Questions Individualists Have For Liberalists



Filthy Heretic:

Listen To Reason:

Atomic Ancap:



Sir Conservatarian:

Zeromind – Reaching Further
From Zero – Believe

There are 31 comments

Add yours
  1. Tail of Spence

    Sargon has admitted that he really is a social liberal and supports high tax quasi-socialist policies. As Son of Tiamat says, Sargon and his skeptic buddies are temporarily embarrassed leftists.

  2. Pragmatic Culture

    O boi. I mean these are some good questions but some are fairly slanted towards the whole "Ancaps are muh only true individualists" which is highly debatable.

  3. Hoploo

    I am truly glad to have been a part of this! Even though my parts were a bit out of sync. I do hope to do more with you in the future!

  4. Sir Vindicator

    I have a question for Liberalists. Why do you believe that rights are subjective, in moral relativism and nihilism? How would you dismiss natural law? For moral relativism, for example, stealing is considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others. Taxation is theft but is done for the "good of others and to fund different national programs." Also for nihilism, which is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless, how do you know this? Also, if this is true, isn't your own stance on life being meaningless and everything being subjective, meaningless and subjective as well, meaning that by your own reasoning and logic, your own reasoning and logic is invalid and that you cannot know any of this in the first place?

  5. Sir Vindicator

    No, they are collectivist individualists. They are just like nihilism philosophers, state atheists, and libertarian socialists. HAHA!

  6. 177SCmaro

    It is one hell of a contradiction, the idea that the people in government outlaw and considers to be immoral many of the things they, themselves do. For example, it's illegal as hell for me to print money or collect taxes, which implies the people in government consider these things to be immoral, yet the people in government do them anyways.
    In other words, the concept of "government" fails the test of consistency/universality. In order to maintain the idea of "government" you really do have to believe that "some animals are more equal then others" – that some people have more rights then others and/or the same evils they condemn and punish others for are not evil when they, themselves, commit them.

  7. Barskor1

    Slavery a master owns you and your labor Taxation a government owns you and your labor so much for the emancipation proclamation.

  8. Aksu Kovala

    PS: ignore my weird style choices among you read.

    qHow can you support openly collectivist policies?

    aYou don't

    aYou do on the behalf of positive rights. There are so many people on the world that it is possible to, by removing someone's negative rights, to create 2 positive rights.

    qHow can you say you're an individualist?

    aOne probably doesn't, one probably says they want to maximize personal freedom and this will be elaborated in later questions.

    qWhy does a legally protected group protect you?

    aIt does and it doesn't. The legally protected group needs support of the protected, therefore it does it's best to satisfy the protected, and protects the protected as well as it can, from everything but itself.


    This is why policing the state is supposed to be preferable to the state policing its citizens.

    qWhy can't you hire others?

    aIf money is the only form of power, and you hire others to keep you safe, instead of protecting you you made them aware of more power that's easy prey and end up having no protection from them, for an example

    /* not saying this is how it always is or should be, but possible logical/consistent answers */

    qHow call yourself a skeptic?

    aHonestly, most are probably a-gnostic, lazy, and doubtful. This agnostic doubt makes you a skeptic, but this lazy makes you a skeptic without solid counter arguments. (and the lazy the lack of research, which I haven't done but at this time of the night I figured best I can contribute is engage in discussion)

    qHow do you associate yourself with individualists but don't do the theory?

    aWithin this postmodern world everything has tons of theory and tens, hundreds or even thousands of definitions. It's not 'wrong' to neglect the theory, to put it, but it is certaly one of the reasons why there is so much conflict, distrust, distaste etc.


    This is, however, a wider and larger problem in and on itself.

    qUtilitarianism vs individualism, how to get this wrong?

    */ I would like to (correct)/add (the)/to a in the first q, if trying to maximize rights of the individuals (on behalf of others) was unacceptable by the definition, which in some ways it may be, I'll try harder.

    moreToa1You can have a whole debate about what are rights, like can people a right not to worry about safety…–> which will take you to, if most of the individuals demand the right to feel safe maximizing personal freedom/rights is to take away the right cause feeling of danger/hazard.

    aToMy_q_NowUtilitarianism is vastly huge moral philosophy with a bunch of branches. The main difference between uti. and individ. is that one is more of the equation side of morality and one more of the aspect of how to be the most moral. For example you could be a utilitarian advocating for maximized happiness via individualism, or the mentioned antithesis.

    So no I don't conflate the two, I now first heard about the other, so I'm also not quoting those people I know nothing of.

    qWhy I found individualism a desirable philosophy?

    aEverything has it's pros and cons, I evaluate these both cognitively and un-||-. What I know so far about individualism so far I can appreciate, I don't consider it my most desirable philosophy but how could I, I still know so little.

    aWhat comes to the common sense of the word much of avg. liberalism does fall into individualism. Don't these philosophies also have the same end goal depending on how you define but in my view individualism == liberalism == maximized personal freedom.

    qThe reptile guy aka FH

    aAs stated above, if it's not about the groups needs, but the need to maximize the rights and freedoms of the individuals.

    qEnforcing ?groups? rights over the individual's rights:

    aAgain, the game over what rights do which individuals have, also I'd like to know whether an individual has the right to compromise the rights of another individual?

    aThere's no need to be for taxes, or even if you are you can at least be calling it theft for "a positive cause"

    aAlso you don't have to be for a government and you can rather become an anarchist.

    qSo there are either objective rights or no rights, pick your poison.

    /* I don't quite make sense of this part but I'll try my best */

    aEvidence says there are no objective rights, which means all moral contracts should be done between individuals or groups that agree to the terms completely on both sides, without any forces impacting from the outside. However if there is no attempt to communicate there should be morality over either of us, so nothing should prevent me from building a state with the others and end overruling the hostile outgroup. [eh, I feel like 02:35 am is starting to take a hold of my mindset.. lol, well at least I tried, and probably weren't even the worst (*_*)]

    aWhile morality being objective, the proper response would be to create a state and figuring morality out, instead of disposing state.

    qWhy does it become right if the state does it?

    aNever does, but most liberals are probably just so pragmatic characters that they prefer their politics to be a collaboration of the most effective policies. This means they will have to be inconsistent, but for example by people ruling the government instead of the government ruling people they could minimize the damage.

    /* at this point I know the difference between liberalism and individualism wasn't what I thought it was nor was it nearly as vague as in common language, so parts of my response, are quite inaccurate, but I still think what I'm writing might be partly useful so I'll continue. */

    qHorseshoe theory

    /* sorry I really don't remember more than the initial feeling I had when I first heard about this one, and I thought this was kinda the epitome of academic theory in it's vagueness and lack of substance in reality? */

    qAs a religious person, why can you non-religious people have even worse god-delusions than religious people? [sorry my interpretation, no hard feelings :)]

    aWe shouldn't, that just comes down to the mental laziness of the person. Also one theory of why brain dead atheism is so popular could be that brain dead people follow trends, and as atheism has been trending lately, more brain dead people will be joining (in good and bad). Also correlation between vegan~atheist~liberal~socialist~communist~ whatever seem to be some kind of a thing, I'd like to know more about that in some near future research.

    qWhat is it that you think you own roads? (sorry, I can't hear straight anymore, welp, I'm a bit obsessive at times)

    aGuess some do, I have no clue why anyone assumes anything (outside of psychological, biological and common sense aspects), but I don't think I own any of the roads.

    Ok, I couldn't the last one up either, but I felt like it was another position I couldn't even care to try and defend.

    Damn this would be much easier with a mic, endless resources, and etc.

    However I enjoyed trying to write this in reaction to everything I ran into in this video.

    Good video, I'm looking forward to some responses from the RE-channels and maybe if any of you have time to waste chatting in the comment section.

    return 0

    PS: I hope you ignored my weird style choices while you kept reading.

  9. Elestan Larcalaite

    Oh man, so much wrong and obviously biased without taking in the big picture or the concept of progress. Firstly I'd like to point out that while indeed you can't be a pure libertarian and utilitarian at the same time, utilitarianism's point is that you don't respect any ideology too much and crap on them if it's good for you. Secondly, nearly everything about anarcho-capitalism boils down to not understanding that without some kind of widespread agreement between people, society and the economy collapses. The manifestation of this is the state. While not ideal, with its failures coming from historical policy which benefitted the state, you can improve on that. If you want you can make a direct democracy where everyone votes on everything and therefore everyone has all of their rights respected. And, you see, the state is simply pragmatic to keep. Anarcho-capitalism necessitates inequality and so can never be a pure liberalist ideology.
    And btw, that thing about national socialism and right vs. left… It's far right politically and far left economically. That's why you have two axes on those crappy internet tests. While yes these two axes can never describe nuance, they're more for a rough estimate of your views in these places.

  10. Demonic_myst

    I allways use the horsoe theory more in a equ to state that left anf right are not even relevent but merly that both exstreme left and right are the same their just authoritarian groups. The up and down a is is the only relevence now days

Post a new comment