Individualism

Questions about Objectivism
1

By ths question I mean, should it be branded in people’s minds in connection with the name of a philosophy or rather, in the name of a new political party?

Think about it. Every other system of government has been group-oriented.

This is the first one to be indivdiual-oriented. The goal of Capitalists, Objectivists, Libertarianists and free-spirited as the Left (i.e., those who left what was demanded be considered right when it was wrong) are of course originally what was life on earth up to now.

Now, the Individualists are standing up to be counted, and finding themselves numbering in the thousands here and there, yet poised to put the question to the world, as we are, and I say take a moment to consider the evidence.

We have Objectivism - the philosophy that combined the best in each area of human existence comprising ethical, epistemological, methodological, political and aesthetic. The result has to be a new system of political governance in which the needs of the Individual are what is protected by Law.

The political party that will get this done needs a new name.

Individualism.

2

The Individualist Political Party will cause new countries to come into existence.

The U.S. and Canada, to the extent their governments need to raise cash, ought to consider selling chunks of land hitherto considered undevelopable, and let a country start up from scratch, in which those who advocate the LFC system can be free to try it properly.

I’ll write to Mark Burnett and give him first right of refusal, since it’s a survival show of another kind.

3

Why not the Capitalist Party? :wink:

Capitalism being a divined social system capable of being enforced and individualism being something witch is practiced by individuals.

4

Why not the Capitalist Party? :slight_smile:

Capitalism being a divined social system capable of being enforced and individualism being something witch is practiced by individuals.

I enjoy the “Individualist” info Ive come upon but I cant help but ask “Whats the difference between Individualism and Egoism?” I think for most philosophically unfamiliar, Individualism seems less offensive or more specific.

5

Yes, that is part of it, Plasmatic. There is a great deal less baggage attached to the word “individualism.”

It’s unfortunate but nevertheless true that “Capitalism” or “Capitalist Party” would tend to evoke a knee-jerk negative response in people. While WE know that what we mean is “laissez-faire capitalism,” a lot of people automatically think of the U.S. and let’s face it, their track record is NOT good, overall. They have tainted the word & the concept in too many people’s minds. They blew it. Their version has a bad reputation and we aren’t going to change people’s minds.

By focusing on the idea that this NEW political party is about securing Individual Rights, I think we have a better chance of attracting more supporters.

All the other parties are “group-oriented,” and they have all failed to achieve prosperity & peace. Individualism would be about banning coercion between and among human beings, and securing a peaceful environment in which everyone who abides by rational law can pursue their individual goals.

This may be Capitalism ver 2.0, but calling it capitalism unfortunately won’t help to achieve it.

6

Yes, that is part of it, Plasmatic. There is a great deal less baggage attached to the word “individualism.”

It’s unfortunate but nevertheless true that “Capitalism” or “Capitalist Party” would tend to evoke a knee-jerk negative response in people. While WE know that what we mean is “laissez-faire capitalism,” a lot of people automatically think of the U.S. and let’s face it, their track record is NOT good, overall. They have tainted the word & the concept in too many people’s minds. They blew it. Their version has a bad reputation and we aren’t going to change people’s minds.

By focusing on the idea that this NEW political party is about securing Individual Rights, I think we have a better chance of attracting more supporters.

All the other parties are “group-oriented,” and they have all failed to achieve prosperity & peace. Individualism would be about banning coercion between and among human beings, and securing a peaceful environment in which everyone who abides by rational law can pursue their individual goals.

This may be Capitalism ver 2.0, but calling it capitalism unfortunately won’t help to achieve it.

You have a point there, and I see now that it does have an undertone of implying that the other parties are not individualistic.

The point that has to be made is of what individual rights are and that they are the only rights that exist.

7

You have a point there, and I see now that it does have an undertone of implying that the other parties are not individualistic.

The point that has to be made is of what individual rights are and that they are the only rights that exist.

But then we need to establish an entire philosophy to do that. So we are back to Objectivism as its descriptive. No single philosophical question can be established independently without reference to the entire system it depends on hierarchically.

8

But then we need to establish an entire philosophy to do that. So we are back to Objectivism as its descriptive. No single philosophical question can be established independently without reference to the entire system it depends on hierarchically.

That would become implicit in that party and what I meant with ''what individual rights are’'.

That individual rights are specific and also come from something specific.

9

But then we need to establish an entire philosophy to do that. So we are back to Objectivism as its descriptive. No single philosophical question can be established independently without reference to the entire system it depends on hierarchically.

No we don’t need to establish the entire philosophy. I do not care if other people become Objectivists. It is not necessary. All that is necessary is that enough people agree to abide by the law banning coercion and the initiation of force. That is ALL that need be achieved here. People who agree to go set up communes may do so as long as they do not use coercion. People who want to carry on believing in God and going to church are free to do so. The point is not to change any belief or establish any political idea except this one - that NO ONE CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE.

If we narrow the focus of the campaign to the most basic requirement that our system needs to flourish, we have a much better chance of succeeding.

10

No we don’t need to establish the entire philosophy. I do not care if other people become Objectivists. It is not necessary. All that is necessary is that enough people agree to abide by the law banning coercion and the initiation of force. That is ALL that need be achieved here. People who agree to go set up communes may do so as long as they do not use coercion. People who want to carry on believing in God and going to church are free to do so. The point is not to change any belief or establish any political idea except this one - that NO ONE CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE.

If we narrow the focus of the campaign to the most basic requirement that our system needs to flourish, we have a much better chance of succeeding.

You are making the same error as the Libertarians. It took me decades to get past it.

Such a platform would be meaningless without an adequate definition of “force” which in turn would come from an adequate definition of “rights” which in turn would come from an underpinning philosophy. Without such you will have people demanding redress because they were “forced” to live in a place not of their choosing by a natural disaster, or “forced” to buy a Microsoft product, or “forced” to work in order to earn enough to live.

11

NO ONE CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE.

Indeed comrade those forceful capitalist and their forceful monopolies on production just because factories and new ideas don’t pop out of nowhere in this malevolent universe will feel the righteous retribution of the collective!

Wait, no!

Because initiation of force means something specific!

And without a philosophical background to determine what an ‘‘initiation’’ is you’ll be stuck with a bad case of anarchists in your party.

And a political party with prominent members who think that a government shouldn’t exist by default loses all credibility.

At the very least such a party as you propose should identify what it specifically means by an ‘‘initiation of force’’.

12

If we narrow the focus of the campaign to the most basic requirement that our system needs to flourish, we have a much better chance of succeeding.

Well then the most basic requirements to establish it is The axioms Existence, Identity, and Consiousness. Like I said…

13

You are making the same error as the Libertarians. It took me decades to get past it.

Such a platform would be meaningless without an adequate definition of “force” which in turn would come from an adequate definition of “rights” which in turn would come from an underpinning philosophy. Without such you will have people demanding redress because they were “forced” to live in a place not of their choosing by a natural disaster, or “forced” to buy a Microsoft product, or “forced” to work in order to earn enough to live.

I agree - a full definition of “initiation of force” is required. How much information is too much information, tho?

We have people demanding redress now for those things. What is wrong with grabbing their attention and answering their questions as they think of them?

I know my idea here is leaving a lot of information unproffered. The point is to get into people’s minds with something attention-grabbing. To make them perk up and ask questions.

14

For example:

The Microsoft situation. The word “force” is often misused like this. Because there is only one supplier, or only one reputable supplier of a given item, it is said that users are “forced” to deal with that supplier. It would only be true if the government was deducting a set amount from users’ paycheques regardless of whether the user even owned a computer. See for example school taxes which are forced on everyone regardless of whether they have school-age children, or even have children at all. In the Microsoft situation, one has a number of options, such as developing one’s own software/hardware, waiting for someone else to develop it, finding a completely different way to get the job done. One is NOT compelled by law to pay Microsoft for the item in question, regardless of whether one even has a computer. THAT would be an example of being forced to deal with Microsoft.

Natural disaster. Nature is not another human being. Prohibiting the initiation of force is a law to govern the interactions of human beings, not acts of nature. If your choice of habitat is destroyed by a hurricane, a flood, tornado, etc., you have to either accept it and find somewhere else to live, figure out how to make your home withstand those conditions, or just rebuild the same home and suffer the same consequence.

“Forced” to work. Yes, everyone has to work. It is the nature of life that individuals have to perform work in order to live. Every infant must learn how to use his senses, how to recognize sounds and scribbles as language, how to use his mind and his body. And so it continues. Individuals of all ages have to perform “work” of one kind or another, no matter what resources they have at their disposal (e.g., being born into a “rich” family does not make it any easier for an infant to learn how to focus his eyes!)

15

Thanks also to FQ and Plasmatic for your responses. I will go back to the drawing board and come up with something that addresses your issues while at the same time keeping it as simple as possible.

16

Being in the GTA, you don’t really need to look far to find a party based on rational individuals and freedom. There’s Freedom Party Ontario, the head of which is Paul McKeever, a member of this forum. There are a bunch of videos on YouTube released by both FPO and McKeever that you might want to check out.

No we don’t need to establish the entire philosophy. I do not care if other people become Objectivists. It is not necessary. All that is necessary is that enough people agree to abide by the law banning coercion and the initiation of force. That is ALL that need be achieved here. People who agree to go set up communes may do so as long as they do not use coercion. People who want to carry on believing in God and going to church are free to do so. The point is not to change any belief or establish any political idea except this one - that NO ONE CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE.

If we narrow the focus of the campaign to the most basic requirement that our system needs to flourish, we have a much better chance of succeeding.

As Steve pointed out, I think this is too much along the lines of the Libertarians, and in a broader scope, Freedom Force International. Both of these groups advocate individualism and freedom, but without a solid ethical/philosophical base. But I would suggest looking at all of them and deciding from there, and especially the FPO because it’s right here in T-dot.

I just saw your profile and read that you’re already working on an Individualists’ Party. I think more political parties are good, but in this case splitting votes between so many Individual-oriented parties splits the power between them and just helps out the 3 or 4 main parties.

17

It seems to me that this question was “biased” toward one brancyh of philsophy: Politics

individutalism is a metaphysical concept because it pertains to how things existi in general. You must have one person before you have a society. You must have one wolf before you have a wolfpack. You must have one flower before you have a garden. You must have one grain of sand before you have a beach. A journey of 1000 miles begins with one step. A journey of 1000 light years presupposes that the journey of 1000 miles took place which presupposes that one step.

In all cases the individual unit per-exists and defines the group. whether we’re talking about human, animal, plant or inanimate. Even water exists in molecules befor all else, the same is true of air. When you count, you count by one’s before you count by two’s, three’s, ten’s…

To be so over-arching and integral a part of the existence of all things. this must be built into the way the world works. That is the province of Metaphysics.

This is why there can be no ethical or political “defense” of individualism: it preceeds them. Morality regulates the behavior of…individuals. Politics organizes…individuals. Ergo they require the pre-existence of individuals. what if there were no individuals to behave; then where is morality? what if there were no individuals to organize into communities, regions and nations; then where is politics? LIke, Nowheresville, man.

18

No we don’t need to establish the entire philosophy. I do not care if other people become Objectivists. It is not necessary. All that is necessary is that enough people agree to abide by the law banning coercion and the initiation of force.

The latter will never happen without the former. Any foundation less solid than Objectivism is doomed to certain failure. Anyone who attempts to follow the conclusions of Objectivism without understanding the philosophy itself is acting on faith.

19

It seems to me that this question was “biased” toward one brancyh of philsophy: Politics

individutalism is a metaphysical concept because it pertains to how things existi in general. You must have one person before you have a society. You must have one wolf before you have a wolfpack. You must have one flower before you have a garden. You must have one grain of sand before you have a beach. A journey of 1000 miles begins with one step. A journey of 1000 light years presupposes that the journey of 1000 miles took place which presupposes that one step.

In all cases the individual unit per-exists and defines the group. whether we’re talking about human, animal, plant or inanimate. Even water exists in molecules befor all else, the same is true of air. When you count, you count by one’s before you count by two’s, three’s, ten’s…

To be so over-arching and integral a part of the existence of all things. this must be built into the way the world works. That is the province of Metaphysics.

This is why there can be no ethical or political “defense” of individualism: it preceeds them. Morality regulates the behavior of…individuals. Politics organizes…individuals. Ergo they require the pre-existence of individuals. what if there were no individuals to behave; then where is morality? what if there were no individuals to organize into communities, regions and nations; then where is politics? LIke, Nowheresville, man.

If this were true, then why is every current form of government either totally collective, or geared toward the collective or as with the case of the USA, gradually deteriorating back to statist/collectivist rule over individuals where lip service is paid to individual rights but the actual government structure does not actually and never has actually and totally respected those rights?

My thinking is that a new kind of government which truly acknowledges, respects and protects individual rights ought to incorporate that purpose into its name, so as to never forget it. Hence my suggestion of the term Individualism. I’m open to discussion on which form of the word Individual (individualistic, individualized, individual, just for examples) might be best.

Part of this is a marketing concept. People now have the label “constitutional republic” in their minds as yet another system that doesn’t work. Even the best example, the US government, is almost universally panned. The original achievement is fading if people can even identify what it was.

I do realize that the true culprit is not “government” but rather the subjective laws that government is asked to enforce.

Maybe Individualist Government doesn’t really work as a name for it. I was thinking that since nobody is permitted to initiate force, not even the government itself, individuals are free to determine the level of government protection they need/want. Their individual rights are respected and protected under such a government. That was my thinking.

20

The latter will never happen without the former. Any foundation less solid than Objectivism is doomed to certain failure. Anyone who attempts to follow the conclusions of Objectivism without understanding the philosophy itself is acting on faith.

How much philisophical comprehension is truly needed here?

People are currently infected with all kinds of wrong ideas. They consider sacrifice to be a value and selfishness to be evil. They believe that people (themselves and others) should be forced to do whatever they deem “the right thing,” regardless of whether such “right things” are objectively proper to a rational being.

How do you suppose we will survive as an industrialized civilization while those people come to grips with their philosophical shortcomings? I am fearful that the thugs and criminals, both individual & masquerading as protectors of rights (i.e., government) are going to completely destroy civilization as we know it before everyone has a complete understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism. Is there not a summary that would get across the key points? People with an interest in the full explanation are welcome to delve in, but how about the vast majority who basically need to understand why they can’t have the right to use government to force everyone to pay for their kids’ education and their own health care?