Independence—Better Than Morality

[RCSaunders]

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note most mad people - the schizophrenia, narcissist, ascetics and the likes always think they are independent individuals.

What is critical for the survival of the species is the individual must be primarily a morally independent person and interact collectively as team-humanity.
Example, there is no team and 'symphony' if all individuals are acting independently on their own without alignment to the overall objectives of the human species.

To achieve the above, all individuals must strive to improve to attain higher and higher moral competence optimally in alignment with secular objective absolute moral laws/rules/'maxims'.

• Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Independence is not better than Morality, but rather Morality must be complemented with "Independence' like Yin with Yang.

[RCSaunders]

What is critical for the survival of the species is the individual must be primarily a morally independent person and interact collectively as team-humanity.

Example, there is no team and 'symphony' if all individuals are acting independently on their own without alignment to the overall objectives of the human species.

There are no such things as, "objectives of the human species." Only individual human beings have goals, purposes, and objectives. If you have had much experience with real life, "teams," they are always collections of individuals where one or two do all the real work, and all the others take credit for it and, "share," (steal) the profits. Keep your teams.

You didn't read the article. If you had, you would understand the only ones who can cooperate to the mutual benefit of all involved are independent individuals. Parasites and their hosts are not cooperations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is critical for the survival of the species is the individual must be primarily a morally independent person and interact collectively as team-humanity.

Example, there is no team and 'symphony' if all individuals are acting independently on their own without alignment to the overall objectives of the human species.

There are no such things as, "objectives of the human species." Only individual human beings have goals, purposes, and objectives.

You have not done sufficient research on this.
I have asked [elsewhere],
show me one species of living things where there is indication they emerged with the aim to ensure the species is extinct immediately.
There is none at all.
Therefore the objective of a species, thus human species is to ensure the preservation of the human species via the majority of the individuals.

Yes, individual human beings have goals, purposes, and objectives but their goals are a subset of the overall goal of the human species.

An alpha male is likely to pursue his very "selfish" goals with the most power and dominance over other individuals, so he is able to survive as long as possible and to fuck as many females as possible to produce as many of his own children to spread his genes as far as possible.
The alpha male selfish goals are but the subset of the species goals of preservation of the species, as the more stronger individuals are likely to survive longer to reproduce healthier and stronger offsprings.

If you have had much experience with real life, "teams," they are always collections of individuals where one or two do all the real work, and all the others take credit for it and, "share," (steal) the profits. Keep your teams.

I have done very extensive research into teambuilding.
How can you be so ignorant with the above?

Yes, there are 'cheaters' within a group of people working together, but without the proper team framework, they are not a team per se to start with.
A proper team will have inbuilt processes to identify 'cheaters' and non-team players for coaching to improve or else rejected from the team.

• Note in say a symphony, how can a symphony team produce good music if only a few of the musicians only played well while others are lackadaisical in their attitude and not playing in tune. A person with a good musical ears will be able to detect what is good or bad symphony music and where the misalignment coming from.

You didn't read the article. If you had, you would understand the only ones who can cooperate to the mutual benefit of all involved are independent individuals. Parasites and their hosts are not cooperations.

Note your title "Independence—Better Than Morality" as I had argued in my post is a falsehood from the start.
Thus there is no need for me to read the article in detail, which obviously not worth wasting my time. It is the same with the sort of "cheapo" philosophical views you churned out elsewhere.

Within morality and for the framework of morality to be efficient, we need "individualism" but at the same time individuals co-sharing and in alignment with the collective goals.

[Skepdick]

There are no such things as, "objectives of the human species." Only individual human beings have goals, purposes, and objectives. If you have had much experience with real life, "teams," they are always collections of individuals where one or two do all the real work, and all the others take credit for it and, "share," (steal) the profits. Keep your teams.

It sounds like you've worked in many dysfunctional organizations and it's skewing your judgment.

Collectives absolutely have purposes and objectives which remain in place even when individuals leave the group.

To claim otherwise is to say that the reason we have a space station orbiting Earth right now is by pure luck. Which "one or two" did "all the real work" to build the International Space Station, do you think?

[RCSaunders]

There are no such things as, "objectives of the human species." Only individual human beings have goals, purposes, and objectives. If you have had much experience with real life, "teams," they are always collections of individuals where one or two do all the real work, and all the others take credit for it and, "share," (steal) the profits. Keep your teams.

It sounds like ...

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. 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.

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

[RCSaunders]

Note your title "Independence—Better Than Morality" as I had argued in my post is a falsehood from the start. Thus there is no need for me to read the article ...

I didn't write the article for you to read. I wrote it for those who are interested in discovering how they must live in this world if they are to have a life of real meaning and purpose and to live a life that is worth living.

It is dishonest to criticize something about which you have no knowledge. You do not know what the article says. It says none of the things you have made up. Now, I don't care if you do that, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to go on about morality in such a dishonest manner. But you have to live with yourself.

What is critical for the survival of the species is the individual must be primarily a morally independent person and interact collectively as team-humanity.

The purpose of your life is your life. If you are dead, the fate of "humanity," cannot possibly matter to you. If you had read the article you would know, the only human beings who can,
"cooperate," to the benefit of human beings are independent individuals. Why would you be opposed to that?

Example, there is no team and 'symphony' if all individuals are acting independently on their own without alignment to the overall objectives of the human species.

• Note in say a symphony, how can a symphony team produce good music if only a few of the musicians only played well while others are lackadaisical in their attitude and not playing in tune. A person with a good musical ears will be able to detect what is good or bad symphony music and where the misalignment coming from.

Have you ever played in an orchestra? I have--woodwinds. No one plays in an orchestra with the success of the orchestra as their motive. They play in an orchestra because they love to play music and love the interaction of the instruments and they love improving what they do and learning how to be part of producing the music that results. It is each performer's own individual personal objective that is the reason they cooperate with others who have the same individual personal objectives. If the didn't have those personal objectives, they would not be good musicians.

There are no such things as, "objectives of the human species." Only individual human beings have goals, purposes, and objectives.

You have not done sufficient research on this.
I have asked [elsewhere],
show me one species of living things where there is indication they emerged with the aim to ensure the species is extinct immediately.
There is none at all.[/quote]
You apparently believe in evolution as the pseudo-scientists teach it. If you do, you know no species emerged with any aim whatsoever. Evolution is not teleological. If you do believe in evolution, you know, for every successful species, there were countless failed ones that almost immediately became extinct. Perhaps you should do a little more research in this area.

An alpha male is likely to pursue his very "selfish" goals with the most power and dominance over other individuals, so he is able to survive as long as possible and to fuck as many females as possible to produce as many of his own children to spread his genes as far as possible.
The alpha male selfish goals are but the subset of the species goals of preservation of the species, as the more stronger individuals are likely to survive longer to reproduce healthier and stronger offsprings.

An independent individual never considers, much less uses, "power or dominance," over any other individual. Only those who think in collective terms, such as yourself, could even consider that such behavior could possibly be in one's own best interest. In your terms, such thinking is immoral and not possible to an independent individual.

Your life is your life, VA, and it's yours to live as you choose. You can either live your life to enjoy and make the most of it you possibly can, or you can throw it away in service to something else, like God, or society, or mankind, or humanity. If you pursue your own life as your ultimate end you will only do what is truly in your best interest, which excludes all irrationality and only includes being the most productive valuable being you can be, and both you and all whom you associate with will benefit. If you pursue anything else, it will lead to your own destruction and will harm all those you associate with. It's up to you.

[henry quirk]

Quirk's Principles:

1: The Individual owns himself.

2: The Individual has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property.

3: The Individual's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, if he willingly, knowingly, and without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of his life, liberty, or property.

-----

Quirk's Golden Rule:

Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

-----

Some of what, as example, can be derived from Quirk's Principles:

Self, freedom, and property are sacred.

Self-defense, defense of other, and common defense are justifications for violence.

A contract is a contract.

[RCSaunders]

Quirk's Principles:

1: The Individual owns himself.

2: The Individual has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property.

3: The Individual's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, if he willingly, knowingly, and without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of his life, liberty, or property.

Quirk's Golden Rule:

Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

-----

Some of what, as example, can be derived from Quirk's Principles:

Self, freedom, and property are sacred.

Self-defense, defense of other, and common defense are justifications for violence.

A contract is a contract.

If those are your principles and you live by them, we'd never have a problem working or socializing with each other. They're good, "libertarian," views, but libertarianism is still a political view. I'm only interested in what is good for the individual.

I'm not arguing with you, Henry, but I'll briefly explain where I disagree.

It would never occur to an independent individual to think of a human being a some kind of property. The independent individual regards all individual's as having their own life to live as they choose and would never interfere in anyone else's life.

I do not believe in rights. One problem with the idea of rights, such as you listed, is that it assumes some kind of guarantee, which means someone or some other agency must provide it. There is no right to life, because one must support his own life and if he doesn't he will die. No one else is obligated to keep him alive. There is no right to property, because one must produce (make, earn, or buy) everything he needs and posses. If he does not produce, no one else is obligated to provide him with anything. I know you mean it is wrong for anyone else to take another's life, interfere in another's life, or steal his wealth, but a, "right," implies they are to be guaranteed in some way and they cannot be.

Since an individualist believes he is responsible for all aspects of his life and does not believe in vengeance, and does not believe there is any value to himself from anyone else's suffering, he has no use for, "government retributive justice." It is up to the individual to protect himself, either personally or by purchasing that protection. There is never a, "just cause," for depriving another, in part or whole, of his life, liberty, or property. [See "Defense."]

The independent individual is free. He doesn't need a government to provide his liberty.

Defense: The independent individual will use any means to protect himself and his own against threats by others, using the least expensive and most effective means possible, including force to any degree when more practical forms of defense are not possible. The independent individual is not obligated to provide anyone else with such protection.

An independent individual always honors his own personally agreed to obligations. The problem with contracts is that no piece of paper every made anyone do anything they choose not to do, and people are easily misled by such contracts.

If everyone were an independent individual all of, "Quirk's Principles," would be realized without having to impose any kind of rules.

Quirk's Golden Rule: Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

If you keep your own rule, you are an independent individual.

[henry quirk]

libertarianism is still a political view.

Sure. Politics (and morality) have no meaning to the guy livin' on an island, or a hermit in the mountains, or a cyborg minin' pitchblende out of a rock in the Oort Cloud. Politics (and morality) provide the framework for individuals of disparate perspective to live aside one another without killin' one another.

My principles (essentially Rothbardian) are such a framework.

#

I'm only interested in what is good for the individual.

Me too.

#

It would never occur to an independent individual to think of a human being a some kind of property.

Of course not. But owness is integral to the person, it must be laid out unambiguously for all parties. The cyborg, 100 million mile away from any soul has no need to consider his owness. It's obvious and not worth mentioning. Five years later, as he docks with the Mars Highport, his ship's holds full of raw uranium, only then is he thinkin' about his dealings with other folks. Some folks deal properly with him, others see him as other or less than. In those cases his autonomy is threatened. Codified principles, offer a framework for interactions with the hostile.

#

The independent individual regards all individual's as having their own life to live as they choose and would never interfere in anyone else's life.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the world overflows with people who don't see it that way.

#

I do not believe in rights.

Like politics (and morality), rights only have meaning in context of people. The cyborg, all alone in his ship, has no need for rights. As a peculiar entity, he may have to assert them against folks who'd treat him as machinary.

#

One problem with the idea of rights, such as you listed, is that it assumes some kind of guarantee, which means someone or some other agency must provide it.

When the cyborg is off-loadin' ore, and hoodlums get the bright idea to lay graffiti on him, and he disables the attackers (sheddin' more than a little of their blood), he has to justify his action to the Highport Magistrate. The framework, the codification, is the accepted standard. It allows the Magistrate to judge the cyborg's actions: was Cyborg justified? Was his person in jeopardy? Did he merely self-defend?

So, no, it's not about guarantees or provision for the individual. Rather, it's about guarantees and provision for other folks.

#

There is no right to life, because one must support his own life and if he doesn't he will die. No one else is obligated to keep him alive. There is no right to property, because one must produce (make, earn, or buy) everything he needs and posses. If he does not produce, no one else is obligated to provide him with anything. I know you mean it is wrong for anyone else to take another's life, interfere in another's life, or steal his wealth, but a, "right," implies they are to be guaranteed in some way and they cannot be.

But they must be. Not for me. Not for you. But for the least of us. The very young, the very old, the infirm: individuals who may not be able to self-defend.

#

Since an individualist believes he is responsible for all aspects of his life and does not believe in vengeance, and does not believe there is any value to himself from anyone else's suffering, he has no use for, "government retributive justice." It is up to the individual to protect himself, either personally or by purchasing that protection.

Exactly. The very young, the very old, the infirm purchase protection in the form of law enforcement (if they get their money's worth is another discussion) and they purchase the means for possible compensation in the form of courts (again, if they get their money's worth is another discussion).

#

The independent individual is free. He doesn't need a government to provide his liberty.

And yet that fact has not stopped countless slavers, past and present, from laying leashes on countless individuals.

#

Defense: The independent individual will use any means to protect himself and his own against threats by others, using the least expensive and most effective means possible, including force to any degree when more practical forms of defense are not possible. The independent individual is not obligated to provide anyone else with such protection.

Yep, I own a shotgun and a godawful number of shells.

#

An independent individual always honors his own personally agreed to obligations. The problem with contracts is that no piece of paper every made anyone do anything they choose not to do, and people are easily misled by such contracts.

In a perfect world: a man's word is all that would be needed. In this imperfect world, some folks lie. The contract is the codification of agreement. When violated, that codification allows the aggrieved the option of potentially peaceful third party arbitration. Without that codification, the aggrieved's only option may be doin' injury to the contract violator.

#

If everyone were an independent individual all of, "Quirk's Principles," would be realized without having to impose any kind of rules.

Agreed. But they're not, and they're never gonna be.

[Nick_A]

RC wrote

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.

A very good example of n independent person with unlimited wealth living the independent life assuring his personal freedom

Einstein wrote "A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self." Einstein

Is the conceptions of our self supreme or something which must be outgrown? RC writes of striving for individuality conditioned from within Plato's Cave and Einstein writes of universal individuality acquired by the mind consciously expanding into a universal perspective

"Forgive them for they know not what they do" then makes lot of sense.

[RCSaunders]

libertarianism is still a political view.

Sure. Politics (and morality) have no meaning to the guy livin' on an island, or a hermit in the mountains, or a cyborg minin' pitchblende out of a rock in the Oort Cloud. Politics (and morality) provide the framework for individuals of disparate perspective to live aside one another without killin' one another.

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.

My principles (essentially Rothbardian) are such a framework.

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.

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

The independent individual regards all individual's as having their own life to live as they choose and would never interfere in anyone else's life.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the world overflows with people who don't see it that way.

Of course not, but 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.

[rights] ...it's about guarantees and provision for other folks. ... for the least of us. The very young, the very old, the infirm: individuals who may not be able to self-defend.

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.

The very young, the very old, the infirm purchase protection in the form of law enforcement (if they get their money's worth is another discussion) and they purchase the means for possible compensation in the form of courts (again, if they get their money's worth is another discussion).

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."

If everyone were an independent individual all of, "Quirk's Principles," would be realized without having to impose any kind of rules.

Agreed. But they're not, and they're never gonna be.

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.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note your title "Independence—Better Than Morality" as I had argued in my post is a falsehood from the start. Thus there is no need for me to read the article ...

I didn't write the article for you to read. I wrote it for those who are interested in discovering how they must live in this world if they are to have a life of real meaning and purpose and to live a life that is worth living.

It is dishonest to criticize something about which you have no knowledge. You do not know what the article says. It says none of the things you have made up. Now, I don't care if you do that, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to go on about morality in such a dishonest manner. But you have to live with yourself.

Once you posted in this or any forum, it is open to all members unless restricted by the modulators according to forum rules.

What is critical for the survival of the species is the individual must be primarily a morally independent person and interact collectively as team-humanity.

The purpose of your life is your life. If you are dead, the fate of "humanity," cannot possibly matter to you. If you had read the article you would know, the only human beings who can,
"cooperate," to the benefit of human beings are independent individuals. Why would you be opposed to that?

I did not oppose the concept of independent individuals. Where did I do that?
I stated the independence [autonomy] of the individuals is very critical within morality but cannot be more critical than Morality for the whole of the human species.

Example, there is no team and 'symphony' if all individuals are acting independently on their own without alignment to the overall objectives of the human species.

• Note in say a symphony, how can a symphony team produce good music if only a few of the musicians only played well while others are lackadaisical in their attitude and not playing in tune. A person with a good musical ears will be able to detect what is good or bad symphony music and where the misalignment coming from.

Have you ever played in an orchestra? I have--woodwinds. No one plays in an orchestra with the success of the orchestra as their motive. They play in an orchestra because they love to play music and love the interaction of the instruments and they love improving what they do and learning how to be part of producing the music that results. It is each performer's own individual personal objective that is the reason they cooperate with others who have the same individual personal objectives. If the didn't have those personal objectives, they would not be good musicians.

Not in a symphony, I have played music in a group and duo.

How can you be so ignorant of the individual's role within a symphony?

Note this;

Teamwork and discipline are a big part of being an orchestral musician.
https://mybigtomorrow.com.au/careers/de ... l-musician

WHAT THE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA TAUGHT ME ABOUT TEAM WORK
https://social.hays.com/2017/11/27/orch ... team-work/

I agree there is the personal objectives, but if this is the dominant factor, then the person should seek achievement as a solo performer.

In the case of 'morality' it is the morality related to the species that drives the individual's personal objectives not the other way round.

There are no such things as, "objectives of the human species." Only individual human beings have goals, purposes, and objectives.

You have not done sufficient research on this.
I have asked [elsewhere],
show me one species of living things where there is indication they emerged with the aim to ensure the species is extinct immediately.
There is none at all.

You apparently believe in evolution as the pseudo-scientists teach it. If you do, you know no species emerged with any aim whatsoever. Evolution is not teleological. If you do believe in evolution, you know, for every successful species, there were countless failed ones that almost immediately became extinct. Perhaps you should do a little more research in this area.[/quote]
Yes, there are no divine driven teleology.
Strawman again, I did not refer to evolution as a whole.
I referred to the individual species, i.e. the human species or any other single species.

Now,
show me one species of living things where there is indication they emerged with the aim to ensure the species is extinct immediately.
Explain why is not applicable to the human species as a specific species?

An alpha male is likely to pursue his very "selfish" goals with the most power and dominance over other individuals, so he is able to survive as long as possible and to fuck as many females as possible to produce as many of his own children to spread his genes as far as possible.
The alpha male selfish goals are but the subset of the species goals of preservation of the species, as the more stronger individuals are likely to survive longer to reproduce healthier and stronger offsprings.

An independent individual never considers, much less uses, "power or dominance," over any other individual. Only those who think in collective terms, such as yourself, could even consider that such behavior could possibly be in one's own best interest. In your terms, such thinking is immoral and not possible to an independent individual.

An alpha male definitely strive to be independent.
The moral person is a team player, i.e. interdependent.
In 'Management' one of the good quality is a leader is the 'Servant Leader' i.e. to serve followers as a servant.

Your life is your life, VA, and it's yours to live as you choose. You can either live your life to enjoy and make the most of it you possibly can, or you can throw it away in service to something else, like God, or society, or mankind, or humanity. If you pursue your own life as your ultimate end you will only do what is truly in your best interest, which excludes all irrationality and only includes being the most productive valuable being you can be, and both you and all whom you associate with will benefit. If you pursue anything else, it will lead to your own destruction and will harm all those you associate with. It's up to you.

No man is an island.

I agree the individual must be selfish in one way, but ultimately has to team-up and share with the rest of humanity to cultivate synergy for the good and progress of the human species as "programmed" via evolutionary forces.

[RCSaunders]

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.

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.

[henry quirk]

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?