Independence—Better Than Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4889
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:31 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:08 am That show you are inherently evil by nature.
One can hardly be condemned for their nature, can they?
'Evil' is opposite of 'Good' within Morality.

I did not state "condemned" but one should be wary of the inherent 'evil' nature in humans and thus within morality find solutions to prevent evil nature from manifesting into evil and violent acts that impinge on the well being of humans.

I have posted elsewhere the following point;
DNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" with a potential for 'evil,' and some are born with active evil tendencies as demonstrated in your case of condoning genocide and extermination of the human race.

Note this thread of mine,
Do Not Blame Muslims
or their inherent human nature of evil.
In this case, the triggering evil laden ideology [Islam] is to be blame primarily.
Skepdick
Posts: 5236
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "If you are getting paid - you are not a volunteer. You are an employee."

Post by Skepdick »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:32 pm There's the know it all I've come to know and love...true to form...predicable as a broken clock...thanks for not lettin' me down...:thumbsup:
I keep telling you that I don't know much, if anything (even though I know more than you), you keep telling me that I know it all.

At some point I might actually believe you...
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

meh

Post by henry quirk »

I keep telling you that I don't know much,

You've never told me that.


though I know more than you

Debatable.


you keep telling me that I know it all.

No. I keep tellin' you: you are a know it all.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:44 am ... ALL humans are "programmed" with a potential for 'evil,' and some are born with active evil tendencies as demonstrated in your case of condoning genocide and extermination of the human race."
Not ALL are programmed for evil, only those who believe themselves to be inherently evil. I am not one of them. I have never suggested genocide or extermination of anything. That's your kind of thinking, not mine. I never think in such terms. You will never find those terms in anything I wrote, only you use that kind of language. I'm just not interested in saving that mass of organisms that are, "programmed for evil." If there really were beings, "programmed for evil," they would not be human. I'm only interested in human beings who are not so programmed. I'm sorry you have never met any.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4889
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 1:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:44 am ... ALL humans are "programmed" with a potential for 'evil,' and some are born with active evil tendencies as demonstrated in your case of condoning genocide and extermination of the human race."
Not ALL are programmed for evil, only those who believe themselves to be inherently evil. I am not one of them.
Nope! I stated, not all are born with an activated evil tendencies from their inherent potential.

Note the critical phrase, "DNA wise" "potential for evil" "born with active tendencies".

From your reply you are obviously ignorant of human nature.
To facilitate survival, All humans are "programmed" with the "programs;"
  • 1. primal "To kill" other living things for food and for self-defense.
    2. primal "Fight" or "flight"
    3. Emotion of 'anger' to move the person to either 1 or 2 above.
The above 'programs' are for the good of the person and the human species.
However re the Normal Distribution or Bell Curve, there are always extremes and exception on the other side of good, which could be 20%, i.e. evil.
Thus it is very natural a certain %, say 20% are born with the tendency to abuse the above programs, i.e. the tendency to kill, fight and rage in term of evil and violent acts.

DNA wise ALL humans are programmed with the potential to be evil, i.e. commit evil and violent acts, but appx. 20% are born with an active evil tendency.
Since ALL humans has the potential to be evil, those who are not born with an active evil tendency can be triggered to be evil when the dormant potential is activated by certain stimuli under various conditions - nurturing, social, drugs, stress, etc.

Note there are loads of experiments where neuroscientists put probes into the brain of mice and humans to trigger the respective behavior which normally is dormant in a person.

I have never suggested genocide or extermination of anything. That's your kind of thinking, not mine. I never think in such terms. You will never find those terms in anything I wrote, only you use that kind of language.
You condoned genocide in your following post;
RCSaunder wrote:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:27 am ... 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."
The above indicate your genocidal evil tendency is active to some degree, albeit unconsciously.
If you have a strong sense of human_ness and compassion, you would never suggest the above no matter what the circumstances.

I'm just not interested in saving that mass of organisms that are, "programmed for evil." If there really were beings, "programmed for evil," they would not be human. I'm only interested in human beings who are not so programmed. I'm sorry you have never met any.
It is unfortunate you are ignorant of human nature, i.e. your own inherent human nature and what is going inside your body and brain.

DNA wise ALL humans are 'programmed' with the potential for good and evil.
Those who are born [nature] with an active evil tendency will commit evil acts naturally, e.g. the malignant psychopaths and the likes.

Those who are not born with an active evil tendency can also be triggered [programmed after birth - nurture] to be evil via brainwashing techniques, nurturing, drugs, negative social conditions, stress, illness, etc.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:54 am It is unfortunate you are ignorant of human nature, i.e. your own inherent human nature and what is going inside your body and brain.
Well, don't worry about it, VA. I can live with it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4889
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2020 4:54 am It is unfortunate you are ignorant of human nature, i.e. your own inherent human nature and what is going inside your body and brain.
Well, don't worry about it, VA. I can live with it.
Nothing personal.
The point is always applicable to the generic human person where each individual should not adopt your kind of attitude.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:26 pm Individualism is often contrasted with collectivism and those who are opposed to collectivism are often called individualists. This is unfortunate, because the true nature of individual independence is not an, "-ism," not an ideology, and not political. Individual independence is a, "moral," or, "ethical," view of life chosen by those who regard their own life as their ultimate value.

Who Are Independent Individuals?

It is unlikely that you know who independent individuals are. They seldom identify themselves individualists because they never think in terms of belonging to some class or category of human beings; they never refer to themselves as members of some, "WE."

An independent individual is one who is completely confident in his own ability to live his life successfully without anyone else's advice, teaching, direction, support, love, empathy, understanding, agreement, or approval. An independent individual neither desires or seeks anything other than what he can produce or achieve by his own rationally directed productive effort, otherwise known as his work, and is never a threat to any other individual in any way.

An independent individual is only concerned with knowing that whatever he has in this world he has produced or acquired by his own honest effort, that all he enjoys is without guilt or regret because he earned and deserves it, and that whatever he is, it is what he has made of himself and is the best he could possibly have accomplished. He does not care what anyone else thinks or knows about him, only what he knows about himself.

He cannot be satisfied by anything less than the best. It is not the best as defined by society or some ideology or what is popularly believed. It is the best possible for a human being as determined by his nature and the nature of the world in which he lives. Not the best in terms of physical possessions, but the best in terms of his own freedom and personal achievement, physically and mentally.

What Does Independent Mean?

Independent, means not connected to any controlling or directing agency outside oneself. An independent individual's life and everything he does is determined exclusively by his own rationally guided judgment and choice. It does not mean, "free from the existence," of other individuals or agencies that claim or attempt to control the individual, it means the individual never acknowledges that claim and evades its actual influence in his life in every way possible in much the same way he evades and protects himself from other harmful threats of reality such as terrorists, gangsters, diseases, accidents, or natural disasters, but he does not want or expect that protection to be provided by any other individual or agency.

Why Independent Individuals Choose To Be Independent

No one is born an independent individual. Independence is chosen, like all other human behavior. Those who do choose independence come to a place in their lives when they discover or realize the kind of life they are going to have will be determined solely by what they think, choose, and do. For some, the realization is so early in life they cannot remember ever thinking any other way. Others only come to the realization after learning from experience, often a serious difficulty or traumatic event caused by their own bad choices, that their success or failure depends solely on their own choices and actions.

It is apparent that most people are not truly successful and happy in this world, even those who seem to have power, money, prestige, or position. Most of those held up as examples of success have not actually earned their wealth, position, or fame, but accrued them by means of fortune, charisma, talent, looks, political power, or pandering to the insatiable appetites of the ordinary for entertainment, the sensational, or, hedonistic pleasure.

It is never what one has that determines either success or happiness, it is only what one has achieved and made of themselves by their own effort that can provide that sense of personal integrity, dignity, competence, and self-worth required by one's nature for a truly fulfilled life of meaning and purpose.

What Do Independent Individuals Do?

What does an independent individual do? First let me say what he does not do. He does not steal, he does not cheat, he does not threaten others, he does not rape, he does not, "take advantage," of anyone's weaknesses or foibles, (he won't be a drug dealer, a pornographer, a pimp, a prostitute, a professional gambler, or a panderer to any other human weakness or obsession, and he won't be a politician, a policeman, a bureaucrat, or any other kind of government agent living on wealth extorted from others). The reason why he does none of those things is because they would make him dependent on those others who would be his victims.

If you meet anyone who is any of those things, you know they are not an independent individual. Please do not mistake this description for a, "law-abiding citizen," however, because what an independent individual does is very often illegal.

What an independent individual does is work. He is always engaged in some kind of productive effort by which he produces products or services (or both) for which others willingly exchange what they have produced or earned. Except for those things listed above, there is almost no field in which independent individuals are not engaged. Some sell their services to others. Some are entrepreneurs. In whatever field they are engaged, many are free lance. Most are autodidacts and most are polymaths, though only a handful have extended academic backgrounds because very few independent individuals have the psychological tolerance required to withstand the assaults of academia on their independence and intelligence.

Some perform services for which government requires licenses or other 'permits,' but they never bother with government requirements. I know some very successful electricians, plumbers, masons, pavers, and builders, even doctors, dentists, and pharmacists who have no government authorization. Some perform the services of underground banks making international money transfers, some are smugglers providing products, from clothing to medicine, to citizens of countries whose own governments have made those products illegal, or so regulated, they are otherwise unavailable.

The independent individual is free of any concern about whether anything he chooses to do has been declared, "illegal," by some government, except to understand where such, "laws," increase the risk of any particular endeavor and must be accounted for. The independent individual is only concerned that what he does is right. One view of the independent individual is, "if a law is immoral it is immoral to obey it." So much for the law-abiding citizen.

Independent Individuals And Others

I do not believe in psychologizing, or making judgments about others that presume to know what they think, or why they make the choices they do. I do not know why most individuals cannot imagine, according to their own testimony, being able to be happy or successful, or even have any meaning in their life, without being part of some group, or collection, or community of other human beings.

The need to be "joined" to something seems to an independent individual a kind of deficiency, a sense that one is not sufficient and complete in themselves, that they suffer some biological or psychological shortcoming that can only be supplied by being a "member" of something.

Whatever that shortcoming is, if that is what it is, it apparently makes it impossible for them to understand that only self-sufficient, complete-in-themselves, independent individuals are capable or worthy of true social relationships and are the only ones who can truly enjoy others and the only ones capable of real love.

It is because the independent individual has no desire or interest in interfering or controlling anyone else, no need to be, "understood," "appreciated," "approved," or, "supported," by others, and no requirement for their empathy, sympathy, or compassion that the independent individual's relationships with others places no demand or expectations on them beyond mutually enjoying one another in normal human intercourse, from pleasure to business. Much of the enjoyment of others for the independent individual is an appreciation of the incredible differences in their experiences, knowledge, activities, interests, desires, goals, and achievements, all of which enrich the independent individual's own life and experience.

The independent individual's general attitude toward others is to expect them to be successful and happy to whatever level their own ability and ambition makes possible, "wishing," for everyone to be as satisfied with life as possible. Since the independent individual knows the potential of life, and its infinite possibilities, his ideal world would be one in which every individual in it were as free as he himself is, and as totally satisfied with life as he himself is. This is the attitude that determines his relationship with all other individuals.

The independent individual's life is always full of that pleasure derived from his relationships with others, from the most casual acquaintances to serious business relationships, from his personal friendships to those he loves. There is even a sense in which the independent individual loves everyone, since the real meaning of love is the appreciation of true value in others. The independent individual regards every individual to have value, at least potentially, because they are human beings, the only other beings with the same interests and potential as himself. It is why the independent individual gives every individual the benefit of the doubt, and judges them only on the basis of what they demonstrate or declare themselves to be, and nothing else, especially not any group or collective others might identify them with.

Perhaps you would not guess it, because an independent individual rejects all forms of altruism, but one of an independent individual's chief joys is giving pleasure to others. Even if it is only a pleasant word, a simple compliment, a recognition of something done well, or only winking at an unpretty girl.

As for society itself, since the independent individual is always a producer, never a trouble-maker, always minds his own business and knows how to interact with others decently and courteously, his every contribution to any society is always only positive and benevolent.

Independent Individuals And Society

Since an independent individual only deals with others by means of reason, offering value for value, and always gives others the benefit of the doubt, you'll almost never find anyone more reasonable to deal with. They just have no desire to have anything from anyone that others do not see is to their benefit to give, usually in the form of a trade.

You'll never meet an independent individual who attempts to bully others, or interfere in how they live, or even how they comport themselves. To the independent individual, other's lives are not his to interfere with in any way, and he has no interest in controlling or meddling in anyone else's life.

An independent individual finds other's dismay at his attitude odd. My own experience has been that those who are not independent, whom I call, "controllers and meddlers," actually consider independent individuals some kind of threat or danger. There is a kind of insidious hatred of the independent individual because he has no use for the meddlers' schemes and plans for controlling society and making others behave as they would like.

The independent individual is not, however, opposed to any of the meddlers' political and social schemes for providing the kind of society they think they would like. They may have their governments, limited or otherwise, organized communities, charters, associations, constitutions, contracts, police or competing protection agencies. No independent individual will get in their way, because none of their schemes will work and will all ultimately end in disaster.

You will never see an independent individual at a political rally, a demonstration, forum, or, "town hall meeting." An independent individual does not join or support any political party, organization, or movement; in fact, an independent individual does not, "join," anything. An independent individual does not identify with any race, nationality, ideology, class or category of individuals, and does not think of or evaluate anyone else in terms of any race, nationality, ideology, class or category. An independent individual only relates to other individuals as individuals.

An independent individual has no use for politics because all politics (government) is anti-individual and anti-freedom. To be governed means to be controlled by someone else, and the independent individual is already free. One of the most important aspects of freedom is being free from concerns about others—others' beliefs, others' opinions, others' faults, and others' feelings. Independent individuals do no care what anyone else thinks, believes, or does or what others think of them, says to or about them, or feels about them.

The independent individual is often accused: "You just don't care what happens to others." In one sense that is true. With the rare exception of things that are outside anyone's possible control, what happens to anyone is the consequence of their own choices and actions. The independent individual takes responsibility for every aspect of his own life, including the "bad" things that happen and would prefer everyone would take responsibility for their own lives as well, but he does not "wish" it, because he knows most people will not take that responsibility, will suffer the consequences of their bad choices and actions, and perpetually look for someone or something else to blame for their problems or to pick up after them.

The independent individual, however, takes no pleasure in the suffering or unhappiness of others, and would prefer for all human beings to enjoy their lives as he does. Unlike the controllers and meddlers, the independent individual harbors no vindictiveness, and abhors the idea of revenge and the absurd belief that justice means inflicting some kind of pain or suffering on those who do what others think they shouldn't. There is something insidiously wrong with anyone who can find a value in anyone else's pain or suffering.

The independent individual is contemptuous of the controllers' and meddlers' ideas of a, "free", "fair," or "just," society. The independent individual knows if everyone in a society were an independent, self-sufficient, productive individual, that society would be a, "free", "fair," or "just," society. Since the independent individual cannot be a threat to anyone else, never interferes in anyone else's life, is always reasonable in his dealings with others and all his behavior is benevolent, it is not independent individuals that need to be "controlled" to make a society the kind some idealist imagines. It is the non-independent individuals who are the threat to others, the dependent parasites and socially needy, and the malevolent controllers and meddlers that make societies unjust and oppressive.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:26 pm Individualism is often contrasted with collectivism and those who are opposed to collectivism are often called individualists. This is unfortunate, because the true nature of individual independence is not an, "-ism," not an ideology, and not political. Individual independence is a, "moral," or, "ethical," view of life chosen by those who regard their own life as their ultimate value.

Who Are Independent Individuals?

It is unlikely that you know who independent individuals are. They seldom identify themselves individualists because they never think in terms of belonging to some class or category of human beings; they never refer to themselves as members of some, "WE."

An independent individual is one who is completely confident in his own ability to live his life successfully without anyone else's advice, teaching, direction, support, love, empathy, understanding, agreement, or approval. An independent individual neither desires or seeks anything other than what he can produce or achieve by his own rationally directed productive effort, otherwise known as his work, and is never a threat to any other individual in any way.

An independent individual is only concerned with knowing that whatever he has in this world he has produced or acquired by his own honest effort, that all he enjoys is without guilt or regret because he earned and deserves it, and that whatever he is, it is what he has made of himself and is the best he could possibly have accomplished. He does not care what anyone else thinks or knows about him, only what he knows about himself.

He cannot be satisfied by anything less than the best. It is not the best as defined by society or some ideology or what is popularly believed. It is the best possible for a human being as determined by his nature and the nature of the world in which he lives. Not the best in terms of physical possessions, but the best in terms of his own freedom and personal achievement, physically and mentally.

What Does Independent Mean?

Independent, means not connected to any controlling or directing agency outside oneself. An independent individual's life and everything he does is determined exclusively by his own rationally guided judgment and choice. It does not mean, "free from the existence," of other individuals or agencies that claim or attempt to control the individual, it means the individual never acknowledges that claim and evades its actual influence in his life in every way possible in much the same way he evades and protects himself from other harmful threats of reality such as terrorists, gangsters, diseases, accidents, or natural disasters, but he does not want or expect that protection to be provided by any other individual or agency.

Why Independent Individuals Choose To Be Independent

No one is born an independent individual. Independence is chosen, like all other human behavior. Those who do choose independence come to a place in their lives when they discover or realize the kind of life they are going to have will be determined solely by what they think, choose, and do. For some, the realization is so early in life they cannot remember ever thinking any other way. Others only come to the realization after learning from experience, often a serious difficulty or traumatic event caused by their own bad choices, that their success or failure depends solely on their own choices and actions.

It is apparent that most people are not truly successful and happy in this world, even those who seem to have power, money, prestige, or position. Most of those held up as examples of success have not actually earned their wealth, position, or fame, but accrued them by means of fortune, charisma, talent, looks, political power, or pandering to the insatiable appetites of the ordinary for entertainment, the sensational, or, hedonistic pleasure.

It is never what one has that determines either success or happiness, it is only what one has achieved and made of themselves by their own effort that can provide that sense of personal integrity, dignity, competence, and self-worth required by one's nature for a truly fulfilled life of meaning and purpose.

What Do Independent Individuals Do?

What does an independent individual do? First let me say what he does not do. He does not steal, he does not cheat, he does not threaten others, he does not rape, he does not, "take advantage," of anyone's weaknesses or foibles, (he won't be a drug dealer, a pornographer, a pimp, a prostitute, a professional gambler, or a panderer to any other human weakness or obsession, and he won't be a politician, a policeman, a bureaucrat, or any other kind of government agent living on wealth extorted from others). The reason why he does none of those things is because they would make him dependent on those others who would be his victims.

If you meet anyone who is any of those things, you know they are not an independent individual. Please do not mistake this description for a, "law-abiding citizen," however, because what an independent individual does is very often illegal.

What an independent individual does is work. He is always engaged in some kind of productive effort by which he produces products or services (or both) for which others willingly exchange what they have produced or earned. Except for those things listed above, there is almost no field in which independent individuals are not engaged. Some sell their services to others. Some are entrepreneurs. In whatever field they are engaged, many are free lance. Most are autodidacts and most are polymaths, though only a handful have extended academic backgrounds because very few independent individuals have the psychological tolerance required to withstand the assaults of academia on their independence and intelligence.

Some perform services for which government requires licenses or other 'permits,' but they never bother with government requirements. I know some very successful electricians, plumbers, masons, pavers, and builders, even doctors, dentists, and pharmacists who have no government authorization. Some perform the services of underground banks making international money transfers, some are smugglers providing products, from clothing to medicine, to citizens of countries whose own governments have made those products illegal, or so regulated, they are otherwise unavailable.

The independent individual is free of any concern about whether anything he chooses to do has been declared, "illegal," by some government, except to understand where such, "laws," increase the risk of any particular endeavor and must be accounted for. The independent individual is only concerned that what he does is right. One view of the independent individual is, "if a law is immoral it is immoral to obey it." So much for the law-abiding citizen.

Independent Individuals And Others

I do not believe in psychologizing, or making judgments about others that presume to know what they think, or why they make the choices they do. I do not know why most individuals cannot imagine, according to their own testimony, being able to be happy or successful, or even have any meaning in their life, without being part of some group, or collection, or community of other human beings.

The need to be "joined" to something seems to an independent individual a kind of deficiency, a sense that one is not sufficient and complete in themselves, that they suffer some biological or psychological shortcoming that can only be supplied by being a "member" of something.

Whatever that shortcoming is, if that is what it is, it apparently makes it impossible for them to understand that only self-sufficient, complete-in-themselves, independent individuals are capable or worthy of true social relationships and are the only ones who can truly enjoy others and the only ones capable of real love.

It is because the independent individual has no desire or interest in interfering or controlling anyone else, no need to be, "understood," "appreciated," "approved," or, "supported," by others, and no requirement for their empathy, sympathy, or compassion that the independent individual's relationships with others places no demand or expectations on them beyond mutually enjoying one another in normal human intercourse, from pleasure to business. Much of the enjoyment of others for the independent individual is an appreciation of the incredible differences in their experiences, knowledge, activities, interests, desires, goals, and achievements, all of which enrich the independent individual's own life and experience.

The independent individual's general attitude toward others is to expect them to be successful and happy to whatever level their own ability and ambition makes possible, "wishing," for everyone to be as satisfied with life as possible. Since the independent individual knows the potential of life, and its infinite possibilities, his ideal world would be one in which every individual in it were as free as he himself is, and as totally satisfied with life as he himself is. This is the attitude that determines his relationship with all other individuals.

The independent individual's life is always full of that pleasure derived from his relationships with others, from the most casual acquaintances to serious business relationships, from his personal friendships to those he loves. There is even a sense in which the independent individual loves everyone, since the real meaning of love is the appreciation of true value in others. The independent individual regards every individual to have value, at least potentially, because they are human beings, the only other beings with the same interests and potential as himself. It is why the independent individual gives every individual the benefit of the doubt, and judges them only on the basis of what they demonstrate or declare themselves to be, and nothing else, especially not any group or collective others might identify them with.

Perhaps you would not guess it, because an independent individual rejects all forms of altruism, but one of an independent individual's chief joys is giving pleasure to others. Even if it is only a pleasant word, a simple compliment, a recognition of something done well, or only winking at an unpretty girl.

As for society itself, since the independent individual is always a producer, never a trouble-maker, always minds his own business and knows how to interact with others decently and courteously, his every contribution to any society is always only positive and benevolent.

Independent Individuals And Society

Since an independent individual only deals with others by means of reason, offering value for value, and always gives others the benefit of the doubt, you'll almost never find anyone more reasonable to deal with. They just have no desire to have anything from anyone that others do not see is to their benefit to give, usually in the form of a trade.

You'll never meet an independent individual who attempts to bully others, or interfere in how they live, or even how they comport themselves. To the independent individual, other's lives are not his to interfere with in any way, and he has no interest in controlling or meddling in anyone else's life.

An independent individual finds other's dismay at his attitude odd. My own experience has been that those who are not independent, whom I call, "controllers and meddlers," actually consider independent individuals some kind of threat or danger. There is a kind of insidious hatred of the independent individual because he has no use for the meddlers' schemes and plans for controlling society and making others behave as they would like.

The independent individual is not, however, opposed to any of the meddlers' political and social schemes for providing the kind of society they think they would like. They may have their governments, limited or otherwise, organized communities, charters, associations, constitutions, contracts, police or competing protection agencies. No independent individual will get in their way, because none of their schemes will work and will all ultimately end in disaster.

You will never see an independent individual at a political rally, a demonstration, forum, or, "town hall meeting." An independent individual does not join or support any political party, organization, or movement; in fact, an independent individual does not, "join," anything. An independent individual does not identify with any race, nationality, ideology, class or category of individuals, and does not think of or evaluate anyone else in terms of any race, nationality, ideology, class or category. An independent individual only relates to other individuals as individuals.

An independent individual has no use for politics because all politics (government) is anti-individual and anti-freedom. To be governed means to be controlled by someone else, and the independent individual is already free. One of the most important aspects of freedom is being free from concerns about others—others' beliefs, others' opinions, others' faults, and others' feelings. Independent individuals do no care what anyone else thinks, believes, or does or what others think of them, says to or about them, or feels about them.

The independent individual is often accused: "You just don't care what happens to others." In one sense that is true. With the rare exception of things that are outside anyone's possible control, what happens to anyone is the consequence of their own choices and actions. The independent individual takes responsibility for every aspect of his own life, including the "bad" things that happen and would prefer everyone would take responsibility for their own lives as well, but he does not "wish" it, because he knows most people will not take that responsibility, will suffer the consequences of their bad choices and actions, and perpetually look for someone or something else to blame for their problems or to pick up after them.

The independent individual, however, takes no pleasure in the suffering or unhappiness of others, and would prefer for all human beings to enjoy their lives as he does. Unlike the controllers and meddlers, the independent individual harbors no vindictiveness, and abhors the idea of revenge and the absurd belief that justice means inflicting some kind of pain or suffering on those who do what others think they shouldn't. There is something insidiously wrong with anyone who can find a value in anyone else's pain or suffering.

The independent individual is contemptuous of the controllers' and meddlers' ideas of a, "free", "fair," or "just," society. The independent individual knows if everyone in a society were an independent, self-sufficient, productive individual, that society would be a, "free", "fair," or "just," society. Since the independent individual cannot be a threat to anyone else, never interferes in anyone else's life, is always reasonable in his dealings with others and all his behavior is benevolent, it is not independent individuals that need to be "controlled" to make a society the kind some idealist imagines. It is the non-independent individuals who are the threat to others, the dependent parasites and socially needy, and the malevolent controllers and meddlers that make societies unjust and oppressive.
Sorry, I attempted to address this in detail, but my post disappeared.

Much of what your saying is based on contradictions or questionable definitions, as well as a vague, ambiguous definition of "morality" to begin with; if you would like me to address this in more detail, please reply and I will attempt to.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:47 am Much of what your saying is based on contradictions or questionable definitions, as well as a vague, ambiguous definition of "morality" to begin with; if you would like me to address this in more detail, please reply and I will attempt to.
Yes, please do. I know frustrating it is to work on something and have it disappear. When I'm working on something longer, I do frequent, "previews," and keep a copy of what I'm doing on another editor, especially if I'm going to leave it for a while. Also, when you log in, be sure to check, "Remember me," so it won't bump you off.

Don't worry about contradictions. Everyone disagrees with me. It's what makes conversations interesting. And take your time. I'll watch for your post.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 12:41 pm
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:47 am Much of what your saying is based on contradictions or questionable definitions, as well as a vague, ambiguous definition of "morality" to begin with; if you would like me to address this in more detail, please reply and I will attempt to.
Yes, please do. I know frustrating it is to work on something and have it disappear. When I'm working on something longer, I do frequent, "previews," and keep a copy of what I'm doing on another editor, especially if I'm going to leave it for a while. Also, when you log in, be sure to check, "Remember me," so it won't bump you off.

Don't worry about contradictions. Everyone disagrees with me. It's what makes conversations interesting. And take your time. I'll watch for your post.
For starters, what legal or moral philosophical axioms are you defining "morality" by or as?

From what I can tell, your argument is a "moral" one so this is a false dichotomy (you believe that trying to deny or surpress people's individuality or independence is "immoral"), plus you also did put moral limits or restraints on the pursuit of "independence".

(If a murderer-for-hire made his living by killing people, then you couldn't deny that by your other axioms, he is still "independent", so your arguments against this aren't an "independence" one, but a moral one).
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:44 pm (If a murderer-for-hire made his living by killing people, then you couldn't deny that by your other axioms, he is still "independent", so your arguments against this aren't an "independence" one, but a moral one).
Either you didn't read the article or didn't understand it. If you did understand it you would know an independent individual cannot be a murderer, or anything else that depends on victims, because he would not then be independent.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 5:46 pm
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:44 pm (If a murderer-for-hire made his living by killing people, then you couldn't deny that by your other axioms, he is still "independent", so your arguments against this aren't an "independence" one, but a moral one).
Either you didn't read the article or didn't understand it. If you did understand it you would know an independent individual cannot be a murderer, or anything else that depends on victims, because he would not then be independent.
That's not a "dependency" issue; if he works voluntarily for a company, or interacts with others in any way, he is "dependent" on them, at least as far as his line of work and mutual interactions go; you're not talking about a hermit or a Buddhist monk who lives alone in a cave on a desert Island and grows or hunts his own "food" all by himself.

So no, the murder isn't any more "dependent" by virture of "needing victims" than an employer is for needing customers, employees, etc - the problem is moral one, not one of independence or dependence.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by RCSaunders »

IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:46 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2020 5:46 pm
IvoryBlackBishop wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:44 pm (If a murderer-for-hire made his living by killing people, then you couldn't deny that by your other axioms, he is still "independent", so your arguments against this aren't an "independence" one, but a moral one).
Either you didn't read the article or didn't understand it. If you did understand it you would know an independent individual cannot be a murderer, or anything else that depends on victims, because he would not then be independent.
That's not a "dependency" issue; if he works voluntarily for a company, or interacts with others in any way, he is "dependent" on them, at least as far as his line of work and mutual interactions go; you're not talking about a hermit or a Buddhist monk who lives alone in a cave on a desert Island and grows or hunts his own "food" all by himself.

So no, the murder isn't any more "dependent" by virture of "needing victims" than an employer is for needing customers, employees, etc - the problem is moral one, not one of independence or dependence.
By, "dependence," I mean relationships like those between a parasite and its host, a criminal and his victims, or any employee of a government and tax payers. Those who are producers and trade with each other, value for value, do so by agreement. Like those agreements between workers selling their service to employers and manufacturers selling their products to their customers. Those exchanges are to their mutual benefit, not dependence. They could all trade with different individual, or if push came to shove, produce what they wanted themselves. The dependent, parasites, criminals, and government employees produce nothing of value to trade and would perish without their victims.
IvoryBlackBishop
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Independence—Better Than Morality

Post by IvoryBlackBishop »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:30 pm By, "dependence," I mean relationships like those between a parasite and its host, a criminal and his victims, or any employee of a government and tax payers.
That's not a sound way of defining "dependence", as well as a silly metaphor and abstraction which has been done to death a million times over.

Given that "government" of some form or another has been around since ancient Rome and before up until the present day, I now consider this just to be an ubiquitous "gripe" about human nature that's probably been around in some form or another since the dawn of mankind, which is why it will never rise to the level of any serious political or ideological argument.

In practice, government itself is a "welfare system", and has always been that way; in practice, no one cares enough to do anyting akin to actual record of government expenditures, in theory and practice, from today to the origins of whatever government or nation they're talking about (e.x. the founding of the United States government based on a system of checks and balances, rather than "anarchy").

And, in practice, everyone is content continuing to "depend" on the systems that they are already depending on, and if anyone is an exception to this rule, such as a monk who renounces all material possessions and citizenships and lives alone in the wilderness fending off the land, the ones actually willing to do or attempt this rather than just fantasize idly about it while doing the polar oppose, and often conversely asking for more "government" involvement at the same time whenever it happens to suit their particular interest or ideal; they are extremely rare individuals, maybe one in a million, or even a billion, but that's about it. Or sometimes variations of "non-aggression" axioms which only focus on specific types of aggression in very specific situations but ignore all others (including the aggression and lies they themselves are actually engaging in hypocritically), the reality of human nature, or the reality that ideologies and worldviews that are anti-thetical or not conductive to a "non-aggressive" or "nonviolent" worldview would need to be actively opposed or preserved on some type of level; the reality that "nonaggression" is physically impossible and would lead to nihilism or absurdism

(e.x. speaking in the vicinity of a person creates sound waves which "aggress upon" a person without consent; so by their absurd logic, there is "no difference" in whispering in the vicinity of a person, and blasting a sonic weapon in a person's ear). The best one could do, if one was a monk of some sort who practiced devout "nonviolence" (which most of them aren't, and won't attempt to be by their own admissions, since it would require they sacrifice and give up the way they are already content with living, in practice even if not in theory), would be to "minimize" aggression as much as possible, but it would not be physically possible to exist while completely eliminating it.

Not to mention dishonesty, or refusal to acknowledge that every government (whether American, or otherwise) was always "totalitarian and socialist" by their absurd standard since the day it was founded, refusal to acknowledge the actual differences between a Constitutional Republic with checks and balances, and an actual "totalitarian" state like North Korea where the leader or party is completely unrestrained by any constitution or system of checks and balances, as are the vast majority of notable ideologues who identify with some form of "libertarianism"

(e.x. Murray Rothbard - totalitarian socialist, went to a publicly funded university)

(e.x. Ayn Rand - totalitarian socialist, wanted minimal government, not anarchy; believed that colonizing native Americans was fine because they were 'uncivilized')

(e.x. Milton Friedman - totalitarian socialist, went to publicly-funded universities)

(e.x. Ron Paul - totalitarian socialist, is a servant of the state; served in the totalitarian socialist US military)

(e.x. All of the American founding fathers - totalitarian socialists; none were "anarchists", or else America never would have existed, and there would have been no "revolutionary war", fought against taxation without representation, not anarchy or "no-taxation", agreed to create the totalitarian socialist United states government)

(e.x. All Americans who are not anarchists - likely somewhere in the vicinity of 99.99% of the US population - totalitarians socialists - live under the totalitarian socialist US government at its expense).

And the list goes on...
Those who are producers and trade with each other, value for value, do so by agreement. Like those agreements between workers selling their service to employers and manufacturers selling their products to their customers.
Right, and if the people disappeared, the "legitimate" employer would be out of work, though he could find new clients.

Just as if a murderer-for-hire's clients disappeared, he would be temporarily "out of work", but could find new clients as well.

So no, the issue isn't one of "dependence", since both a "legitimate" or "honest" employee depends on his company, clients, customers, employers, etc, just as a murder-for-hire does.

The issue is one of morality.

Those exchanges are to their mutual benefit, not dependence.
That's a false dichotomy - they depend on their exchanges for their mutual benefit.
They could all trade with different individual, or if push came to shove, produce what they wanted themselves.
No, I don't believe that - hypothetically if all of modern civilization disappeared, and you had only yourself and "stone age" technology available to you, I don't believe you could do it except in fantasy, if you could you would be doing it rather than voluntarily "depending" on the things that you are already simply by living in "civilization" or whatnot.
The dependent, parasites, criminals, and government employees produce nothing of value to trade
According to your moral judgment? Obviously a murder-for-hire's clients believe he is producing something of value "for them", or else they wouldn't be paying for it, but since it's produced through violence against others or behavior you believe is in some way inherently "worthless" or "immoral", this violates your moral or altruistic ideal about how they should transact with others.
and would perish without their victims.
No, they could just find new victims, just as a "legitimate" employee could find a new company or clients, so this is a nonsense analogy.
Post Reply