individualism hate thread

[phuckphace]

ITT we roast individualism and discuss all the reasons why it is cancer.

Russell Kirk:

Conservatives have no intention of compromising with socialists, but even such an alliance, ridiculous though it would be, is more conceivable than the coalition of conservatives and libertarians.

Marxists and conservatives have almost nothing in common but the one thing we can agree on is that the elevation of the greater good beyond the individual is vital, as is collective solidarity. Russell Kirk again:

When heaven and earth have passed away, perhaps the conservative mind and the libertarian mind may be joined in synthesis, but not until then.

individualism is poison because it encourages the individual pursuit of pleasure over duty. whether you are a Marxist, or some other flavor of socialist, or a conservative in the actual sense, you can appreciate that Duty must be of paramount importance - without solidarity, individual misery increases.

an individualist is primarily concerned with achieving orgasm and hoarding his personal gain with impunity. ideally he's able to freely purchase recreational nukes with the Bitcoin he earns from selling legal heroin to 13-year-old prostitutes.

What else do conservatives and libertarians profess in common? The answer to that question is simple: nothing. Nor will they ever. To talk of forming a league or coalition between these two is like advocating a union of ice and fire.

unfortunately exactly such a union now exists in the GOP, although it helps to remember that if a "conservative" can find common ground with a libertarian on anything, he is by definition no conservative at all. failure to recognize the cancer that is individualism has led to its infestation of the GOP, another problem I've posted about in other threads. these "conservatives" have abandoned Duty and now equate conservatism with the Randian myth that everything will work out for the best so long as Washington leaves us alone.

[Judean Zealot]

My position on this is already well-known: what you've said plus the added observation that this individualism stems from rejection of the notion of epistemological truth - with all the 'subjectivity' that comes with the turf.

[phuckphace]

some might be inclined to point out that libertarians and conservatives share a common ground on tax rates, but that's really not true. there is nothing inherent in conservatism that requires a dogmatic insistence on taxes being very low always - unlike with libertarians and ancaps who reject taxation on the dogmatic grounds that it's theft and therefore "immoral" *supports the elimination of the age of consent*

a true conservative by definition is primarily concerned with the preservation of stability in the interest of the greater good - therefore in a given scenario, it might be prudent to lower taxes, but in another it might be equally prudent to raise them for the same reason. neither libertarians nor ancaps recognize this.

[Flapjack]

:what:What is the point of this thread?? What is being debated? You lost me at liberals and orgasms:')

[Vlerchan]

I'm more individualist because I'm sceptical that the state can offer optimal guidence given information constraints.

Am I still a bad person?

[sqishy]

So most of your thread would render asexual individualists as paradoxes which break world.exe
That hasn't happened, so...

I'm not against collectivism, but I'm not seeing why it should be valued over individualism. The whole is made up of parts, and the parts have some value and can be given more without making the overall structure crash down in whatever way (assuming 'individualism BAD' means 'collectivism GOOD' here).

I feel like you're making a hasty attack on individualism by seeing it as one and the same with excess ego / inflated sense of self / addiction to orgasms and other in-the-moment experiences over everything else. It is enough to equate the individual as the ego/self (leaving sex drive out of this)?

TL;DR: really?

[Microcosm]

So governments should tell us how to live our lives? Philosophers? Fuck no. We'll do better work if we're allowed to choose how we want to live our lives.

Individualism doesn't inherently deny that duties exist. It places control of one's own life into one's own hands thus allowing them to interpret those responsibilities in whatever way they choose and act on them in whatever way they choose, which includes their ability to deny or ignore those responsibilities.

You assume that everyone who wants to have individual control over their lives is a pleasure-seeking hedonist.

Rather, individualism asserts that the individual knows best how to deal with their own lives. Whether they want to act on what they know is right is up to them, I'd say.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm more individualist because I'm sceptical that the state can offer optimal guidence given information constraints.

The only moral authority I would invest in the state to begin with is that which regards the civic weal, which is more or less aiming for the Straussian-Platonic production of citizens, minimally constrained by sloth and hedonism. It is not the state's affair whether an individual is moral or not - but it is their obligation to ensure that public dereliction not weaken the civitas. The only realm regulated by the state is public, and is thus no more limited by information constraints than it would be if it were in the individual's power.

Am I still a bad person?

Spawn of Satan, so you are.

Microcosm

What is being proposed here is (I imagine -phuckphace correct me if I'm wrong) not that the government regulate how one actually lives their life, but that the state ensure that they don't undermine the entire body politic through their selfishness, expressed by either pursuing goals directly inimical to those of the republic or by balking from the prospect of fulfilling those duties which the republic requires of the individual.

Which I imagine should explain to Paraxiom the problem with individualism here - it allows the vices of the individual to seriously weaken the welfare of the whole.

[Cygnus]

Submit yourself to the general will, for it is the best judge! Said Rousseau.

Then there's John Stuart Mill with his "lol freedom is good until the point you interrupt with someone else's" and Thomas Hobbes' "lol absolute monarchy will guarantee social contracts are maintained"

How about instead of focusing on eliminating barriers to freedom (as a government) you focus on giving people the tools to excel and be a productive and positive part of a community composed of many people like this?

Yeah I'm on this train.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't even think Rousseau would be particularly opposed to the anti-individualism expressed here. Textbooks like to make him out to be this mega-liberal, but in reality his politics were quite Platonic, complete with indoctrinating the masses and the elimination of subversive ideologies - as he puts it, 'antisocial' ideologies, of which atheism (read: nihilism; hedonism) is his provided example.

[Cygnus]

I don't even think Rousseau would be particularly opposed to the anti-individualism expressed here. Textbooks like to make him out to be this mega-liberal, but in reality his politics were quite Platonic, complete with indoctrinating the masses and the elimination of subversive ideologies - as he puts it, 'antisocial' ideologies, of which atheism (read: nihilism; hedonism) is his provided example.

With Rousseau I was trying to refer more to the republican philosophy (also expressed by Machiavelli and Aristotle) rather than his theories as a whole. Sort of the republican thing of putting the community as the most important part of humanity rather than the individual as liberalists (Mill, Locke, Hobbes) do.

[Judean Zealot]

With Rousseau I was trying to refer more to the republican philosophy (also expressed by Machiavelli and Aristotle) rather than his theories as a whole. Sort of the republican thing of putting the community as the most important part of humanity rather than the individual as liberalists (Mill, Locke, Hobbes) do.

Ahh, I see what you were doing now. As my signature might suggest, I am an ardent Platonic Republican.

[phuckphace]

I'm more individualist because I'm sceptical that the state can offer optimal guidence given information constraints.

please tell me more.

What is being proposed here is (I imagine -phuckphace correct me if I'm wrong) not that the government regulate how one actually lives their life, but that the state ensure that they don't undermine the entire body politic through their selfishness, expressed by either pursuing goals directly inimical to those of the republic or by balking from the prospect of fulfilling those duties which the republic requires of the individual.

Which I imagine should explain to Paraxiom the problem with individualism here - it allows the vices of the individual to seriously weaken the welfare of the whole.

yep, this.

[Vlerchan]

Judean Zealot phuckphace

I spent an hour writing a huge effort-post only to lose it - I also need to catch a bus soon, so excuse me if I resort to using bullet-points here.

The state is composed of individuals that must ensure the self-interest of the public in order to retain their position. It must engage in acts - and these acts are based on information acquired about the public.
Information acquisition is costly but is less costly for those with a stake in an issue. The government has a stake is in providing the general welfare, most efficiently procured through engagement with macro-issues (the economy and defence), with this directed towards increasing it's time in office. Outside of this, information acquisition is much more costly as it doesn't possess the familiarity with the issues.
It is - at least - more efficient for individuals to collect the information on the basis of their own self interest. Democratic elections quite-imperfectly transmit specialised information to government officials.
There is greater competition in a libertarian market of ideas, than within bureaucracies. Furthermore, bureaucracies tend to be beholden within themselves by vested-interests, because bureaucrats are composed of individuals too.
Because of this, free-individuals are better capable of forming novel and innovative solutions to pressing issues, with bloat being more effectively dissected.
Thus, extending strong rights to speech, assembly and enterprise (liberalism) can be optimal.
In other words, it's expensive for governments to gather information and it's more expensive for them to establish a permanent consultancy with their citizens. In such a case individuals should not only be expected - but encouraged, to discover solutions to issues, along the lines of their own self-interest. This requires that the public are capable of recognising their own self-interest - which involves offering concessions to Judean Zealot's education-programme (i.e., promoting civic-virtue).

There is a more important unstated point in that schema. It is the genius's that are most capable of providing the radical innovation that prompts the greatest advances of global-welfare. Being as the ultimate goal of liberalism is to promote progress (the advancement of human-desires), the reason that liberal-rights need to be so strong is to protect those capable of procuring progress from persecution by state-connected vested-interests.

Ultimately, individualism is warranted because it secures the statues of those that can make the greatest difference, and the difference most likely to warrant the animosity of those invested in the current state of affairs (happening to be those that tend to have the most power).

[sqishy]

Which I imagine should explain to Paraxiom the problem with individualism here - it allows the vices of the individual to seriously weaken the welfare of the whole.

Perhaps some specific examples of this potential of serious welfare weakening will enlighten me.
We go from particular instances to the general view you hold, this time.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan

I'm failing to see how your points extend beyond the institution of reasonably free markets, which I of course support as well. Beyond that, so far as the conformity of the individual's aims and those of the state are concerned, there is no case remaining for individualism. As a matter of fact, even you are implicitly rejecting the notion that the individual has power vis-à-vis the state by virtue of his own freedom, as you're grounding individual enterprise in the utility for the whole, whereas the individualist doesn't ascribe any sort of obligation to the whole whatsoever. I agree with you that individual enterprise ought to be encouraged by the state, but ultimately even that selfishness is harnessed towards the aggregate. Which, of course, is the reason government regulates business and enterprise to prevent overly predatory practices - something the libertarian/Randian ought to have no issue with.
Paraxiom

Drug legalisation, identity politics, and general apathy towards civic virtue are all outgrowths of grounding society and the state in the individual as opposed to the community.

[sqishy]

So, examples you have given of how the vices of individualism weaken the whole.


Drug legalisation[...]

I'm guessing you are talking about legalisation of drugs that can be used recreationally. I do not see the necessary connection between those who use drugs recreationally, and weakening of a population as a whole, taking the statistics of today.

If you speak of excess recreational drug use, then of course it is not going to help, but more-so it will not help the person, and reactionary actions from other people does not necessarily weaken the whole population. This is not individualism, it is more like what personal addiction is and what it can do.


[...]identity politics[...]

Having a sense of community through affiliation with a certain identity type ('classic' example being LGBT+) is not inherently bad, rather it is a newer form of our psychological nature that seeks to bond with others/ourselves through what similarities we find. Whatever about our 'deeper' views on identity and the self, we cannot stop ourselves from the aspect of life that reaches to other people through ideas and such.

(If I am interpreting identity politics wrong here then feel welcome to say so.)


[...]and general apathy towards civic virtue[...]

For sake of ease for both of us, could you define what civic virtue is for you? I'll go from there.


individual as opposed to the community.

Is self-evaluation as more important to oneself than others, in certain situations (not all), necessarily an opposition with others?

[Judean Zealot]

I'm guessing you are talking about legalisation of drugs that can be used recreationally. I do not see the necessary connection between those who use drugs recreationally, and weakening of a population as a whole, taking the statistics of today.

Are you serious? Drug use (and I'm not referring to weed here) turns formerly stable human beings into quivering and desperate creatures, willing to do anything and everything necessary to obtain the necessary resources to feed their habit. It pushes women into prostitution, it causes kids to drop out of school, adults to leave the workforce, and families to break up.

Even with this being the case, the individualist rambles that liberal/libertarian crap that 'the government shouldn't have the right to tell people what to do with their own lives'.

Having a sense of community through affiliation with a certain identity type ('classic' example being LGBT+) is not inherently bad, rather it is a newer form of our psychological nature that seeks to bond with others/ourselves through what similarities we find. Whatever about our 'deeper' views on identity and the self, we cannot stop ourselves from the aspect of life that reaches to other people through ideas and such.

Having a sense of community isn't identity politics. Identity politics is an ideal which replaces 'the good of the republic' with 'the good of X faction or identity' as the primary goal of civic involvement. The identity politician doesn't care for the true welfare of the Republic, they care only for the ascension of their particular faction, regardless of cost to everyone else. Thus we find the violent and suppressive behaviour of identity activists towards their opponents - far worse, by the way, than the behaviour of Trump's supporters. We find people defending those who are guilty and incriminating the innocent solely on the basis of race or gender politics. For example, every time a black man is shot, idiots take to rioting even before any details emerge; critics of black or female politicians are labeled bigots and misogynists regardless of how justified their complaints are; and the rich are vilified regardless of political affiliation or virtues - simply not being of the sans-cullotes is sufficient. Identity politics and faction truly are the greatest threats faced by a republic.

For sake of ease for both of us, could you define what civic virtue is for you?

Cognizance of and accordance with the principle that citizens are bound by duty to sacrifice for society and the state.

Is self-evaluation as more important to oneself than others, in certain situations (not all), necessarily an opposition with others?

I don't know what you mean here.

[sqishy]

Are you serious? Drug use (and I'm not referring to weed here) turns formerly stable human beings into quivering and desperate creatures, willing to do anything and everything necessary to obtain the necessary resources to feed their habit. It pushes women into prostitution, it causes kids to drop out of school, adults to leave the workforce, and families to break up.

Thankfully I'm not serious there, after realising my state of mind was such as to have me put down only half the answer I was thinking of; sorry.

I should have said excessive drug use. This goes with the characteristics of addiction and its effects which you illustrate well.

Presence of drug use is not the same as excess of drug use. We (I hope) don't say that domestic wine consumption is a major factor in failings in life, because we know that it doesn't happen when you just consume wine moderately.

If I am right you oppose alcohol, which I respect, but I give it as for thought about others, from that I said.



Even with this being the case, the individualist rambles that liberal/libertarian crap that 'the government shouldn't have the right to tell people what to do with their own lives'.

Not to every aspect of it, no.



Having a sense of community isn't identity politics. Identity politics is an ideal which replaces 'the good of the republic' with 'the good of X faction or identity' as the primary goal of civic involvement.

I think it is primarily the absence of bad in a certain identity or aspect of people.



The identity politician doesn't care for the true welfare of the Republic, they care only for the ascension of their particular faction, regardless of cost to everyone else.

Where?



Thus we find the violent and suppressive behaviour of identity activists towards their opponents - far worse, by the way, than the behaviour of Trump's supporters. We find people defending those who are guilty and incriminating the innocent solely on the basis of race or gender politics.

Those who see good in murderers/rapists/etc just because they are gay or transgender, are for sure wrong. This does not however have any justification to serve as example identity politicians you describe. Cannot attack a whole perspective for the presence of 'bad' people within it for whatever reasons.



For example, every time a black man is shot, idiots take to rioting even before any details emerge; critics of black or female politicians are labeled bigots and misogynists regardless of how justified their complaints are; and the rich are vilified regardless of political affiliation or virtues - simply not being of the sans-cullotes is sufficient. Identity politics and faction truly are the greatest threats faced by a republic.

More examples of outliers who have gone the metaphorical wrong direction. Outliers.



Cognizance of and accordance with the principle that citizens are bound by duty to sacrifice for society and the state.

I'll take a different route in response to this, in steps. This cognition is not inherent in people, yes?

Also, this duty is to serve others, so everyone has a duty to serve other people. This serving of other people is something not doable by people onto themselves, I'll guess, because otherwise it'd be pointless to have a duty for others when each one can do it themselves.


I don't know what you mean here.

Do you see perception of oneself as more important than others in certain situations, the same as an opposition with these others?

[Porpoise101]

The identity politician doesn't care for the true welfare of the Republic, they care only for the ascension of their particular faction
If this is true, then wouldn't it be better if everyone was put into a faction and they all competed and cooperated as needed? That way the politicians will grow up their factions separately and the entire country will be lifted up as a whole. The reason why we don't see this is because sometimes the identity politicians go against the greater good of the state.

I do think that the greater good of the state and benefit to minority demographics is the same most of the time. But in my opinion, the primary goal of any politician is to get elected. The secondary is to get a book deal.

[phuckphace]

Are you serious? Drug use (and I'm not referring to weed here) turns formerly stable human beings into quivering and desperate creatures, willing to do anything and everything necessary to obtain the necessary resources to feed their habit. It pushes women into prostitution, it causes kids to drop out of school, adults to leave the workforce, and families to break up.

Even with this being the case, the individualist rambles that liberal/libertarian crap that 'the government shouldn't have the right to tell people what to do with their own lives'.

this is why I'm highly suspicious of the drug-legalization shilling we always hear from the social anarchists. they claim that legalization would have many social benefits, such as making it easier for addicts to seek help, which I'm skeptical of for several reasons:

1) these people don't actually care what happens to others or they wouldn't be social anarchists to begin with. I think the "seek help" line is a PR stunt to hide their real motivation for wanting all drugs legal, which is to get high as shit on whatever they want whenever they want. they're hedonists, it's what they do.

2) there's insinuation that drug rehab is a magical, easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy process where you walk in and push a button labeled "STOP" and voila you're cured. in reality drug addiction rehab, especially for opiates is notoriously difficult, takes years and is very expensive and burdensome. that's not to mention the residual damage that habitual drug use causes that can never be cured.

it's also worth noting that this is the same crew that likes to deflect blame for all social evils in general onto The Man, and there's a noticeable lack of willingness to admit any personal responsibility on the part of the addict.

[sqishy]

phuckphace

Be aware that Judean Zealot's first reply to me was from something I said without a key aspect to it, which I then corrected.

[Judean Zealot]

If this is true, then wouldn't it be better if everyone was put into a faction and they all competed and cooperated as needed? That way the politicians will grow up their factions separately and the entire country will be lifted up as a whole. The reason why we don't see this is because sometimes the identity politicians go against the greater good of the state.

I do think that the greater good of the state and benefit to minority demographics is the same most of the time. But in my opinion, the primary goal of any politician is to get elected. The secondary is to get a book deal.

No. The good of each faction seldom intersects with the good of the whole. Israel is a perfect example of that. The state is dysfunctional as a result of the myriad political and religious factions battling over resources. If you want the details I can go into it - but you are capable of checking this out on your own.

Paraxiom

I'll get back to you. I've been super busy.