I did. The one I saw was about someone who ended up bummed because somebody else got more then he did, and someone who got a cow for free and made others jealous, and that was supposed to show what was wrong with socialism. People are jealous of others who have more, not because the got it as a gift or an answer to prayer, but because they made something of themselves. It's hatred of the good for being the good. Successful individualists are always hated, not because they are a danger or harm to anyone else, but because they don't need anyone else and pay their own way.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pmDid you watch the video, RC? You should.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:28 pm The independent individual is not interested in how much anyone else has (except to know, the more others have the more they have for him to trade for), he is only interested in having whatever he knows is his, because he produced it. (red parts my emphasis here)
The second video is worse. What happened to the Venezuelans was the fault of the Venezuelans. They wanted the unearned and free education, health care, guaranteed prices and incomes and got what they prayed for--good and hard. If Venezuelans had been independent individualists, Venezuela would be a free prosperous state today. At this minute there are a few thousand people living in Venezuela (who have nothing to do with the government--except paying the squeeze) who are completely free and prosperous--typical individualists whom you don't hear about because they mind their own business and earn their own way.
I want back to see what I wrote to make sure I had hot accused you of anything. I didn't say anything about you, I was explaining what the solution to the supposed problem described in the video is for everyone to be an independent individualist who never think in those terms or do any of those things. I said, "So, the solution to socialist thinking is the independent individual that never judges things in terms of what others do or have, only in terms of what he himself does and has. ..."
I never suggested you were a collectivist. As for straw men, I have never suggested any kind of individualism such as you describe. It would, in fact, be impossible for an independent individualist to be what you describe. What you describe sounds like some religious ascetic. Independent individuals are the only human being capable of truly benevolent social relationships or worthy of them.
There you go. But I do not advocate what you have made up and call individualism. I took the trouble to view your silly videos. (I hate videos, because they waste my time. I could have read a transcript of both in a few seconds. My wife and I have not had a TV for over 25 years for the same reason--they waste your time and monopolize your consciousness. If you want me to review anything else, be sure it's in writing.) You, however, have never read my article on what an independent individual is. I don't care if you don't, but before you start criticizing what I advocate, you might want to know what it is.
I have no idea why you keep referring to Rand, as though she were some authority I follow. You ought to know by now, I follow no authority. I happen to think Rand was wrong with regard to her ethics, but for different reasons from yours.
Now this is odd, and since you brought her up: Rand said there was one thing that Jesus said she agreed with, "love they neighbor as thyself," and pointed out, that if one did not love oneself, they could not love their neighbor, but logically the self came first.
If you really thought others were important, you would be promoting the view of the independent individual, because the only human beings who can truly be of a value to anyone else are those who are a value to themselves first. A hedonistic subjectivist wastrel who cannot help himself is certainly not going to be any value to his neighbor or society.
First of all, you are talking about Rand's fictional hero, not mine. Secondly, all of those things you are saying have nothing to do with being an independent individual. Of course an individual lives somewhere, preferable a mostly free society, learns from others, sells his products or services to others, and learns that society's culture so he can function in it. None of that has anything to do with his independence. His independence consist of the fact that all he does he does by his own conscious choice using all those things available in society to achieve his own ends for the sake of his own life and achieving the best he can in all things.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm The absolutely lone individual doesn't even have a single ethical duty. So even Rand's heroes all live within societies, and practice cultural forms within those societies. And architect, for example, is not a lone individual; he is an adherent of the design and construction practices of a group of people known as "architects." He learned his trade from others, practices it with the help of others, and enacts his craft for the benefit of others. He's not going to live in his great building all by himself.
Not certain of your point here: About the last thing an independent individual cares about is if anyone else is convince about anything.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:52 pm If individual power were the beginning and end of the story, there would, in fact, be no story at all.
So whether we like it or not, something has to be said about others and about society. To speak only of individualism is not going to convince anyone, because nobody -- not even Rand -- believes that the individual, all by himself, amounts to anything.
I also have no idea what story you are talking about, but one thing is sure: eliminate all the independent individuals in this world and you won't have any others or any society to save or worry about. End of story.