Yes. But I’m talking about individualism as the foundation of libertarian philosophy. Not about ‘methodological individualism’.
Individualism, you know. The belief that individuals are valuable in themselves, not as members of anything.
Are you advocating to live by yourself? a mountain man maybe? But even mountain men traded with other people. How are you going to isolate yourself?
why XOR when you can OR.
anyhow, im not too concerned with this point, i of course agree with Meth Ind and also i take individuals as the atomic parts of moral agenct etc. but dont go beyond that to what wikipedia calls individualism, stuff about ‘self-sufficiency’.
there are at least 3 perspectives I can entertain.
a)individualists who abhor any kind of thing that might be deemed collectivist (perhaps what you have in mind as individualism) - seems could easily push to absurdity
b)on the other side Collectivists who find the collective trumps the individual (this is evil and ridicioulous)
c)individualist who can free-associate and who can enter contracts, and who can function in groups and teams. he remains an individual even as he enters into relationships. relationships are between individuals after all.
If you’re referring to operations on binary math (boolean algebra), none of them apply here, I think.
Which is not the point I think.
That may be closer…
And that’s a cheap shot and I didn’t look up my definition in wikipedia.
Or you can easily create a straw man of sorts. What about a nice rant about ‘atomistic individualism’ ? Or ‘vulgar individualism’ perhaps ?
Well, individualism is the opposite of that.
Yeah well. That’s a value free description based on ‘methodological individualism’ which, as I said, is not the point.
How would one enforce this law of coercion?
through the prior negotiation of voluntary contracts that involve property title transfers, (to give individuals stakes to lose if they play the game wrong) plus negative enforcement(i.e. shunning from the division of labour)
friend, you said “The belief that individuals are valuable in themselves, not as members of anything”
now normally i would jump right in and say despite individuals being the atomic starting point for morality etc. individuals dont have ‘intrinsic value’ any more than any object in the world does, since i agree with subjective value theory without exemption. yet, even if we adopt ‘individuals are valuable in themselves’ as a kind of shorthand for all the insights that flow from understanding morality and MethInd then still
could not individuals be valuable in themselves whether-they-are-or-are-not members of anything. I.e. that group identities dont necessarily conflict with ‘individualism’ unless the group inquestion is coercive. this is all i meant with my Xor and Or bit.
apologies about the ‘cheapshot’, i merely recoursed to wikipedia to tell me about the ideology of individualism since i realised that I did not understand it based on our apparent disagreement over it when i had always assumed that there was no controversy here.
the three (a),(b),(c)'s i gave are me trying to understand what might be meant by ‘individualism’, it seems that only (c) could enjoy being true, so if individualism is more about (a) my first impression is it would be an ideology that i would disagree with as being false and wicked.
But we’re not talking about economics but political organization, so subjective value theory does not apply. People are not goods sold on the market and we’re not debunking any labor theory of value or somesuch.
It is indeed shorthand for the moral principle that underlies all libertarian philosophy. Is that news ? I don’t think so.
I think I clearly illustrated my point when I said that voluntary collectivism, is, well, voluntary and collectivistic. Sorry about restating that a = a …
Well, I just took a look at wikipedia’s article and is not so far off the mark. I’m not sure why you seem to object to it ? You only made a comment about one term used in the article ? And yes, individualism also entails “independence and self-reliance” - what’s outlandish or wrong with that ?
Individualism is partly about a) and there’s nothing false and wicked about it.
What is clearly false is Mr Smith’s idea that he’s superior to other people becuase he’s an ‘american’. Or Fritz Schmidt’s idea that he belongs to the master race. Or Jacob’s idea that he’s a member of the chosen people, and so on and so forth.
You gave three options for the meaning of the word, but none of the options is accurate IMO.
feel free to state superior options than the 3 i intuited…
i lack a calculus of superiority by which i could measure whether smith or schmidt or jacob are right or wrong in their ideas. we have surely strayed from the topic at hand which is the challenge of having the correct market solutions to the problems that committed libertarians will ecounter in the course of living together.
earlier you challenged that
its as theoretical as anything people on mises.org write when they imagine a world where the state has gone the way of the dodo. its as theoretical as speculating what the banking industry would like if there was no government involvment in the industry. etc.
so let us together study and think about how it can be done. thats our purpose here i thought?
Yeah, I agree, it seems this thread got off track. I asked Juan some questions, but for some reason Juan doesn’t want to answer them. Are they that tough? I’m not being rhetorical sorry if you’re that sensitive to words and some questions. It would have helped me realize why it seemed, Juan, that you’ve strayed off topic. Maybe you think you’re on topic, but you seem to be picking and choosing the course of this thread without hinting to where you’re going. I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me.
Sorry, I did think your questions were rhetoric (and loaded) - that’s why I didn’t answer them. So, the literal answer is “No, I’m not a mountain man nor am I advocating isolation.”
I thought you’d gather as much from reading the rest of my posts…
I think that what I said at least hints at what individualism is. I don’t believe my usage of the term is uncommon. I’m a bit surprised that you needed to look it up…
On the other hand, I’m not really qualified to make a good description (and typo-free) or provide an explanation of individualism. Yet I’m confident that there’s such a philosophy as individualism and is the backbone of libertarianism.
My point is that people who fancy themselves superior because they ‘belong to a group’ are mistaken. This is not about a ‘calculus or superiority’ but about the fact that the ‘collective entities’ people identify with do not exist.
Well, some theories are worse than others then. The multiple-legal-codes stuff IMO is flawed. Just as ‘voluntary’ government is flawed. Possible in a small scale ? Maybe. Theoretically in line with the NAP ? Maybe. Philosophically in line with libertarianism and individualism ? I highly doubt it.
It just that your statements about not belonging to any group and then your rant against the Amish. Personally if you don’t want to be with anybody else (a group), or not a group, such as not with the Amish that is your choice. I guess the discussion was talking about law and then you threw that in and it seemed the “law” part got mixed up with the anti-group part and got jumbled around a bit. So if we were talking about law and the question of how to enforce such law came up and then you starting saying you were against groups, do you see how this seemed a bit side-tracked. nirgrahamUK seemed to be wondering too, but go on with the discussion. No point in beating a dead-horse. Go on please and thanks for answering. I really was just trying to figure out the thread.[:D]
Well, sorry about beating a dead horse, but I do think my points are wholly relevant and besides I was not the first to mention the amish. As to my comments being a ‘rant’, well, that’s your ‘opinion’. I’m objecting to the moral validity of any kind of government even the allegedly voluntary ones. And that doesn’t mean I want to live in a mountain.
Just because I’m curious, what do you favour? Coercion people to accept a single “libertarian” legal code. Or do you expect Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists and Hindus to all accept the same legal code?
Natural law just exists. We both know you can’t coerce people into accepting it. It’s possible to prevent some crimes and stop some criminals, but it’s not possible to ‘enact’ the NAP and have it enforced by some mechanism external to the conscience of individuals.
Now, what has revealed religion (or lack of it) got to do with a legal system concerned with individual rights ? I’m honestly asking.
Also, are you taking for granted that a few ‘religions’ are eternal or something ? Do you believe that the human race is just what it is today and will never change ? Well, if you assume that tribalism is a feature of human nature and it will last forever, then it seems that the only ‘solution’ is some sort of voluntary segregation. But I don’t accept the tribalist premise.
A religious sect could create its own little enclave ala Galt’s Gulch and have its own legal code, e.g. what types of contracts are allowed.
What about that is so difficult to grasp?
I wasn’t saying you were beating a dead horse. I was saying I was beating a dead horse by going on about side-tracking the thread. That’s why I said continue on please.
You’re missing the point, you’ve yet to explain to me why people should not be able to voluntarily associate with one another as they please, that means that they can create their own legal system, even if they can’t force others to accept it.
The alternative is forcing a certain legal system on to people, which is historically what the state has done to expand its own power.
I think I answered that even before you posted it.
I already said
So, what do you think I’m not grasping ?