Independent Individualist Challenge

Miscellaneous General
1

http://theautonomist.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=149

This is an interesting topic. I have some in depth discussion of this with him on his forum.

His philosophy of individualism is easily understood. He rejects collectivism. Fine. There are some problems with his philosophy that should be addressed. I will say a few points.

One he states freedom means to do what you want. But, adds to say as long as does not interfere with another. I stated to say why not just state the obvious negative right and state to be free means to be free from coercion of force. he has rejected that stating an individualist would not be interested and would only be interested in what he could do. WOW! unbelievable statement.

He goes on to reject the concept of right. An individual would find no use for such a concept in an individualist society. It would be logical to assume that he also would not need the concept of morality, private property, or life for that matter. These are measurements of an individual against society he says and is rejected because an individual can be defined that way. WOW! A denial of rights which leads to a denial of property. He has not thought this through. An individual could not exist in society this way. His model would be static.

He also rejects economics in his philosophy. Incredible! Yet wants to see everyones answer on this article. His question implies action with an end. yet he himself rejects action. He has not stated his plan either. Probably because it would imply economics and would be social in action. His theory rejects this. He remains in a Robinson Carusoe economy, but with out economics. It is doomed to failure.

He is implying that these websites listed may want social engineering due to the fact they exist as groups. Yet he himself has a website. He states contact “us”, and has a paypal account. WOW! He proposes a theory and has economics and a group to boot. He has contradicted himself right off the bat.

He has rejected Mises and called him “collectivist”. Incredible. Economics is a social science, but collectivist? Come on! He fails to realize that an economist could care less the validity of each system, rather it is his job to show the conclusion and result and the action involved.

He has failed to answer my questions. He has failed to accept action. He has denied economics and therefore is doomed to failure. How can he possibly act his questions in this article and yet deny economics and action as a plan.

This all reminds me of the old individual anarchists who also have failed. It is a joke and a lack of understanding that the individual is individual and also part of a society. it does not mean that because of social involvement, the individual is doomed to collective thought. So what if many people think the same thing and act. Does that mean they are collective?

2

Anyone can get a website, and anyone can write anything. There are, in my opinion, potentially billions of idiots in this world. At times in my life, I have also said idiotic things.

Now, I try to spend my time not discussing idiots or saying idiotic things, just as I try not to spend my time discussing statism or using statist terminology.

Life is short. Let’s spend our time discussing good ideas.

3

SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET

4

My answer would be that he doesn’t have a philosophy. He has the negation of one. Probably as a part of some sort of attempt to seem risque.

First point: Rights are the term applied to how we should interact with each other. Reject that and how do you then assert that people should leave each other alone? You can’t. An individual would have a use for such a concept because any society involves expectations of behavior. He states people should leave each other alone but can’t explain why aside from a floating rejection of a concept based on a poor understanding of what an individual is.

Second point: Rejecting action is stupid or just plain insane. Action is how life sustains itself. Economics attempts to explain human interaction with regard to values.

Third point: Yes he is swimming in contradiction. A counter-everything position which enjoys the benefits of what is rejected is the hallmark of the person who is full of shit.

Fourth point: He doesn’t know the definition of “Collective”. Dictionaries are cheaply available for him to correct this.

Fifth point: He doesn’t plan on acting on any of this mass of contradictions. You explicitly stated his purpose I think. Paypal account.

Ask him to walk into the woodline and live by his own “philosophy” for at least 3 months.