Independence—Better Than Morality

[Skepdick]

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

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

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

You are lying about your "voluntary" participation in any such social structure. Volunteers would do the job for free. You wouldn't.

You are trading your time for other people's money. Like a prostitute. A volunteer prostitute is not a prostitute.

[RCSaunders]

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

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

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

Please quote where I said the view that independence has negative sides is wrong? It could be right, if you can provide a single example of a negative side.

In your haste to prove independence is some kind of evil you failed to pay attention to what I actually said. It's OK with me if you do that. One difference between an independent individual and a collectivist: a collectivist regards the independent as some kind of enemy, while the independent individual regards a collectivist as mistaken, but certainly not an enemy. No independent individual will ever be threat to anyone so long as no one attempts to force him to act against his own best interest because the independent do not care how others choose to live their lives and only wishes them well.

[RCSaunders]

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

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

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

You are lying about your "voluntary" participation in any such social structure. Volunteers would do the job for free. You wouldn't.

You are trading your time for other people's money. Like a prostitute. A volunteer prostitute is not a prostitute.

I have to admit, you explain your position very well.

[Skepdick]

Please quote where I said the view that independence has negative sides is wrong? It could be right, if you can provide a single example of a negative side.

Please pay attention. I didn't say that your view is wrong (or right).I said that your view is NOT EVEN wrong.

It's not my job to provide counter-examples to your view. It's your job to allow for the possibility of counter-examples and tell us what they are.
It's your job to make your theory/hypothesis/view falsifiable.

If you can't even do that, then none of us are under any obligation to exert any effort in finding your error. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

[RCSaunders]

It's your job to make your theory/hypothesis/view falsifiable.

Well, I've done my job. The purpose of proof is not to win arguments or to convince others, it is only to insure one's own reasoning is correct. That's what I've done.

You'll have to use your own reason to come to your own conclusions. I wish you well. I have no interest in convincing you.

[Skepdick]

Well, I've done my job. The purpose of proof is not to win arguments or to convince others, it is only to insure one's own reasoning is correct. That's what I've done.

You haven't offered any "proof" - proof is only possible in axiomatic systems such as Mathematics and Logic. Reality is not an axiomatic system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Another crucial difference between these two types of argument is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.

In an inductive system (such as reality) all you can offer is supporting and refuting evidence.

For that simple reason your reasoning is incorrect. You have mistaken reality for an axiomatic system and you've made no effort at refuting your own position

Q.E.D Your view is not even wrong.

[Skepdick]

I have to admit, you explain your position very well.

Naturally. I know the difference between volunteers and employees.

[RCSaunders]

I have to admit, you explain your position very well.

Naturally. I know the difference between volunteers and employees.

Involuntary employment is called slavery. "Volunteer," does not mean, "to work for free," it means to willingly choose to do something, like taking or refusing a job.

[Skepdick]

"Volunteer," does not mean, "to work for free.

It is exactly what it means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteering

Volunteering is generally considered an altruistic activity where an individual or group provides services for no financial or social gain "to benefit another person, group or organization"

I should know. Since I've been volunteering as a police officer for 16 years, given up over 10000 hours of my personal time and I haven't been paid a cent. I do the work because I want to do the work.

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

[henry quirk]

I couldn't work for a better employer, and I couldn't have a better employee.

What am I?

[RCSaunders]

I couldn't work for a better employer, and I couldn't have a better employee.

What am I?

An entrepreneur.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

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

The negatives arise when individuals think themselves as an independent island.

I googled 'the weakness of being independent' which showed the following results,
-About 235,000,000 results (0.47 seconds)

Note one of the millions;
The Downside of Being Independent
https://identity-mag.com/the-downside-o ... dependent/

It is never too late to learn new tricks in this case.

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

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

Yes, the phrase was originally from John Donne's Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII:.

However the phrase is generally and commonly used as an idiom to mean,
"the phrase no man is an island means that no one is truly self-sufficient"
Note this;
https://7esl.com/no-man-is-an-island/

The reference to John Donne is archaic and historical.

... 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."

That show you are inherently evil by nature.
That is the reason you do not view 'Morality' [good] highly but prefer 'evil'.

[Skepdick]

I couldn't work for a better employer, and I couldn't have a better employee.

What am I?

A self-employed ignoramus who doesn't recognise who the real employer is - your customers.

If you are putting in your time in exchange for remuneration - you are an employee to somebody. If not contractually, at least economically.

[RCSaunders]

That show you are inherently evil by nature.

One can hardly be condemned for their nature, can they?

[henry quirk]

I couldn't work for a better employer, and I couldn't have a better employee.

What am I?

A self-employed ignoramus who doesn't recognise who the real employer is - your customers.

If you are putting in your time in exchange for remuneration - you are an employee to somebody. If not contractually, at least economically.

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...