When I tell people that there is no such concept as individualism, I am usually met with some form of the straw man fallacy. No, I am not saying I have the right as an individual to walk up to you and punch you in the face; that should be obvious. Usually the person arguing, "I have rights as an individual!" is just spouting a bumper sticker slogan and has never taken the time to think through what exactly individual rights means, both in reference to himself or others.
Our "natural law", is fine until someone decides to use violence to take it away.
Abject poverty is man's default state. Lots and lots of violence usually accompanies abject poverty. Always be vigilant in your defense of your "rights", or some gang will come along and take them.
Find yourself in a car with the wrong person like that cashapp guy in san fran. In that moment, his buddy with the knife was the sovereign and knife guy didn't believe in cashapp guy's natural right to be alive.
I roll my eyes at discussions about rights. What can you defend? What is being granted to you by people you can't defend against? What if those people change their minds?
There are no nations designed by voluntary association. They may be easy to emigrate to, but once you are there everything becomes compulsory, from driving on the proper side of the road to adhering to societal customs, norms and practices. This is the way it should be, leaving aside the issue of immigration. This Libertarian notion of complete free association is pure fantasy. Even in the brief period that the United States was a confederacy, the states held power over its citizens. Today, I live in a very rural county in Missouri. The county seat has 3000 people, and that town has its own authority of the residents. Building permits, however lax they may be, are required for structures within city limits (which is why I live in the county, which has zero permits for building or doing anything to your property). Fences must be of a certain type and only cover areas allowed by the local ordinance. Chickens are allowed, but only if you have a certain amount of acreage, etc.
So, the only way to protect the individual is by a top down method which squashes any subversive elements which seek to take advantage of individual liberty. Democracy is their weapon, and democracy itself must be eliminated. I dare say that people in Iraq, circa 1990, had more freedom under Saddam Hussein than the average American did then. They paid little in taxes. There were very few regulations. You could set up a business in as little time as it took to assemble your tables and wares in the open air bazaar. Firearms were easily obtainable and openly brandished. There was just one rule: Don't fuck with or question the Ba'ath Party or get in their way or you will end up in a hole in the desert. The Ba'ath Party gets a lot of bad press because it is associated with authoritarianism. Bashar Al Assad, son of Hafez, has carried on things just like his father did and his people love him. He is irreligious in governmental affairs, but jealously guards his nation's Islamic culture, mores and religion while respecting the small minority that is not like the rest. I have admired that sort of governmental concept for a long time. A government comprised of powerful men who oversee and fiercely protect their people and their way of life is what will allow human flourishing in the West again.
Maybe its just me but I keep subscribing to people even after an ideological parting or semi parting of the ways if I think they are still doing important work and we have the same enemies.
Only one paid subscriber unsubscribed so far today.
Honestly, when someone does that, I hope it's for ideological and not financial reasons. I want people to prosper.
Our "natural law", is fine until someone decides to use violence to take it away.
Abject poverty is man's default state. Lots and lots of violence usually accompanies abject poverty. Always be vigilant in your defense of your "rights", or some gang will come along and take them.
I don't personally believe in rights.
Find yourself in a car with the wrong person like that cashapp guy in san fran. In that moment, his buddy with the knife was the sovereign and knife guy didn't believe in cashapp guy's natural right to be alive.
I roll my eyes at discussions about rights. What can you defend? What is being granted to you by people you can't defend against? What if those people change their minds?
There are no nations designed by voluntary association. They may be easy to emigrate to, but once you are there everything becomes compulsory, from driving on the proper side of the road to adhering to societal customs, norms and practices. This is the way it should be, leaving aside the issue of immigration. This Libertarian notion of complete free association is pure fantasy. Even in the brief period that the United States was a confederacy, the states held power over its citizens. Today, I live in a very rural county in Missouri. The county seat has 3000 people, and that town has its own authority of the residents. Building permits, however lax they may be, are required for structures within city limits (which is why I live in the county, which has zero permits for building or doing anything to your property). Fences must be of a certain type and only cover areas allowed by the local ordinance. Chickens are allowed, but only if you have a certain amount of acreage, etc.
So, the only way to protect the individual is by a top down method which squashes any subversive elements which seek to take advantage of individual liberty. Democracy is their weapon, and democracy itself must be eliminated. I dare say that people in Iraq, circa 1990, had more freedom under Saddam Hussein than the average American did then. They paid little in taxes. There were very few regulations. You could set up a business in as little time as it took to assemble your tables and wares in the open air bazaar. Firearms were easily obtainable and openly brandished. There was just one rule: Don't fuck with or question the Ba'ath Party or get in their way or you will end up in a hole in the desert. The Ba'ath Party gets a lot of bad press because it is associated with authoritarianism. Bashar Al Assad, son of Hafez, has carried on things just like his father did and his people love him. He is irreligious in governmental affairs, but jealously guards his nation's Islamic culture, mores and religion while respecting the small minority that is not like the rest. I have admired that sort of governmental concept for a long time. A government comprised of powerful men who oversee and fiercely protect their people and their way of life is what will allow human flourishing in the West again.
Perfect.
Maybe its just me but I keep subscribing to people even after an ideological parting or semi parting of the ways if I think they are still doing important work and we have the same enemies.