Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Foreheader wrote

I find that liberal individualism is mostly an excuse to avoid feeling empathy. According to liberals everyone is responsible for their own "success" in life and if they fail it's exclusively their own fault. This implies that giving a homeless guy some money is bad because it's his own fault, that drug addicts don't deserve help because the addiction is punishment for the sin of taking drugs.

Anarchist individualism is more about doing what you want without being restricted by fixed ideas. Stirner, whose writings have greatly influenced it, embraced empathy as ownership of other being's feelings. Early individualist anarchists built communes far from civilization and state violence where they lived off the land with free love, optional clothing, education that aimed to produce free individuals and so on.


qinpgq wrote (edited )

Going far away to be independent may work, but what about when they, the ones who separated themselves, want to throw uranium on the river they share with people down stream? Say everyone has a police of their own, and say everyone has the same amount of police per citizen; then what the majority wants is what's going to be done, because the majority will have more police. So basically, the majority's desires will still be enforced, voting or not.

And maybe even there won't be a fight, just a declaration of against or in favor. Bc with that, you'll already know if you'll lose or win.

So why not just go to voting and that's it?

Also, at least in voting everyone has the same weight in votes; while with the police thing, a group more inclined to militarism and less to culture, or a richer group, has more "votes", more police to put in a fight, in such a conflict.

And then, Leaving people alone, or not leaving them alone, is also a policy. Leaving alone other people is also something a group might or might not want to do.

And you can say "let them choose for themselves if they want to leave us alone, and if they want to excersise that right (the right to choose in that matter) to come fight, let them do it", well...

What I said above would happen, the majority's desires would be enforced, in reality modified by who's richer or more militarily developed in general for wtv other reason, and then maybe there wouldn't even be an actual fight, and then just vote and wtv.

That chain of logic would unroll, and you'll end up in, let's just vote to settle this dispute.

So going back: "Leaving people alone, or not leaving them alone, is also a policy. Leaving alone other people is also something a group might or might not want to do."

Well, then if the majority would want to leave you alone, that'd happen, or the opposite if they want the opposite.

So let's just vote it.