoughtful, I believe you're mislocating emphasis. It isn't a take-down of Nozick or about Musk ,Trump or Peterson but an attempt to expose a structural paradox.

Let me clarify the core argument, which I think is getting lost:

The paradox is not simply hypocrisy (people saying one thing and doing another), but that the ideological celebration of radical self-sovereignty requires the very collective institutions it claims to transcend. When “freedom” is defined solely as freedom from obligation, without a shared framework of norms, mutual responsibilities or institutional integrity, it ends up needing coercion to enforce itself, and thus paradoxically invites authoritarianism.

As for the use of the term "radical individualism"; you’re right that it’s deliberately strong. I'm not critiquing all forms of individualism or libertarianism but a specific tendency to treat the individual as metaphysically prior to society, as if freedom is a natural state threatened by interference rather than something cultivated through shared norms and institutions. That distinction matters because much of our political rhetoric today still draws from that myth, even when it’s incompatible with real conditions.

Finally, regarding evidence: you’re right that I don’t present detailed dossiers on Musk, Trump or Peterson, but that wasn’t the goal. This isn’t a biographical critique. It’s a philosophical argument illustrated by these public figures whose rhetoric aligns with the paradox. If I rewrote the piece for a more academic audience, I’d replace them with abstract types. But that would lose the essay’s urgency and resonance with the world we actually live in. Additionally, these figures are well known so a dossier might not even be necessary. Decisions decisions...

I think the tension you’re pointing to actually reflects the rhetorical arc of the essay, rather than a contradiction.

The goal wasn't to deny that radical individualism has an internal logic. On the contrary, I tried to lay out its metaphysical and moral premises clearly so that I could then examine how they play out in practice. The essay argues that while this worldview presents itself as a coherent political philosophy, it functions more like a performance: a posture of self-sovereignty that depends on the very collective conditions it denies.

So yes, I acknowledge the appeal and apparent coherence of radical individualism but only to show how it collapses under its own weight when mapped onto real-world politics, institutions and relations. The central claim is that this supposed coherence is theatrical: it has rhetorical force but neither philosophical nor political durability.

I hope that clarifies the structure.

Thanks for this clear, comprehensive and informative feedback. I've never read better. ( or I can't remember! Memory, huh?!) Your essay engaged at many levels. The to and fro most stimulating. A true learning experience. :clap: :flower:

I had a very long time to draft the responses, because I started with them when the comments arose. Gave me time to shave away all the acerbic comments I had and play nice for a change. :razz:

I had a very long time to draft the responses, because I started with them when the comments arose. Gave me time to shave away all the acerbic comments I had and play nice for a change — Benkei

:cool:
Excellent strategy. To take time. To respond carefully. This is one of the benefits of this kind of event.
Compared to the urgent cut and thrust of TPF threads, it slows the pace to allow considered and considerate appraisals. There is a place for both and we wouldn't want it any other way, would we?!

:up: