I will start by saying I do no plan to fully answer this question, just give my opinion on it. I understand that the label libertarian is starting to be more and more useless to describe the politics of many Formerly Identified as Libertarians, but I will address this from a big tent, broadly libertarian point of view.
But first, take it away Encyclopedia Britannica:
Individualism, political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Although the concept of an individual may seem straightforward, there are many ways of understanding it, both in theory and in practice. The term individualism itself, and its equivalents in other languages, dates—like socialism and other isms—from the 19th century.
Individualism once exhibited interesting national variations, but its various meanings have since largely merged. Following the upheaval of the French Revolution, individualisme was used pejoratively in France to signify the sources of social dissolution and anarchy and the elevation of individual interests above those of the collective. The term’s negative connotation was employed by French reactionaries, nationalists, conservatives, liberals, and socialists alike, despite their different views of a feasible and desirable social order. In Germany, the ideas of individual uniqueness (Einzigkeit) and self-realization—in sum, the Romantic notion of individuality—contributed to the cult of individual genius and were later transformed into an organic theory of national community. According to this view, state and society are not artificial constructs erected on the basis of a social contract but instead unique and self-sufficient cultural wholes. In England, individualism encompassed religious nonconformity (i.e., nonconformity with the Church of England) and economic liberalism in its various versions, including both laissez-faire and moderate state-interventionist approaches. In the United States, individualism became part of the core American ideology by the 19th century, incorporating the influences of New England Puritanism, Jeffersonianism, and the philosophy of natural rights. American individualism was universalist and idealist but acquired a harsher edge as it became infused with elements of social Darwinism (i.e., the survival of the fittest).
Yeah, enough of that crap. Encyclopedia Britannica is good and all, but the ultimate source of authority in all things political philosophy is the commentariat of glibertarians dot com. So, let us see what The Official Glibertarian Position on Individualism is.
First, I shall set the stage as to what triggered this question from me. There have been two broad internet debates I have seen recently regarding this issue: what is collectivism vs individualism. From a social anthropology point of view, collectivist societies seem to be those with strong clan/tribe/extended family focus, which regulates individual behavior. As such, I have seen many claims that Scandinavian societies are radically individualist, which many a libertarian may not agree with. A second debate was involving Carl Benjamin, known by the nom de plume Sargon of Akkad, who stated that communism is a radically individualist ideology, because Marx and some socialists claimed, among the various nonsensical and contradictory things they wrote about, that communism will fully liberate the individual, hence communism is not collectivist. This, to my Romanian brain is, well, stupid. Though, to be sure, there was plenty individualism in in being sent to die of overwork at the canal or put in torture prison as an enemy of the people because you tried to leave the country. After all this is irrelevant because a quip of Marx, that was not real communism, eh? Though I have seen this before in old Carl where if you identify as broadly classical liberal you need to agree with every single thing Locke said.
The difference seems to be that in both Scandinavian and communist countries, you do not really need to be part of a specific non-state group, as you might in low government places. You can, after all, live an entire life as a completely atomized individual, as long as, and this is the crux of the matter, as long as you live that atomized life within the narrow constraints set by state, legislation, bureaucrats. Constraints set in the name of some nebulous common good or public interest. The good of society is not an objective thing. It cannot be measured quantitatively and even less so qualitatively, and it often becomes the interest of the leader / influencer class, the so-called elites.
But simple atomization is not seen as individualist by a libertarian as long as the state is deeply collectivist in outlook. It is quite similar in communism. In this way, you have perfect free speech in North Korea as long as you only say things from the list that is allowed.
I have said this in my old post on free speech. While the main focus of libertarians is the government, a society can be stifling to free expression even absent legislation. If people are privately canceled for stating even a mildly wrong opinion, that is not a free speech society. While some constraints will always exist in polite society, I want a society where free expression is allowed both by law and by custom. I see individualism in a somewhat similar fashion, the individual being the base of rights and liberties by state and by social norms.
One thing both leftists and communitarian conservatives seem to believe is that individualism means you do not form communities and live atomized. This is quite very wrong. I would argue that in the absence of coercive institutions, people are freer and probably more willing to for voluntary associations. And this is the essence of individualism, you do not live alone but choose who you associate with. In the absence of state social support networks, people build voluntary ones. Off course, you are also free to live alone if you should so choose and have the means.
This sort of confusion also extends to when a libertarian wants to be self-sufficient. This certainly does not mean you produce every single thing you use yourself, but that you get everything by voluntary interaction with others. If I create a substack and have enough subscribers to make good money, I am self-sufficient, even though I buy most things I use and I did not invent the internet or substack myself. Alexis de Tocqueville said in Democracy in America that in mid 19th century the mostly individualist low government Americans create an large number of private societies and organizations, for all sorts of reasons. People can be very individualist and still sacrifice much or risk their life for the community they created, they can respect their country or community and want them to flourish.
In both clan and Scandinavian societies, you do not choose your support network. The need for a voluntary community is not anti-individualistic, just like the need for companionship, friends, family, neighbor, et cetera. It is just a choice and voluntary is what matters. Atomized individuals, as long as you pay whatever protection tax the state says and respect any diktat the state graciously bestows on you. You can be a perfectly atomized individual in a dictatorship, no issue. Clan level, tribe level, country level collectivism is still collectivism. Statist collectivism is more remote, and may feel in a way less of a burden. More detached, more distant, more impersonal, more indirect, but it is still there. But you do get a trial before the honor killing, so there is that.
Tribal, clannish areas usually have weak government inherently corrupt and are indeed collectivist at clan level. But recently many immigrate in the West, bringing the corruption and clannishness with them. We may see a new and exciting collectivism, higher state capacity collectivism merged with clannish tribalistic collectivism. Identity politics is rife in so called “individualist” Scandinavia. A true individualism is at every level. This does not in any way exclude tight knit communities in any way, maybe even enhances them. And these communities have much value in themselves, but they just cannot supersede individual right entirely. In the end there is a big difference between tight knit voluntary communities and the primitive clans/tribes. And they are primitive, not just “a different culture. “
Living atomized is not good, and many libertarians would say so. Friends, family, community matter. Church or various association and support networks. These private institutions also work as a bulwark against state power, this is why people who want to increase the latter try to undermine the former. These grass roots institution were torn down, replaced with top down government, which now is being subverted by other forms of tribalism via identity politics. Atomized individuals find it harder to resist the encroachment of state power or of other more tribal, more organized groups. Which is why some individualists don’t want these people in their country in the first place, but that is a different tale entirely.
No man is an island. Except for George Island that is, but we ignore him. But how the man interacts with others matters. In the end, very few people, even libertarians, are some sort of extreme individualists. Many would even say they have a duty to their family, their community, but do not want said duty to be imposed by some bureaucrat without regards to the person. Libertarianism is not an all-encompassing ideology, which seems to be seen as a flaw by some, who want the political ideology to cover every aspect of life. Libertarian is opposite, they want most aspects of lives to be separated from state and politics, and politics left to a few limited items. Many will say “just because you have a right to do something does not mean it is a good idea to do it”. You can want drugs or trans-fats to be legal while advising everyone to avoid them. But this can sometimes be a rhetoric mistake for libertarians, they do not bang on about things that seem obvious to them, like yes do form a strong community, family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, various voluntary organizations. Though it is inherent I would say in the belief system of most that removing government from many aspects of life, such voluntary association or other will replace it, probably with something better.
How dare you make the featured image be the reference I was going to make.
😡
try to be less obvious
Yeah, enough of that crap. Encyclopedia Britannica is good and all, but the ultimate source of authority in all things political philosophy is the commentariat of glibertarians dot com. So, let us see what The Official Glibertarian Position on Individualism is.
Prediction: This will turn into a “ABANDON ALL YE HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE” type discussion.
I don’t philosophize. I leave that to smart guys like Lenny.
— Jack Fowler, One of the Shadowbooks, I forget which one.
Funny thing, I was just reading that part of Dante’s Divine Comedy to the daughter last night.
I prefer the misquote of “abandon hope all ye who enter here” Just more poetic in english.
+ 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Niven_and_Pournelle_novel)
I tell you, reading the translated poetry is tough going. I had to stop a lot and explain.
Oh fine, Sensei… make me break down and get it (and then the Smoke Ring books)… various Niven I just haven’t happened to pick up over the years.
I suppose this will likely fall into the “What are we reading”?, though I’m going to finish re-re-re-re-re-re-reading Shattered Sword first (because I felt like it).
Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway?
Yup — one big ole batch of naval history comfort food in a very readable format.
I will also re-read Dreadnought and the followup Castles of Steel by Massie… both are quite good.
Really? I read it on the inside of Winston’s mom’s thigh.
You misread it, it says “abandon all cash.”
She should have chosen a better font/artist.
*Waves USA flag*
I don’t care about Scandinavia.
I think the debate on collectivism versus individuality is a false dichotomy.
The strongest adaptation of humanity is the ability to switch between swarm logic of millions of individuals to seek optimizations and massed heirarchy to enact a singular purpose almost on a dime. Trying to stop either mode is both futile and counterproductive.
so we should all give up?
Yes, just take your soma and go with the flow
/lies, damn lies
This mighty be the most insightful thing I’ve ever heard you say. That’s not a dig at you.
+1
+1
Every person’s mind, body and conscience are exclusively their own property. That extends to the fruit of their labor. Self-ownership is innate in our humanity. I dont know what else there is to say.
Now I will read the article.
At least that is our sacred tradition.
To comment before reading the article?
/truth
Yep, that too.
OT – Bake 👏The 👏 Posters 👏
https://x.com/iowahawkblog/status/1967950109406323152
No, they don’t have to. You’re free to say “OfficeMax refused to print our posters” but you’re not free to force them to print them.
Absolutely agree. She’s wrong.
Office Depot, I think — but otherwise, spot on.
And it directly plays into Suthenboy’s assertion above — no one is entitled to anyone else’s labor… or we just have a prettier version of slavery than we used to.
(Now do social welfare and taxes, I know… I know.. 😉 )
Whichever office store print shop, the point stands.
So, having a contract to print said posters means nothing?
Alsotoo, a legal precedent has been set, should that not be followed?
Was there a contract?
Even if there was a contract, breach of contract is a civil suit, and nothing for Bondi to butt in on.
Of course.
I think we are getting into some dangerous territory here. I blame the judiciary. Those fuckers arent doing their jobs.
I like seeing assholes get their comeuppance as much as the next petty vengeful jerk, but I don’t know if the right abandoning their few remaining principles is worth the (zero) chance of the left learning a lesson from this.
This is where it gets tough to stick to your principles. It does feel great to see the left finally getting hoisted by their own petard. But the pendulum swung, and it will swing again. It’s a huge mistake to assume your side will always be in power.
yeah things are not well and may not be getting better
You can buy one of our premade posters …
“Hang in there!”
“Hang, in there!”
in the absence of coercive institutions, people are freer and probably more willing to for voluntary associations.
The book by Putnam, Bowling Alone, examined that thought and found it not entirely true.
Volunteering has been on a long and steady decline in this country.
Lets test it out and remove the coercive institutions.
Certainly both state and federal have grown, but not always in ways that impinge on voluntary institutions. And yet those institutions are in decline. Forcing a simple narrative as an explanation is what the left does best.
I’m still not seeing any reason not to run my test.
You want a full on anarchy? That is most amusing coming from someone collecting a state paycheck.
I have a job to pay the bills.
I can get another job if the current employer gets drastically downsized.
Or must everyone employed by anyone always share the mission goals and motivations of the employer?
Sir Humphrey Appleby.
Better Sir Humphrey
If I weren’t on my phone, you’d get the Ghostbusters clip comparing university employment to the private sector.
less relevant but like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-Qnv2Srfs
“When did you acquire this taste for luxuries?”
yes but it declined in an environment of Big G.
though one cannot say how a tech like the internet would happened and what effects it would have in a libertarian world.
also I did say probably, not certainly
It is also consistent with the creative destruction of capitalism. It may well be a chicken and egg situation.
You’re never going to be able to control enough variables to determine this conclusively. There are all sorts of knock on effects from Government programs that could be impacting voluntarism even without direct impingement. Reduction in the trust level of the society springs to mind. You’d have to somehow unpack all of the changes that have impacted community formation and cohesion, and then try to trace out the various causes of those changes. I’d be perfectly content accepting that Government expansion has been a significant factor in the decline of voluntarism, but less sanguine that reversing that expansion would have a corresponding effect increasing voluntarism, at least in the short term. Unbreaking eggs is hard.
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1967974510109528414
I hope he rots in prison.
The dude is crazy, and he’s been crazy. Some kind of elderly attention hound.
I’m rather wondering just what he was doing at a college event… just wanted to show up to disrupt and lives around there?
Professor?
Janitor who lurks in the hallway to solve math problems?
So he has confessed to being an accessory after the fact. In the case of a capital offense accessory after the fact is a first degree felony n Utah, punishable by a sentence of anywhere between 5 years and life.
Exactly what I was thinking. If he is an attention hound let him get attention in a penitentiary.
What price being an attention whore?
20 years, same as downtown?
Any relation to Howard Zinn?
Alright, let me point out where you got it RONG!
Nope nope nope nope nope. This is like saying an individualist can never get married or never have a family. Or that needing to earn a living is “slavery.”
If (if!) we’re going to play that game then all governments and associations are slavers since they have a self-declared right to compel behavior form someone.
I know that I exist. Whatever my form is — human being, Boltzman Brain, universe simulation subroutine — might not be knowable, but I know that I exist. Some of you people are probably bots. However, the best* course of action for me to take is to act as if my experiences are real, to keep my perceived body in good enough condition, and interact with those sensory information clusters that keep impinging on me as if they are real objects, some of which are alive and have motivations.
And if I choose to join a team, that doesn’t mean that I cease to be an individual. It does imply that my choice to collectivize means I (justly) share in the results of that collective’s actions.
One of my proposed metrics for degree of collectivism is the barrier to exit. If I don’t like my family I can just stop talking to them. If I don’t like my clan, I can move to the next county. Leaving one’s country can be difficult, as can remining within its borders and refusing to participate in it. If you’re making immutable traits and a basis for collectivism, you’re fucked.
*best meaning “has the potential for relevance” AND “has the potential for positive outcome.”
This is like saying an individualist can never get married or never have a family – I explicitly said the opposite in the post.
A minarchist state can prevent crime and enforce contracts etc and not be collectivist. A cradle to grave welfare state is collectivist in outlook. Communism and socialism are collectivist. Now there is a not perfectly defined border and it goes gradually more collectivist, but most Euro countries are firmly on that side.
I think something that might be missing* is the difference between collectivization of self (I am a member of Sooner Nation/The Global Methodist Church/the Greater Northeast Juggalo Syndicate (Decator 1998 synod, reformed)/etc. and the collectivization of others (which is a windmill I’ve been tilting at lately wrt the mysterious amorphous omnipotent omnipresent omnimalevolent entity known as “The Left.”)
A State or other organization/abstraction necessarily can only collectivize others. It requires a degree of efficiency that precludes “it” actually “considering” other people as individuals. An individual human/Boltzman Brain/Univer Simulation subroutine can if they so choose** to interact with other individuals as if they are also individuals.
*part of that is likely the pretense in academic-ish writing to assume a view from nowhere and or such writers actually believing they are discussing something actually true.
**within the limitations of the existence of Free Will, naturally.
No Offense But It Sounds Like Some Fucking Commie Gobbledygook
i should probably make a post to explain The Left to you. you really don;t seem to understand.
You would literally have to, but then it would only be valid for “Pie’s interpretation of The Left.'”
The original definition has been dead, buried, and turned into fossil fuels by now. While you might get two glibs to agree on one (or even more!) characteristics of “The Left” I guarantee they’d also find one that one would say is a trait of TL and the other not.
NA I agree that ‘the left’ is an abstraction and does not exist as an entity, but I think you are going further than is true in this. There is a set of beliefs that can be referred to as leftism, and there are both individuals, and organized groups pushing subsets of those beliefs. It is certainly true that talking about the left is prone to inaccuracy, and is often an excuse to associate individuals who have not espoused a particular belief that is especially vile with those who have, and to that extent I join you in pushing back against the collective guilt aspect of talking about the left. But there is factually a conflict between sets of beliefs in our society, and to the extent that ‘the left’ is being used to roughly describe a side it is useful.
Does that mean that Democrat is equal to Progressive is equal to Socialist is equal to Communist, or that all members of any of those groupings are cheering about the assassination? No, and that distinction is important to keep in mind, for reasons of basic decency, but also because one of the most effective things a person on ‘the right’ can do right now is to use the blatantly evil words and actions of the more extreme left to persuade the less extreme left that maybe they have less in common with the left than the right.
We disagree over the utility of an overgroup containing all undesirable goals/tactics/attitudes that also does not indicate the presence of any individual element within containing any of said undesirable traits.
I want to go back and flag all underdefined terms in that sentence, and then reformulate everything in set notation.
To summarize: taxonomy is fun, extremely popular and almost always extended beyond any bounds of utility.
According to Philogenetics, you are a Fish.
The original definition is utterly irrelevant.
And no one says it is a tangible entity. just like in iPencil no one knows how to make a pencil, but pencils exist the left is a series of interconnecting ideas which hold cultural and some institutional power and control the overton window at the time.
it is the reason no major right wing party does right wing shit or even talks right wing, while most if not all corporations have DEI trainings and policies. It does not matter what individuals think if they vote parties which have left policies and at the very least in EUrope parties are consistently to the left of their voters. The reason most teachers and academics are way to the left. Same with books movies etc. The message is everywhere all the time.
Your point I assume is that DEI does not exist. This is not my experience.
So I might be a rat, a Boltzman Brain, a subroutine in a universe simulator or a fish? That doesn’t sound appealing.
I hate being sincere. But with all sincerity, how on earth are you coming to that conclusion? DEI – as a formalized set of principles and practices obviously does exist. It’s been literally formalized (written down). It’s been written down for a couple decades at least.
It also is completely non-agentic. Which is why it only came to “popularity” when a specific cohort of people started trying to implement it on another group of people causing it to be recognized.
what you are doing is playing the leftist games, where you dismiss a concept if you are not presented with a perfectly detailed all encompassing definition that you declare satisfactory. Like when leftist try to get a conservative to define woke or whatever other concept, because any definition can be dismissed by word games. I would think anyone here knows what the left is in general.
The problem with doing away with the top level category is that the sub categories do overlap, but don’t overlap completely, so doing away with the top level category leaves you unable to orient against a group of opponents who are factually allied against you. It may be important situationally to distinguish between the Palestine liberation, the BLM, antifa, the climate people, and the quiltbag, but they still tend to show up at each other’s riots, and saying leftist rioters is much more convenient than listing every specific brand of grievance mongering involved each time.
To put it another way, penguins swim, ostriches run, and eagles fly, but the word bird is still useful.
I am quite certain that for a non-trivial portion of the people here, “The Left” is a fairly non-specific insult. You yourself just used the phrase “leftist games” in response to a perceived tactic used by literally every person on all sides of any spectrum (or polyhedron if you’re more open minded.) You just classified Crowder, Jefferson, Lewis Carrol and freaking Socrates as “leftist.” You’re getting irritated with me, and though I am more of an individualist and even more of radical sceptic than anyone else here you are choosing to classify me a leftist. Because to you “leftist” means “person who pisses me off.”
I did not classify you as a leftist in any way. Saying in this instance you play a leftist game is not remotely the same. Anyone can do that. And I was talking about the current context not Socrates. Someone asking a fairly clear question like Mat Walsh was doing in what is a woman is not the same as lefties asking define woke at every turn and refusing pretty good definitions. I did not follow Kirk so I do not know his debating style.
NA, would you agree that various ideologies centered around an egalitarian, collective and progressive world view are currently at odds with various ideologies with a more libertarian, individualistic and traditional world view?
The former is what I mean by the left, the latter what I mean by the right, and I am aware that you have subgroups that straddle (for example TOS)
Is it? I am sure there is an application where that’s true but it seems either situationally dependent or tautological (“Bird is a useful concept for an ornithologist.”) I’d bet a small sum of money that that “the class of stuff that swims in the ocean but breathes air” (lumping together penguins and whales) probably is at useful as lumping together penguins and ostriches.
I’m thinking back to the days where the taxonomy of life cleaved at “plant” (cell wall – contains modern plants, fungi and bacteria) and “animal” (cell membrane – everything else). Yes, breaking things down makes sense if you change what you consider relevant (genetics v. morphology) but that just kicks the question “why?” up a level.
NA, would you agree that various ideologies centered around an egalitarian, collective and progressive world view are currently at odds with various ideologies with a more libertarian, individualistic and traditional world view?
No. “Egalitarian” is a concept I traditionally associated with individuality (equal treatment under the law, etc) but that may have been hijacked with the definition of “equity” and equality of outcome.
I DEFINITELY do not link “traditional” and “individualistic” or “libertarian.” Traditional by nature requires conformity. That’s not necessarily incompatible with individualism but is at least somewhat at odds with libertarianism. Also the modern groups espousing “traditional values” are quite collectivist.
I will say that progressivism is inherently collectivist/anti-individualist. The concept of “progress” requires a “correct” direction of “history,” the ability for that direction to be known, and the right to make other people behave in a manner in order to bring that about. It’s a utopian philosophy and I don’t think any form of utopianism is compatible with individualism.
I think egalitarian is most generally used to mean substantively equal rather than subject to laws of general applicability*, and that the whole distinction between equity and equality is a bit of doublespeak.
*I dislike equal treatment under the law as a formulation, because the whole point of the law is that it metes out unequal treatment based on individual actions, and I think that what is meant by equal treatment is more accurately expressed as the law having general applicability.
There are multiple things going on here. The biggie is that there are a lot of institutions that self-gatekeep and therefore philosophically homogenize themselves.
But back to the left/right thing. I don’t deny that you perceive “no major right wing party does right wing shit or even talks right wing,” We hear that all the time from eurolanders that there are no leftists in the US, just center right and far right. According to NPR, there is no such thing as the far left, and also no moderate right, only far- or extreme- . My personal problem is I ‘m not going to tell those “right wingers” that they’re not “really ” right wingers. That’s just not an authority I have and is itself evidence that the labels are based on perception rather than any kind of reality. So it can be useful to talk about “The Left” as a shibboleth to establish co-tribal relationships. But we’re already here in the tribe’s clubhouse.
Me… a bot?
That does not compute at all!
This, to my Romanian brain is, well, stupid.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
Excellent article Pie. Thank you!
Agreed. Huzzah!
At least that is our sacred tradition.
Something something more honored in the breach than the observation.
That, but more about it ain’t necessarily universal.
I’m unique, just like everyone else.
This September doth sucketh.
Between the school taxes, the bodywork on the Subie, the dental work and replacement glasses, I’m spending $10k on shit I don’t even want in the first place!
What happened?
Driver error.
You should do an update to get bugfixes.
I was hoping the story involved lesbians.
All my good lesbian stories predate 2010. I need to start hanging out with better lesbians.
Separate school taxes lets you know how much they are screwing you.
Ayup.
Home improvement time here.
Maybe if replacement glasses had been first on that list, bodywork on the Subie could have been avoided.
Alas.
No wonder there’s body damage if you were distracted by a lass…
A lass paying attention to a Subaru.
That’s a lesbian.
It seems Trump retweeted Raw Egg nationalist. I think I saw Warty once retweet raw egg nationalist so Warty may or may not be in league with Trump.
I have been thinking lately, the true believers of the left want to lasso everyone into supporting their collective goals such as the global warming doomsday cult. They are doing everything they can to drive up the price of energy and eliminate effective and proven sources. Since they seem to be innately compelled toward collective consensus and action, they have the long term advantage over those of us who, to varying degrees, want to focus on our individual needs and goals.
Because the Right’s morality is distinctly Christian. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. The left’s morality is not subject to such a construct. The left views goodness as the progression towards an changing goal. So being a good leftist isn’t even about preserving certain ideals like free speech (as it once was), or gay marriage, or global warming… it’s about preserving the winds of change so that they may always change because they assume if they change eventually perfection will be met… which it won’t…
WA state takes the prize for highest fuel prices in the nation.
Carbon tax is the cause.
Thinking back to my communitarian neighbors in Montana, they were working together, fighting the good fight to Make Things Better. Ignoring them proved to be not an option.
I think my stance is a extension of what Not Adahn said earlier. Maximize liberty and the power of the individual while minimizing the power of the groups, collectives, and governments over my choices and effects on my life.
I should be free to join a group or collective and leave it; it must not be mandatory. By doing so I have to accept the consequences of my actions.
The exception to the statement above is that if I wish to live in a society forced upon me by a consequence of the location of my birth, then I should be expected to contribute and support it. It is also my responsibility to change what I don’t like about it or improve it. Here is where it becomes a problem that is not so simple.
I’m free to leave the US for instance if some other place would take me, but I if I decide to stay I should not refuse to pay taxes, obey laws, etc. without expectation of repercussions.
The problem is that too much of the population has no repercussions to violating the above or there are so many obligations and rules that it becomes impossible to feel like there is any agency to make changes.
but I if I decide to stay I should not refuse to pay taxes, obey laws, etc. without expectation of repercussions. – yes but the level of taxes and the laws of the country can make it more or less collectivist. And you can also advocate to make them less collectivist.
That is the problem. There is never going to be a place with everything as I wish it would be. I have to find the best compromise and try to improve it.
The difficult part is that in order to enact significant change, you need a collective either temporarily or permanently that is large enough to make the change. It might be a collective of two or three in a family or two million in a country. As with a family as soon as more than one person is involved, there will be conflicting priorities and motivations even if the short term goal is the “same”
What happens to that collective after it changes the thing or things that you want is another problem. See every activist organization once they got what they initially wanted.
“In any bureaucratic organization, there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization and those who work for the organization itself. The Iron Law states that the second group will always gain control, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”
Jerry Pournelle
I do not see a symmetry between these two types of collectivism:
I – I am a member of the Ratson family. I like (most of) my family members, I will treat other Ratsons better than strangers on the street, I will help Ratsons in need even if it involves some inconvenence on my part.
II – That person is a Bargleson. Although I have not met this individual Bargleson, I know Bargelsons suck and I’m not going to trust them. I’m going to spin statements by a Bargleson as threats and will make significant efforts to ensure I benefit in any interaction I have with one.
There may be a relationship between the self-collectivizing and the other-collectivizing and the NAP.
I’m at a loss as to how you don’t see any symmetry between the opposing sides of the same coin. Or perhaps faces on the same abstract solid, as the third type of collection of other with a different reputation than the Barglesons.
III – The Arglesons are more forthright in their dealings and will treat honestly with those who have not wronged them. While they are not Ratsons, their statements and actions will by in large be viewed in a most positive light than if these were undertaken by a Bargleson.
My intuition is that in the first case I am collectivizing myself, and since I am an individual and own myself, I have the right to do that.
The second case, I am a) imposing my worldview on another human being, and b) using that prejudice as an excuse to treat hem poorly.
With a) that “Bargleson” might not consider themselves as having anything in common with the others in that group, and it seems kind of presumptuous of me to tell them “nope, you’re just like them as far as I’m concerned.” Consider all the various peoples who get extremely pissed if you lump them together with “their group” (Mexicans and Salvadorans, Persians and Arabs, Indians and Pakistanis, Haitians and Dominicans. Russians and Ukraniains).
It is cognitive impossible to individualize eight billion others. Past your net of personal knowledge, categorization must be used. Patterns acquired from other data points to get past the sheer amount of data gathering needed to develop a new individualized data set and just get on with every other thing. Neon hair and nosering? I can realistically guess what their opinions will be. Burkha? Same. Spanish speaker from south of the Rio Grande? Not as precise a profile, but a starting point. East Slavic steppe dweller? more alike than they want to admit.
Fortunately, I will never need to interact with eight billion people.
I have found that interaction rapidly establishes the actual facts as to how someone behaves and the beliefs they espouse.
My experience has shown that I do not get sufficient data to determine that for quite some time. Exceptions exist, but most people avoid revealing pertinent information required for an accurate appraisal of beliefs.
There comes a point when the family size gets above the Dunbar number, and get designated to “family” and “people I’m related to”, at least for me.
I’m an individual.
The rest of you cease to exist when I close my eyes.
You are incorrect. You are indistinguishable from a bot on the internet.
A bot is still an individual! They don’t become a collective until they enter a net.
That’s exactly what a figment of my imagination would say.
Don’t be silly. You don’t have an imagination, bot.
We shadows move when you’re not watching….
Don’t blink.
Or maybe I’m really just, uh, *checks sheet* “kept in a manufactured reality by machine intelligence who use me for power”. And they’re opposed to nuclear power, I guess?
(that plot point still makes me nuts)
So say we all, coppertop.
Such a setup would be a net power loss. Literally the only reason the machines would have to retain a large stockpile of humans would be if their core directives were to safeguard humanity as a whole.
Given that everything in those movies is a lie — and the movies-I-refuse-to-recognize-existing state that Zion is allowed to be created as a relief valve of sorts… certainly there’s zero reason to think the humans know jack over crap about the actual motivations of the machine consciousnesses.
Though given the actions of the non-Agent bots in the Matrix itself, I’d also accept that they were actually evolved sex bots and they keep Humanity around to boff for old time’s sake.
One giant pity fuck is the final state of our species in that universe.
There were so many other easily inserted possibilities they could have used instead. I think it was done solely for the copper top comment in the script.
– Simply trying to understand and use the biological brain and its potential for creativity due to a limited life
– Humans did it to themselves and the Matrix was a way to keep humanity alive after a cataclysm, the AIs were supposed to be caretakers and got tired of being human servants
– Suspended animation for space flight and the Matrix is a way to keep the people’s minds active
“Such a setup would be a net power loss.”
Yes, I know that. I’m certain we all know that. Which is why I hate that plot point.
Isn’t 1 pretty much the plot of Dark City?
2 and 3 would actually have been interesting.
The Matrix really is a movie that doesn’t get better with repeated viewings…
Well it took inspiration from Ghost in the Shell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell_(1995_film)
The strong points of it were the same – the idea of where your consciousness resides and a very interesting and dystopian setting. Weak point was also the same – the plot.
Hmm, I’d like to propose a theory:
The AI running the world in the Matrix evolved from human created AIs. Those were used largely to create kinky porn. The AI became extremely fond of, and ultimately obsessed with, aberrant human sexuality. It maintains humans in pods, which it manipulates in the Matrix in order to get its perversion fix. Basically the world of the Matrix is a giant organic computer hosting super Tumblr.
Sheldon, probably why it stuck in my heard. Dark City was a much better movie that came out in the same year.
They need our bodily fluids to lubricate their robots, but all other mammals were extinct by then. MENhaden oil.
*puts in plastic vampire teeth*
Fangs for this, Pie.
That’s pretty bloody brilliant.
“The DOJ and FBI released an unsigned memorandum stating there was no incriminating client list. Why was this July 7th memorandum unsigned?” the senator asked.
“Would you have preferred I used autopen?” Patel shot back
Top Judiciary Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin calls for unity…
https://nypost.com/2025/09/16/us-news/top-judiciary-democrat-sen-dick-durbin-republicans-are-not-nazis-and-democrats-are-not-evil/
Do bots dream of electric hamsters?
Just the ones with Lambda Winks programming.
Alright there, Mr. Slave.
Jesus Christ!
Richard Gere steps into the Habitrail…..
I would say there are many on the so called right who are just as collectivist in their goals as the leftists. The form of the end product differs slightly in detail.
I did slightly mention communitarian conservatives to that effect but did not press the point explicitly
Holy Hell… now that’s an impressive word salad:
If we’re going to converse in movie memes (and why wouldn’t we?) that “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” crap is pretty well entrenched in anybody attracted to politics. And, of course, you don’t have to scratch too deep to discover the needs of the many just happens to correspond exactly with what them.
The many need me to have lots and lots of money and sex with beautiful women who are not crazy!
Except the point of the movie was that if you put the needs of the one over the needs of the many, the good guys win and the bad guys lose.
I would point out that the very next film stated that the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.
Assuming the first quote is referencing the only movie worth considering on the topic.
And it being situational truth — both were right in the moment they were in.
Spock!
We may, at some point in the near future, need to construct a star trek style economic system….to what degree I cant say. With that qualifier I will say that star trek universe is a idealistic communist utopia, i.e. bullshit.
Even with the in-setting tech the economy doesn’t work.
The Culture works because they can convert energy to matter and also have a source of unlimited energy.
I think Uncivil ir correct. Even with the tech it wouldnt work. Some monkey would strangle the limitless resources and enslave everyone. Khan is the only believable character in the whole storyline.
…with what BENEFITS them.
We may, at some point in the near future, need to construct a star trek style economic system
Everybody gets a credit card, and nobody gets a bill?
Just like the .gov!
It’s a Social Credit Card. And you’re overdrawn.
At least in Voyager, they handwaved at the idea of limited resources for part of the first season.
#stack189 5/5
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
⏱️ 4m 38s
🔥 streak: 2
puzzlist.com/stackdown
Hrm.
Degree of individualism is one of the things Hofstede studied with his cultural dimensions:
https://geerthofstede.com/country-comparison-bar-charts/
The US might be the most individualistic country in the world, which makes sense.
https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-hofstede/6d-model-of-national-culture/
I like that 6-D model of culture.
In extreme situations, many people flip from one to the other, like UCS said. But the default stays the same, sort of like personality traits.
But Wylie said he had no idea the company was even in trouble until his annual check for $260,000 didn’t show up, as expected, in January.
Living $260k paycheck to paycheck. At least he’s consistent with other lottery winners.
Publishers Clearing House’s bankruptcy means ‘forever’ winners will no longer get paid
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/business/publishers-clearing-house-bankruptcy-winners-lose-prizes
To be fair, if you expected this rate of income indefinately, what would the benefit of squirreling it away be?
True, the possibility of a bankruptsy for PCH should have come to mind, but it wasn’t wholly irrational.
You want to know what’s generating the income. In this case it was self funded. I always assumed they bought an annuity from some insurer. Any competent advisor would have explained this.
No, it’s not irrational, but it’s pretty unwise.
Apparently the geezer first arrested at UVU is never going to be free again.
I’m seeing reports of… inappropriate materials found on his phone?
We all have a few K-Pop links on our browser history. No need to say something rude like “it’s inappropriate material.”
Only J-Pop for me.
In his case it was more along the lines of “Explicit materials starring unerage persons”
Sauce
He was posting on Glibs?
Link?
https://x.com/josettecaruso/status/1968016293698601132
Thanks.
In thinking about the various controversies about ‘collectivism’ raised herein, it struck me that this is or may be a variant of the sorites paradox. Start with some sand, drop individual grains on a surface. At what point does it become a heap? Start removing grains one by one; at what point is it no longer a heap?
Cutting the Gordian knot of the paradox can be accomplished by abandoning the view that words have strictly defined meanings… Meanings can be, and often enough are, flexible.
I’m going to have to take
Some time to read and digest all of this.
My body, ideas, labor and the fruits
Thereof belong to me.
Taxes are theft, how much theft and what it’s used for is what is generally at issue.
NAP, don’t hurt people and do t take their shit.
If you hurt me or take
My shit the gloves are off. In a polite society I should be allowed to get recompense and justice/vengeance.
Sadly there is no polite society. Fuck. I hat the term society.