Independence—Better Than Morality

[henry quirk]

It was the main point of the article that the independent individual has no problem living and dealing with all other individuals, no matter how different, (so long as they are not a direct threat), and are the only ones who are suitable for mutually benevolent social relationships, without anyone else's political framework.

It's a very rational position. But most of the seven billion around you aren't rational. Crom knows I'm not. Most of the seven billion around you aren't even reasonable (which I am). A good chunk of that irrational, unreasoning seven billion will leash you (and take your tongue and hands, cuz they don't wanna hear or read anything you have to say or write).

There damned few mutually benevolent social relationships to be had and far more on-going, mutually beneficial, contractual transactions at play.


I'm not fond of the construct independent individual: I, for example, self-employ, have no debt, move through the world as I choose, but I'm raising my nephew; have obligations to certain friends, family, snd clients; have certain goals that narrow my choices; also, I have certain moral constraints.

Certainly, I made the choices that have me where I am, will continue making choices so as to stay where I am, but not a one of those choices occurred outside of the context of me, and the circumstances I live in and with. That is: I'm finite, have certain intrinsic inclinations, live in a world that resists me, am surrounded by folks who'll bend me if given the chance, and I've de-liberated myself by taking on certain roles and obligations and codes. My independence is dicey, uncertain. It waxes and wanes as it's tied to the actions, reactions, and responses of other folks, and my reactions and responses to theirs.

It does not seem to me, then, that I'm independent but, instead, I'm autonomous (self-directing and -responsible).

As for individual: a rather generic, common designation for what amounts to a discrete bundle of idiosyncrasy.

Sure, I'm individual, a person, a free will, but, most accurately and directly, I'm Henry Quirk.


more later...

[RCSaunders]

Sundays are piecemeal for me: I'll have loads of of small breaks wherein I can respond, but no large block for anything comprehensive. So: I'll answer in dribbles and drabs (multiple posts) and, in my final post, signal I'm done. Till then, hold off on responses, yeah?

Of course. Enjoy your Sunday!

[henry quirk]

You are full of surprises. I can understand the appeal of old Murray, but your views on politics seem much more like Murray's nemesis, Ayn Rand's, than his. Murray was an anarcho-capitalist.

Even as I typed Rothbardian, I regretted it. I shorthanded myself. I was too lazy to type natural rights libertarian free enterprise minarchist . Also, I had Murray on the brain (having just read a short piece about him. I'm mebbe a little more generous in assessing him than you. As for Rand, she has her charms.

Anyway: I amend myself and withdraw i]Rothbardian[/i].

anarcho-capitalist: another construct I'm not fond of. I prefer Free Enterprise which, as I reckon it, is the same thing without the appeal to anarchism or capitalism

#

Rothbard was not a philosopher, he was a bad economist, (there are worse) from the Austrian School of Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek. Murray promoted some very bad ideas, like his a prioristic praxeology. Like all libertarians, he confused a financial method (capitalism) with a form of government.

I'm not either (so, good on Murray!). I think of myself as austrian (but Flash sez I'm not). For myself: Free Enterprise is part & parcel of the three principles I outline above.

#

I suspect you have little interest in the "the dismal science," as Thomas Carlyle called economics, so I'll spare you any more of that.

I took a gander. That's mebbe a conversation for another day.

#

I think we pretty much agree on how individuals ought to relate to one another.

Largely, yeah.


more in a bit

[henry quirk]

it's not my concern how others live their lives, so long as they are not a direct threat to me, which I'm fully capable of protecting myself from.

I agree with the spirit but not the substance, mebbe cuz I'm hypervigilant about intrusions. Seems to me, as I say up-thread, there's an awful lotta folks lookin' to bend others, leash others, and a great many of them are supposed to be employees (talkin' about elected folks). The dumbshit who breaks into my home at 2am is not my concern. How I deal with him is straight forward. It's the employee who'd legislate my gun ownership/use out of existence who is my concern.

With the stroke of a pen, such a person moves me from law abider to criminal (cuz, no matter what, I'll not give up my shotgun). On one hand, as a free man, I ought not have to be mindful of pryin', graspin' folks; on the other, if I'm not mindful, I'm liable to find myself in a gulag.

So: I concern myself.

[henry quirk]

There is nothing preventing you from protecting anyone or helping anyone you like, if you choose to, providing they want your help and protection, otherwise you are violating your own, "golden rule," and intruding in someone else's life, uninvited. It is wrong to force others to provide anything to others against their will, such as having they earnings confiscated by taxes to pay for others' medicine, protection, or education, for example.

I'd say There is nothing preventing me from protecting anyone or helping anyone I like, if I choose to, providing they need my help and protection, and ask for it.

Subtly different.


Taxes: as a proponent of a night watchman system of proxies (minimal local constabulary, minimal local court of last resort, sensible border stationed military, and the militia to oversee the other three) I go back and forth and around on how such things could be funded. Currently, I favor a lottery, which is *outlandish enough to work for the minimals I favor. Property taxes are another notion. A sales tax mebbe? I can argue for any of the three.

An income tax, on the other hand, is a blight.


Almost there, then you can disagree vigorously with almost everything I've posted.









*I also favor, as head of the proxyhood, Emperor Norton (that's the title of the position), a figurehead serving as rallying point and absurdizer.

[henry quirk]

But, Henry, you know that's not true. The very young, very old, and infirmed seldom pay for their protection, and having one's money taken from them at the point of a gun is not a purchase, it is extortion. Most, so-called government protection, when done by other criminals is called a, "protection racket."

Most of us don't. The state and federal taxes I pay, along with various mandated fees and sales taxes are a drop in bucket compared to the vast expenditures. If I had the option to mandate where I wanted my tax dollars to go (mine would go mostly for roads) then I could say with a measure of certainty I paid for that. The current system doesn't allow for that: no, I pay too much, and what I pay is spent poorly.

However: I do pay, as do oldsters and the parents of youngsters, so I it's not unreasonable to demand some bang for the buck.

Absolutely, the current system is, as I say, a blight. but it's one I'm stuck with. I navigate it as I can, with varying degrees of success, and pay what I can't wriggle out of.


one more post to my finish line

[henry quirk]

That's right, and that is why the independent individual has no interest in anyone's political schemes for providing the kind of society one would like, because it will never happen, and that is why the independent individual takes his responsibility to make himself free.

Again: I agree with the spirit, but object to some of the substance.

At this very moment, Henry, there are millions of people living their lives exactly as they choose without waiting for some political system to provide their freedom, even in such horrid countries as Venezuela.

Yes, there are millions of free men, living among billions of slavers and slaves.

We're in the minority. If we're not careful we'll be off'd, or worse.


I'm done, dissect away, spare me the lectures and education (I can't abide the first, I don't need the second).

[RCSaunders]

I'm done, dissect away, spare me the lectures and education (I can't abide the first, I don't need the second).

Thanks, Henry, I appreciate your being interested enough to make your comments. I hope I won't disappoint you, I have no real criticism.

From your first:

There damned few mutually benevolent social relationships to be had and far more on-going, mutually beneficial, contractual transactions at play.

I'm sorry that has been your experience, it has not been mine. I am very discriminating about who I associate with both in business and socially.

It does not seem to me, then, that I'm independent but, instead, I'm autonomous (self-directing and -responsible).

Autonomous fits exactly what I mean. Totally self-directed and self-controlled.

As for individual: a rather generic, common designation for what amounts to a discrete bundle of idiosyncrasy.

It is a principles I live by. Everyone is different and I expect no one to believe, think, enjoy, or want the same things I do or live their life the way I do. It is what makes others interesting.

From your second:

Even as I typed Rothbardian, I regretted it.

Well that doesn't surprise me. I doubted you would followed that school.

anarcho-capitalist: another construct I'm not fond of. I prefer Free Enterprise

"Free Enterprise," is certainly the ideal, but no political system will ever provide that. There is plenty of free enterprise, but it all lies outside or in spite of any political system. You won't find it in the pages of the WSJ.

From your third:

It's the employee who'd legislate my gun ownership/use out of existence who is my concern.

I have always owned and carried, whether in a state where it was legal (New Hampshire, South Carolina) or not (Massachusetts). What I do has never been determine by any man-made law, except to evade them, the same way I evade sickness and accident.

With the stroke of a pen, such a person moves me from law abider to criminal (cuz, no matter what, I'll not give up my shotgun). On one hand, as a free man, I ought not have to be mindful of pryin', graspin' folks; on the other, if I'm not mindful, I'm liable to find myself in a gulag.

Well we ought not have to be mindful of any of the bad things that are possible in this world, but reality is what it is, including the existence of pryin' graspin' folks, so we do stay mindful to stay out of the gulag. Nothing worthwhile is easy, especially remaining free.

From your fourth:

I'd say There is nothing preventing me from protecting anyone or helping anyone I like, if I choose to, providing they need my help and protection, and ask for it.

Yes, that is better.

Taxes: as a proponent of a night watchman system of proxies (minimal local constabulary, minimal local court of last resort, sensible border stationed military, and the militia to oversee the other three) I go back and forth and around on how such things could be funded.

I have no desire to prevent others from having any kind of system they choose and can implement. I doubt your version is possible, but I would not object to it. My only preference would be, if you must have some kind of system, provide a way for those who have no desire or need for your system to opt out. [Haven't heard about Emperor Norton in a long time. If I remember, he was a California eccentric, wasn't he?]

From your fifth:

However: I do pay, as do oldsters and the parents of youngsters, so I it's not unreasonable to demand some bang for the buck.

When forced to take something I don't want and then forced to finance it, I do not consider it a, "payment," I consider it extortion. I don't want anything from those gangsters. If you can get something you want from them, go for it.

From your final:

We're in the minority. If we're not careful we'll be off'd, or worse.

So BE CAREFUL, my friend.

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

[henry quirk]

My only preference would be, if you must have some kind of system, provide a way for those who have no desire or need for your system to opt out. [Haven't heard about Emperor Norton in a long time. If I remember, he was a California eccentric, wasn't he?]

That's the thing about my peculiar version of minarchy: not a soul is bound by it (play within the the three principles [or simply adhere to the golden rule] and you're solid).

When forced to take something I don't want and then forced to finance it, I do not consider it a, "payment," I consider it extortion. I don't want anything from those gangsters. If you can get something you want from them, go for it.

It's friggin' theft, is what it is. As long as I'm not compromisin' me, I'll take back what's mine every damn time.

[RCSaunders]

When forced to take something I don't want and then forced to finance it, I do not consider it a, "payment," I consider it extortion. I don't want anything from those gangsters. If you can get something you want from them, go for it.

It's friggin' theft, is what it is. As long as I'm not compromisin' me, I'll take back what's mine every damn time.

I agree with the principle. Practically, if its going to cost me more in time, effort, and grief to "get what I'm owed," it's not worth the effort. [Perhaps that's what you mean by, "compromisin' me."] On the other hand, Rand was criticized for accepting her Social Security, because it was extorted from her, but she was right to do so. We didn't make the government. There is nothing wrong with using what already exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No man is an island.

Thanks for the warning!

No man is an island," is a lie. An island is exactly what a man is, what every man is. When someone uses this quote as an argument, be sure he is preparing to invade your island, and if he is successful, the bells will surely toll for thee.

VA, I do not care if you cannot live without being part of some collective or imagine being totally and solely responsible for your own life only dealing with others as a trader with something of value to offer, instead of a parasite who needs others, like a louse or a leach. Just understand, everybody is different and not everyone is like you.

'Independence' and "collective" are both 'double-edged' terms depending on the context.

You inherently have a very screwed-up and perverted view from the extreme negative of "independence" to suit your confirmation bias or whatever the negative reasons [parasite, louse or leach].

Yes, there are really evil acts from 'collective' groups like Communism, Nazism and other evil laden ideologies. But you ignored other 'collective' that generated positive values where there is efficient team-building.

You praised 'independence' of the individual highly but ignored the negatives side of it.

As such you leaned to the wrong interpretation of 'no man is an island.'

Note the effective meaning of 'no man is an island;'

• The phrase no man is an island means that no one is truly self-sufficient, everyone must rely on the company and comfort of others in order to thrive.

Note 'no one is truly self-sufficient' especially in terms of the progress for all of humanity.

Morality [as defined], like Science, require a Framework and System to be efficient to serves its ultimate purpose.
In the case of Morality, independence of the individual is very critical but cannot be more critical than the 'collective' teamwork to ensure the whole Framework and System is the overriding factor that will sustain positive results for all of humanity.

Your objections to the independence of those individuals who do not, "need," others (and therefore are truly able to enjoy and cooperate with others) is understandable. What you cannot bear is not that they do not need others, but that they do not need you.

This is your screwed-up perverted view of 'independence' and "need" and the views of others.
Besides this is ad hominen.

At present, humanity comprised of separate groups with their own independent and conflicting interests but what you are ignorant and not looking into the future potential is TEAM-HUMANITY.

• We can get a sense of what would team-humanity would be like is, say,
  if we know for sure we will be attacked by aliens from Jupiter or elsewhere and that they will exterminate all human beings,
  then, ALL humans [as informed] on Earth will be spontaneously align as team-humanity as long as that threat prevails.

If the above is possible in the advent of a terminal threat from aliens, it is thus a possibility in other situations. The question is how to generate this genuine team-humanity in the absence of a threat from aliens.
I am optimistic the cultivation of team-humanity where all humans [whilst has personal goals] are aligned to the major critical common goals, is possible.

In terms of the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics the individuals will spontaneously align and flow into whatever actions is necessary to ensure the well being of all. This is the essential flow of teamwork within TEAM-HUMANITY.

For team-humanity to progress as a whole, there is no question of you very immature 'I need you' or 'you need me' sort of thinking.

[Skepdick]

You didn't read the article, or you would know the only human beings capable of true cooperative effort are independent individuals. Independent individuals often choose to cooperate, contributing their own efforts toward a goal each is personally interested in to their mutual benefit.

You aren't saying anything interesting. Humans self-organize in order to cooperate. The key part here is themutual benefit.

Such individuals do not need to be members of some amorphous, "team," which has some presumed purpose or goal of its own to which the individuals must subordinate their own individual goals and purposes.

Then why do they? Why do individuals self-organize and form enterprises?

Do you think there would be a space station if no individual had ever been interested in it?

Do you think there would be a space station of only a single individual ever had been interested in it?
Do you think we could ever mutually benefit from a space station, science, medicine or any other distributed human endeavor if only a single individual is ever interested in any of those things?

If building a space station requires more than 1 human lifetime, no individual could ever build one. But a team can.

The notion of division of labour - is foreign to you.

[RCSaunders]

You inherently have a very screwed-up and perverted view from the extreme negative of "independence" to suit your confirmation bias or whatever the negative reasons [parasite, louse or leach].

Thank you for the free psychological evaluation. If you really think my, "scrwed-up" views are inerent, there is really nothing I can do about them, is there? So why keep badgering me about it?

You praised 'independence' of the individual highly but ignored the negatives side of it.

I've been waiting eighty years for someone to identify the negative sides of independence. So far, no one has been able to identify even one.

As such you leaned to the wrong interpretation of 'no man is an island.'

I did not, "learn," my interpretation of the phrase. It is my interpretation of the absurd collectivist idea's from John Donne's Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII:, which compare's mankind to a continent, and ends with the words, "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." Though what it means is certainly wrong, it does not mean the nonsense, "the phrase no man is an island means that no one is truly self-sufficient, everyone must rely on the company and comfort of others in order to thrive," you spouted.

... if we know for sure we will be attacked by aliens from Jupiter or elsewhere and that they will exterminate all human beings ...

No such luck, but I'd be on the side of the aliens from Jupiter. With the exception of a few individuals, I have no interest in the fate of that vile mass of protoplasm you refer to as, "humanity."

[Skepdick]

I've been waiting eighty years for someone to identify the negative sides of independence. So far, no one has been able to identify even one.

30 seconds and I have already identified one. If nobody can identify a negative side of independence (not even you) then It's not even wrong.

It's not knowledge. It's just your (empty) narrative.

[RCSaunders]

The notion of division of labour - is foreign to you.

Well, since you can read minds and know what notions I do and do not have, there is no point in discussing it.

My (according to you, non-existent) idea of division of labor is entirely voluntary. Individuals who discover they are good at and enjoy producing a product or service are able to produce more by specializing in what they do best and trading what they produce in exchange with others specializing in what they do best, and by this totally voluntary process everyone gains more than they would if each had to produce everything themselves.

Any other view of a division of labor would require the subordination of some individuals to the will of others, which is actually a form of slavery.