4 ms·

While this is getting away from the point of the story, I do have to ask; why does it always seem to be these types that are the most aggressive supporters of i

While this is getting away from the point of the story, I do have to ask; why does it always seem to be these types that are the most aggressive supporters of individualism? If you want to go out to the middle of nowhere, wipe your ass with grass an live without any person or government's help/interference, that is totally your prerogative. But the irony of someone surviving off welfare checks, killing a man because of police inaction, and then suing the county for inadequate mental health support is palpable. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Mooching off of welfare programs and posting tough-guy memes while calling everyone else pansies and having a hard-on for rugged 1800-style living? Cry me a river.

sandworm101 7y ago
It's also a lot easier to be a rough-living alaska wild man when you know that, should you need it, a helicopter will be sent to pick you up and treat your busting appendix. I don't see many of these people forgoing antibiotics either. Even the guns they so cherish, 18th century firearms weren't what we would call reliable. They didn't always fire properly when needed, especially when old/wet. So even these tough bush people, if they carry ammo manufactured in recent decades, remain reliant upon modern production tech.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  As a kid the family in Little House on the Prairie was presented as being wholly self sufficient and reliant. Which made me wonder, if so where did dads rifle come from? The leather, the iron for the horse shoes and nails, the cotton cloth for their clothes? Right. The wheat they sold went out on the train and the train delivered all those things. And when their crops failed and they busted out the city slickers charity saved them from staving.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
why does it always seem to be these types that are the most aggressive supporters of individualism? I think the impetus there is that he had a long history of negative social experiences. The article repeatedly indicates he couldn't rely on other people but other people considered him to be reliable in certain respects. He could be turned to for help, but he seemed to have no one he could turn to. Given that experience of life, I see no contradiction in his desire to go make it on his own in the middle of nowhere and his complaint that he's been given no help. I think they are two sides of the same coin.
- esotericn 7y ago
  This is a very well considered comment. I identify a lot with this. Modern society is a very abstract place in which people find it difficult to meaningfully trade favour. In cities at least, a whole bunch of stuff is out of the control of individuals and in the control of a bureaucracy. Wanting to escape that I don't see as being foreign at all. Makes me think of the movie Falling Down. There are certainly times that I enter some sort of internal monologue and just think - look, I'm here, open and kind; perhaps not always, but in this moment I am. And others are here acting as obstacles... because it's "their job", or whatever.
mwfunk 7y ago
I think it's because they think "individualism" means "I do whatever I want and take whatever I want with no consequences, and I'm a better person because I do those things." Which I don't consider individualistic at all, it's more that they just want to be thoughtless assholes about everything and not worry about social or economic consequences for it. It's similar to how capitalism can get recontextualized into something meaningless and shitty by Objectivists. When capitalism works, it can almost seem magical, because it's basically a greedy algorithm that can often produce a net good for most of the population, based on individuals looking out for their own interests. Hence notions like "greed is good" or "selfishness is a virtue". But the whole point of those notions is, they're built on an assumption that those things lead to a net good for everyone involved. To the degree that capitalism works, it's because it allows wealth to be created, which is a net good for everyone. The purpose of capitalism as the core of a civilization is wealth creation, where people exchange things they don't want in return for things they do want. All participants in the transaction are better off than before in their eyes, but nothing new has been created. Money and goods and services have simply changed hands. Everyone's better off than they were before, but no new goods have been created, and no new money has been printed. It's like creating something from nothing. If any argument can be made in favor of selfishness being a virtue, this is it- it's a virtue because in this context it supposedly leads to a better world for everyone, not just individuals. But I've known plenty of right wingers who claim to draw inspiration from libertarianism, or who claim to have a special understanding and reverence for capitalism because they're Objectivists. And yet, they never talk about wealth creation. To them, selfishness is a virtue simply because that's the world they want to live in. These are the temporarily frustrated millionaires living in compounds in Wyoming, mooching off the government while complaining about urban welfare recipients. They think Objectivism or libertarianism or their religion gives them cover to go around thinking that greed and selfishness are actually good things, without ever embracing or even understanding the foundations of those beliefs- that they're only good things in the context of maximally efficient and rational markets, and only because they supposedly lead to wealth creation (everyone getting richer in some sense, not just individuals getting rich at the expense of other individuals). But they're not in it for the wealth creation- to them, capitalism isn't good because it creates wealth, rather capitalism must be good because they think it means it's OK for them to be selfish assholes.
mieseratte 7y ago
> But the irony of someone surviving off welfare checks, killing a man because of police inaction, and then suing the county for inadequate mental health support is palpable. Can't say I can understand what's ironic, could you extrapolate that one? > a hard-on for rugged 1800-style living? I don't recall TFA mentioning the 1800s.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Taylor still wished he could live “back in the 1800s and before,” a time of “limited government, people depending on themselves,” when Americans weren’t such “pansies” and hardened criminals were hanged for wrongdoing. It's towards the end of the piece.

sandworm101 7y ago

It's also a lot easier to be a rough-living alaska wild man when you know that, should you need it, a helicopter will be sent to pick you up and treat your busting appendix. I don't see many of these people forgoing antibiotics either. Even the guns they so cherish, 18th century firearms weren't what we would call reliable. They didn't always fire properly when needed, especially when old/wet. So even these tough bush people, if they carry ammo manufactured in recent decades, remain reliant upon modern production tech.

Gibbon1 7y ago
As a kid the family in Little House on the Prairie was presented as being wholly self sufficient and reliant. Which made me wonder, if so where did dads rifle come from? The leather, the iron for the horse shoes and nails, the cotton cloth for their clothes? Right. The wheat they sold went out on the train and the train delivered all those things. And when their crops failed and they busted out the city slickers charity saved them from staving.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

why does it always seem to be these types that are the most aggressive supporters of individualism? I think the impetus there is that he had a long history of negative social experiences. The article repeatedly indicates he couldn't rely on other people but other people considered him to be reliable in certain respects. He could be turned to for help, but he seemed to have no one he could turn to. Given that experience of life, I see no contradiction in his desire to go make it on his own in the middle of nowhere and his complaint that he's been given no help. I think they are two sides of the same coin.

esotericn 7y ago
This is a very well considered comment. I identify a lot with this. Modern society is a very abstract place in which people find it difficult to meaningfully trade favour. In cities at least, a whole bunch of stuff is out of the control of individuals and in the control of a bureaucracy. Wanting to escape that I don't see as being foreign at all. Makes me think of the movie Falling Down. There are certainly times that I enter some sort of internal monologue and just think - look, I'm here, open and kind; perhaps not always, but in this moment I am. And others are here acting as obstacles... because it's "their job", or whatever.

mwfunk 7y ago

I think it's because they think "individualism" means "I do whatever I want and take whatever I want with no consequences, and I'm a better person because I do those things." Which I don't consider individualistic at all, it's more that they just want to be thoughtless assholes about everything and not worry about social or economic consequences for it. It's similar to how capitalism can get recontextualized into something meaningless and shitty by Objectivists. When capitalism works, it can almost seem magical, because it's basically a greedy algorithm that can often produce a net good for most of the population, based on individuals looking out for their own interests. Hence notions like "greed is good" or "selfishness is a virtue". But the whole point of those notions is, they're built on an assumption that those things lead to a net good for everyone involved. To the degree that capitalism works, it's because it allows wealth to be created, which is a net good for everyone. The purpose of capitalism as the core of a civilization is wealth creation, where people exchange things they don't want in return for things they do want. All participants in the transaction are better off than before in their eyes, but nothing new has been created. Money and goods and services have simply changed hands. Everyone's better off than they were before, but no new goods have been created, and no new money has been printed. It's like creating something from nothing. If any argument can be made in favor of selfishness being a virtue, this is it- it's a virtue because in this context it supposedly leads to a better world for everyone, not just individuals. But I've known plenty of right wingers who claim to draw inspiration from libertarianism, or who claim to have a special understanding and reverence for capitalism because they're Objectivists. And yet, they never talk about wealth creation. To them, selfishness is a virtue simply because that's the world they want to live in. These are the temporarily frustrated millionaires living in compounds in Wyoming, mooching off the government while complaining about urban welfare recipients. They think Objectivism or libertarianism or their religion gives them cover to go around thinking that greed and selfishness are actually good things, without ever embracing or even understanding the foundations of those beliefs- that they're only good things in the context of maximally efficient and rational markets, and only because they supposedly lead to wealth creation (everyone getting richer in some sense, not just individuals getting rich at the expense of other individuals). But they're not in it for the wealth creation- to them, capitalism isn't good because it creates wealth, rather capitalism must be good because they think it means it's OK for them to be selfish assholes.

mieseratte 7y ago

> But the irony of someone surviving off welfare checks, killing a man because of police inaction, and then suing the county for inadequate mental health support is palpable. Can't say I can understand what's ironic, could you extrapolate that one? > a hard-on for rugged 1800-style living? I don't recall TFA mentioning the 1800s.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
Taylor still wished he could live “back in the 1800s and before,” a time of “limited government, people depending on themselves,” when Americans weren’t such “pansies” and hardened criminals were hanged for wrongdoing. It's towards the end of the piece.