6 ms·

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I must live in a different world. We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good. Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, that is stressed in our daily lives (as well as what many people seek to display to others) is about you deciding what you want and not having to put up with someone telling you what to do. "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc. The ease of finding subcultures and not having to have your individual interests and quirks diluted by a generic community. The ease of creating/joining isolated interest groups and segregating onesself from your neighbors, community, state, country. (This is not a new thesis -- written about extensively such as in "Bowling Alone".) It's driven by our consumerism, of course, but it leaks into our government and other aspects of societal life very strongly. Note today, even governments almost feel they cannot force people to act in ways that benefit the community, and have to ask politely people to do things like wear masks (for fear of backlash and being voted out for violating people's personal liberties -- or what they believe are their liberties). JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable. If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.

virmundi 6y ago
The US faces an interesting philosophical dissonance. We are being pushed to allow individual autonomy to the point that individuals get to define reality for others. At the same time if the others don't accept the reality pushed on them, they are called bigots and Nazis. For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. If I wake up and say, "A man can never be a woman" based on science, my reality cannot be forced on anyone, for again, doing such would make those affected by me oppressed. This extends to social associations. Blacks are called to throw off the oppressive colonizer by burning their own neighborhoods, but if they dare step off the Democrats' plantation, they are no longer black. The Black community ostracize them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTcViL8Udo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTcViL8Udo0
- xpe 6y ago
  > For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. This comes across as a caricature of a serious issue. For what it is worth, whether I agree or disagree with you (or anyone), I strive not to mischaracterize your concerns. I would like to ask a favor. Please read [1] and come back here afterward. Try rephrasing your comment. I hope you are capable of making a good faith attempt at understanding sex (at birth), gender identity, expression, and so on. 1: https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017-Annual-Meeting/2017-Speaker-Handouts/March-9_BEYOND-THE-BINARY-SUPPORTING-TRANSGENDER-A.aspx https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017...
  - virmundi 6y ago
    It’s not a mischaracterization. That is the platform of the trans positive groups. They say that sex and gender are divorced and anyone who does not agree with that are committing hate speech. Further there are those that advocate for fluidity of gender. They say that a single individual may float across the whole spectrum of gender in the same day. If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person, again, I am committing hate speech. If I say in my reality, remember they are claiming relativity, that gender and sex are the same; If I say no one floats across the spectrum like that, rather than them conforming to my reality as they demand of me and society at large, I am labeled a bigot.
    - xpe 6y ago
      > That is the platform of the trans positive groups. Please include a link to some of these platforms. > If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person, again, I am committing hate speech. This is a big claim -- please share a reference. > If I say no one floats across the spectrum like that... What is your basis for saying this?
      - jariel 6y ago
        I don't think his choice of words is perfectly accurate, but the notion is. See: Ontario school's 'Gender Unicorn'. It's essentially now state-sanctioned orthodoxy, and if you don't buy it, you're basically fascist, and very close to legal scrutiny. I think a lot of the concern over it is really misplaced, and some loud voices are 'true bigots' kind of thing, and I think it has good intentions. But I also reject the orthodoxy of the information, and the lack of rights concerning the role of parents in moral foundation of their children. It should be worthy of debate, but there will be none. [1] http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/LGBT2SQ/guide-2018/notelanguage.aspx http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/L...
xpe 6y ago
I generally agree with the comment above. At the same time, I think it is worth remembering this is a charged topic for many people. Let's try get some more context before we make assumptions about what the earlier commenter meant. What was their context, for example? They might agree with your characterization of modern-day developed countries (if this is what you mean). Let's listen. I think reasonable, educated people know there have been times in history where individual liberty was trampled upon. Some of the worst examples correspond to a lack of political representation and/or authoritarianism. Many people, for good reason, do not forget these awful moments in history.
pedrosbmartins 6y ago
I agree with you, but if you exchange personal liberty for personal privacy in OP's comment, it does get a bit closer to reality. We have been giving up privacy on behalf of individualism (for the sake of consumption, as you state), and I guess that down the road it might just bite our personal liberty, one way or another.
nine_k 6y ago
> You think personal liberties are at a low point? They are again under attack, as is free speech, mostly out of outwardly good intentions such as preserving justice, public safety, or even, ironically, inclusion. This is a perpetual conflict, though. > Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, ... "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc ...as long as it's politically correct, and there's no vocal minority which is opposed to your doing that — again, out of some best intentions. Liberty inherently creates conflicts like that, because people are not going to want the same thing. Liberty is when you are allowed to do something that others might not like, and reciprocally must tolerate other people doing something you don't like. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this. > JSM was writing in an age where tyranny A tyranny of majority is a thing :( Consider all the minorities who were disenfranchised not by dictators but by majority of local voters back in the day. > I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country. I was born in the USSR. I can compare. I see the vast difference. I also see certain disconcerting similarities.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > A tyranny of majority is a thing :( It's a meme for sure. Whether it's a "thing" in the reality of modern American discourse is sort of an open question. The fact that the people most enthused with the idea of being suppressed by the tyrannical majority are members of the ruling party, dominant gender and most affluent racial demographics sorta makes the logical construction a bit complicated.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Do you think that racial segregation regulations, anti-gay regulations, long-gone anti-Jewish regulations and fresh anti-immigrant regulations were created against the will of the majority? Often the majority directly voted for them, like city-wide sundown laws. It takes a rather hard conscious effort to remember that other people freedoms need preserving if you value your own, because you are not always guaranteed be on the side of the majority.
    - 6y ago
DharmaPolice 6y ago
>You think personal liberties are at a low point? I'm not American but I think the underlying (philosophical) support for the type of liberty (of expression) that Mill is talking about is probably weaker than at some points in the past. I see more comments on Reddit bemoaning the 1st amendment usually indirectly but sometimes explicitly. The spirit of the old quote (usually misattributred to Voltaire) by Evelyn Beatrice Hall - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to be really out of favour these days. On top of that, the power that corporations are able to exert over public discourse is probably at an all time high. Newspapers were often/usually owned by elite interests but a lot of the street level debate used to take place in forums they didn't control (i.e. face to face). Now both the newspapers and the discussion platforms themselves are controlled by basically the sets of same people. There's a reflex to say "Well, YouTube banning you isn't censorship, just a private entity making a decision not to host your content" and that's true but it's not quite the full story. If Facebook, Google, Apple, et al all ban you (and particularly if your ISPs refuse to host your content or the payment processors refuse to handle your accounts) then that is not too far from the level of influence governments have when banning things. When people like Alex Jones are "de-platformed" we might chuckle (or cheer) as he's either a huckster or a lunatic (and possibly both) but you don't need much imagination to see that the same thing could happen to anyone else deemed to be too radical/dangerous in the future. Fortunately the internet is still very fragmented and there are probably thousands of hosts I could go to put up my website if I wanted. But if AWS/GCloud/Azure/Alibaba end up dominating the market completely will that alternative exist in the future? And even if it does if everyone is getting their news from Facebook/Twitter then maybe they will delete any mentions of my call for a general strike anyway. Again, to be clear - that does not mean that there is less liberty today. There is unquestionably more. But the direction of travel in both these areas is concerning.
arminiusreturns 6y ago
I do not write it as a reflex, other than perhaps the desire to see the big thinkers on the topic get more air time. >We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good. First, there are a few different definitions of individualism. One of them is indeed more about the personal habits of individuals who are able to express their individuality in private and public life through means and methods that sometimes buck the popular opinions of the masses. Putting aside the huge amount of manipulation in that arena used to create the illusion of choice in the consumerism you reference later, I would agree with you that in many ways that first definition is doing fairly well for itself...for now... You see, the other definition is more about the foundational principles of individualism as a political-philosophical bedrock upon which the America was formed, which more broadly are the lessons of the enlightenment and renaissance condensed. This is more about the source of authority of government, the rights of individuals, and the pragmatic power dynamic between the popular opinion of the masses and those who don't align with them. What I would say is that the latter is quite demonstrably under attack in a myriad of ways, often subtle though they may be, and through that we lose sight of the foundation upon which the definition you speak of flourishes. Any structure whose foundation is eroded is in danger, and I argue that because one is threatened so is the other. I will get into this just a bit more, but first, I'm just going to take a moment and point out how amusing it is that in your defense of the state of individualism, you make the comment about the communal good being the thing under attack! The irony is palpable, but it is at the heart of the matter. >JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable. >If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country. The patronizing tone here should be saved for those who you know better. During my time in the military I have both been the boot of the authoritarianism and witnessed it applied in more than a few countries you would likely fear to walk freely in to this day. I didn't really get my brain back until I got out though, and have spent most of my free time trying to understand the bigger geopolitical and geostrategic issues at play in the world. One could spend a 10 lifetimes and still lack in this department, but one does their best. The thing to remember is I have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so that is where I come from to give you and other some context. One of my conclusions in all my truth-seeking is that, yes indeed, individual liberties, are under threat. I'm having a hard time deciding if I should just start listing the ways, or give you the meta... The meta is that individualism is the basis in theory of power in America. As James Madison, the father of the constitution said, "All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people." What I see is that principle being undermined and disregarded, as in my original statement, constantly. Before I start listing the ways, instead I will say the why: to get globalism you have to undermine the idea of national sovereignty. To get national sovereignty, you have to undermine the idea of individual sovereignty. That's the why, the details of which I will leave to some other time. The how: A lack of focus in the educational system on both types of individualism. I can't tell you how many younger people I've talked to don't even know the difference between positive and negative rights, for example. This used to be taught. It isn't anymore. The principles of Madison and those whom he studied such as Montesquieu are barely even a footnote in texts, if that, which can mostly be laid at the foot of the abuse of... federal aid to undermine more local school systems. In no place is individualism of your definition more undermined, though allowed in superficial ways. Schools are one of the most authoritarian places that exist outside of prisons. A government completely unrepresentative of the people, a fundamental breakage. Even if we got past K-street and intelligence agency blackmail networks ala Epstein, almost always the retort is "but the people could do/elect X". What that fails to take into account is the absolute pervasiveness of psychological operations and propaganda, largely done through mass manipulation of the media... and before you knee-jerk into the easy position of calling me a conspiracy theorist, just understand this is all established fact for those who care to pay attention. Someone who knows about the Church Committee revelations such as Operation Mockingbird can easily understand the current state of media, while those who don't will tilt at a great many windmills. The divide and conquer tactics the news uses are more than just the organic brown nosing of "journalists" afraid of power or those convinced by it's colloquialisms. It is important here to note that everyone forgets the Y axis of the political spectrum. When many say the overton window has shifted to the right, what they really mean is that it has shifted up into authoritarianism for both parties! Authoritarianism is inherently and by definition the opponent of individual liberty. That unrepresentative government has then, in turn, passed or allowed all kinds of fundamental abuses of what are rightly considered individual freedoms. For example: the old principle of Habeas Corpus was more or less suspended under the Obama administration with the MCA and NDAA; The right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures by the patriot act and an increasingly totalitarian surveillance system; the TSA and their security theater and actual personal abuses of peoples personal right to not be touched or pictured naked; the freedom not just to speak being under threat by quasi-governmental influence over what are on the surface level private companies, but also the freedom to read what you wilt; a legal system that is completely in service of the rich, while abusing the poor in the worst ways, such as lack of speedy trials, or to trial by a proper jury, (lack of equality under the law); the allowance of executive orders to be treated as law, in violation of the separation of powers, the waging of forever wars unconstitutionally with flimsy AUMF's that abdicate the constitutional responsibility of congress to declare war; the complete dominance of a non-federal entity congress was deviously manipulated into giving the power of coin, the Fed (money printer goes brrr, but wait now the fed wants in on fiscal policy too!); a large movement against second amendment rights under the false or foolish guise of security (the same justification for many of the other abuses)... I could go on and on. I have a list written down somewhere, where I took the time go through each clause and amendment of the constitution and listed all the violations currently happening to each. The point is that I think it is these fundamental principles, all based on the foundational principles of individual liberty, that have been eroded and are at the heart of the vast majority of our troubles as a nation these days. Black Lives Matter is about the abuse of these rights, for example, though they may fail to articulate it as such, and to their detriment. Many minorities of all types (Women, LGBTQ, Native Americans, atheists, etc) oppressed have found refuge in these principles and have indeed often won the legal battles necessary to create a state of things where the individualism you refer to can flourish. What I am saying is that I am warning you and all other Americans, that a failure to understand this, and therefor guard against it, will mean both types of individualism shall increasingly fade away. A casual dismissal of the true state of things such as you responded with will fail to encourage the constant vigilance needed, for as Thomas Jefferson said ""eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty". No, the system was never perfect, and the actual implementation even less so, but we are losing our sight of the value of the foundational principles of the constitution, the declaration of independence that enabled it, and the enlightenment and renaissance that enabled them! So yes, in the halls of true power I see an alarming increase of technocracy, coporatocracy, kleptocracy, inverted totalitarianism (Sheldon Wolin reference for the Chris Hedges readers), neofuedalism, neocolonialism, supranational globalism, bipartisan authoritarianism, totalitarianism, oligarchy, and dystopia, all discussed as the the normal and desired state of things. In the halls of the masses I see a desire to burn the whole thing down having lost all influence on those halls of power. Both are a threat. One thing I've said to others is this; just because the pendulum has swung back towards liberty a few times in history, doesn't mean that at some point the revolution of technology won't enable the oligarchs to stop the pendulum dead in it's tracks on their next turn... and it is surely looking to be swinging their way. I'll leave you with part of the response from the late, great, Christopher Hitchens, when asked if he though America was the greatest nation: "The American revolution, the one that says 'build your republic on individual rights, not group rights, have a bill of rights that inscribes these, and makes them available and legible to everybody, separate the church from the state, separate the executive, the judicial, and the political branch' do all these things, it doesn't sound like much but it is really a very revolutionary idea, there is hardly a country in the world that wouldn't benefit from adopting those principles. I think that gives the United States a really good claim to be a revolutionary country as well as of course paradoxically it's a very conservative one" and in another response to the same question called America "the last revolution that still stands a chance". If we lose sight of what makes that so, all the advances in individualism in both senses will be under threat of retrogression, for there is nothing in history that says progress must always be forward. Mark my words well, ye reader.

virmundi 6y ago

The US faces an interesting philosophical dissonance. We are being pushed to allow individual autonomy to the point that individuals get to define reality for others. At the same time if the others don't accept the reality pushed on them, they are called bigots and Nazis. For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. If I wake up and say, "A man can never be a woman" based on science, my reality cannot be forced on anyone, for again, doing such would make those affected by me oppressed. This extends to social associations. Blacks are called to throw off the oppressive colonizer by burning their own neighborhoods, but if they dare step off the Democrats' plantation, they are no longer black. The Black community ostracize them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTcViL8Udo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTcViL8Udo0

xpe 6y ago
> For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. This comes across as a caricature of a serious issue. For what it is worth, whether I agree or disagree with you (or anyone), I strive not to mischaracterize your concerns. I would like to ask a favor. Please read [1] and come back here afterward. Try rephrasing your comment. I hope you are capable of making a good faith attempt at understanding sex (at birth), gender identity, expression, and so on. 1: https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017-Annual-Meeting/2017-Speaker-Handouts/March-9_BEYOND-THE-BINARY-SUPPORTING-TRANSGENDER-A.aspx https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017...
- virmundi 6y ago
  It’s not a mischaracterization. That is the platform of the trans positive groups. They say that sex and gender are divorced and anyone who does not agree with that are committing hate speech. Further there are those that advocate for fluidity of gender. They say that a single individual may float across the whole spectrum of gender in the same day. If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person, again, I am committing hate speech. If I say in my reality, remember they are claiming relativity, that gender and sex are the same; If I say no one floats across the spectrum like that, rather than them conforming to my reality as they demand of me and society at large, I am labeled a bigot.
  - xpe 6y ago
    > That is the platform of the trans positive groups. Please include a link to some of these platforms. > If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person, again, I am committing hate speech. This is a big claim -- please share a reference. > If I say no one floats across the spectrum like that... What is your basis for saying this?
    - jariel 6y ago
      I don't think his choice of words is perfectly accurate, but the notion is. See: Ontario school's 'Gender Unicorn'. It's essentially now state-sanctioned orthodoxy, and if you don't buy it, you're basically fascist, and very close to legal scrutiny. I think a lot of the concern over it is really misplaced, and some loud voices are 'true bigots' kind of thing, and I think it has good intentions. But I also reject the orthodoxy of the information, and the lack of rights concerning the role of parents in moral foundation of their children. It should be worthy of debate, but there will be none. [1] http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/LGBT2SQ/guide-2018/notelanguage.aspx http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/L...

xpe 6y ago

I generally agree with the comment above. At the same time, I think it is worth remembering this is a charged topic for many people. Let's try get some more context before we make assumptions about what the earlier commenter meant. What was their context, for example? They might agree with your characterization of modern-day developed countries (if this is what you mean). Let's listen. I think reasonable, educated people know there have been times in history where individual liberty was trampled upon. Some of the worst examples correspond to a lack of political representation and/or authoritarianism. Many people, for good reason, do not forget these awful moments in history.

pedrosbmartins 6y ago

I agree with you, but if you exchange personal liberty for personal privacy in OP's comment, it does get a bit closer to reality. We have been giving up privacy on behalf of individualism (for the sake of consumption, as you state), and I guess that down the road it might just bite our personal liberty, one way or another.

nine_k 6y ago

> You think personal liberties are at a low point? They are again under attack, as is free speech, mostly out of outwardly good intentions such as preserving justice, public safety, or even, ironically, inclusion. This is a perpetual conflict, though. > Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, ... "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc ...as long as it's politically correct, and there's no vocal minority which is opposed to your doing that — again, out of some best intentions. Liberty inherently creates conflicts like that, because people are not going to want the same thing. Liberty is when you are allowed to do something that others might not like, and reciprocally must tolerate other people doing something you don't like. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this. > JSM was writing in an age where tyranny A tyranny of majority is a thing :( Consider all the minorities who were disenfranchised not by dictators but by majority of local voters back in the day. > I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country. I was born in the USSR. I can compare. I see the vast difference. I also see certain disconcerting similarities.

newacct583 6y ago
> A tyranny of majority is a thing :( It's a meme for sure. Whether it's a "thing" in the reality of modern American discourse is sort of an open question. The fact that the people most enthused with the idea of being suppressed by the tyrannical majority are members of the ruling party, dominant gender and most affluent racial demographics sorta makes the logical construction a bit complicated.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Do you think that racial segregation regulations, anti-gay regulations, long-gone anti-Jewish regulations and fresh anti-immigrant regulations were created against the will of the majority? Often the majority directly voted for them, like city-wide sundown laws. It takes a rather hard conscious effort to remember that other people freedoms need preserving if you value your own, because you are not always guaranteed be on the side of the majority.
  - 6y ago

DharmaPolice 6y ago

>You think personal liberties are at a low point? I'm not American but I think the underlying (philosophical) support for the type of liberty (of expression) that Mill is talking about is probably weaker than at some points in the past. I see more comments on Reddit bemoaning the 1st amendment usually indirectly but sometimes explicitly. The spirit of the old quote (usually misattributred to Voltaire) by Evelyn Beatrice Hall - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems to be really out of favour these days. On top of that, the power that corporations are able to exert over public discourse is probably at an all time high. Newspapers were often/usually owned by elite interests but a lot of the street level debate used to take place in forums they didn't control (i.e. face to face). Now both the newspapers and the discussion platforms themselves are controlled by basically the sets of same people. There's a reflex to say "Well, YouTube banning you isn't censorship, just a private entity making a decision not to host your content" and that's true but it's not quite the full story. If Facebook, Google, Apple, et al all ban you (and particularly if your ISPs refuse to host your content or the payment processors refuse to handle your accounts) then that is not too far from the level of influence governments have when banning things. When people like Alex Jones are "de-platformed" we might chuckle (or cheer) as he's either a huckster or a lunatic (and possibly both) but you don't need much imagination to see that the same thing could happen to anyone else deemed to be too radical/dangerous in the future. Fortunately the internet is still very fragmented and there are probably thousands of hosts I could go to put up my website if I wanted. But if AWS/GCloud/Azure/Alibaba end up dominating the market completely will that alternative exist in the future? And even if it does if everyone is getting their news from Facebook/Twitter then maybe they will delete any mentions of my call for a general strike anyway. Again, to be clear - that does not mean that there is less liberty today. There is unquestionably more. But the direction of travel in both these areas is concerning.

arminiusreturns 6y ago

I do not write it as a reflex, other than perhaps the desire to see the big thinkers on the topic get more air time. >We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good. First, there are a few different definitions of individualism. One of them is indeed more about the personal habits of individuals who are able to express their individuality in private and public life through means and methods that sometimes buck the popular opinions of the masses. Putting aside the huge amount of manipulation in that arena used to create the illusion of choice in the consumerism you reference later, I would agree with you that in many ways that first definition is doing fairly well for itself...for now... You see, the other definition is more about the foundational principles of individualism as a political-philosophical bedrock upon which the America was formed, which more broadly are the lessons of the enlightenment and renaissance condensed. This is more about the source of authority of government, the rights of individuals, and the pragmatic power dynamic between the popular opinion of the masses and those who don't align with them. What I would say is that the latter is quite demonstrably under attack in a myriad of ways, often subtle though they may be, and through that we lose sight of the foundation upon which the definition you speak of flourishes. Any structure whose foundation is eroded is in danger, and I argue that because one is threatened so is the other. I will get into this just a bit more, but first, I'm just going to take a moment and point out how amusing it is that in your defense of the state of individualism, you make the comment about the communal good being the thing under attack! The irony is palpable, but it is at the heart of the matter. >JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable. >If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country. The patronizing tone here should be saved for those who you know better. During my time in the military I have both been the boot of the authoritarianism and witnessed it applied in more than a few countries you would likely fear to walk freely in to this day. I didn't really get my brain back until I got out though, and have spent most of my free time trying to understand the bigger geopolitical and geostrategic issues at play in the world. One could spend a 10 lifetimes and still lack in this department, but one does their best. The thing to remember is I have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, so that is where I come from to give you and other some context. One of my conclusions in all my truth-seeking is that, yes indeed, individual liberties, are under threat. I'm having a hard time deciding if I should just start listing the ways, or give you the meta... The meta is that individualism is the basis in theory of power in America. As James Madison, the father of the constitution said, "All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people." What I see is that principle being undermined and disregarded, as in my original statement, constantly. Before I start listing the ways, instead I will say the why: to get globalism you have to undermine the idea of national sovereignty. To get national sovereignty, you have to undermine the idea of individual sovereignty. That's the why, the details of which I will leave to some other time. The how: A lack of focus in the educational system on both types of individualism. I can't tell you how many younger people I've talked to don't even know the difference between positive and negative rights, for example. This used to be taught. It isn't anymore. The principles of Madison and those whom he studied such as Montesquieu are barely even a footnote in texts, if that, which can mostly be laid at the foot of the abuse of... federal aid to undermine more local school systems. In no place is individualism of your definition more undermined, though allowed in superficial ways. Schools are one of the most authoritarian places that exist outside of prisons. A government completely unrepresentative of the people, a fundamental breakage. Even if we got past K-street and intelligence agency blackmail networks ala Epstein, almost always the retort is "but the people could do/elect X". What that fails to take into account is the absolute pervasiveness of psychological operations and propaganda, largely done through mass manipulation of the media... and before you knee-jerk into the easy position of calling me a conspiracy theorist, just understand this is all established fact for those who care to pay attention. Someone who knows about the Church Committee revelations such as Operation Mockingbird can easily understand the current state of media, while those who don't will tilt at a great many windmills. The divide and conquer tactics the news uses are more than just the organic brown nosing of "journalists" afraid of power or those convinced by it's colloquialisms. It is important here to note that everyone forgets the Y axis of the political spectrum. When many say the overton window has shifted to the right, what they really mean is that it has shifted up into authoritarianism for both parties! Authoritarianism is inherently and by definition the opponent of individual liberty. That unrepresentative government has then, in turn, passed or allowed all kinds of fundamental abuses of what are rightly considered individual freedoms. For example: the old principle of Habeas Corpus was more or less suspended under the Obama administration with the MCA and NDAA; The right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures by the patriot act and an increasingly totalitarian surveillance system; the TSA and their security theater and actual personal abuses of peoples personal right to not be touched or pictured naked; the freedom not just to speak being under threat by quasi-governmental influence over what are on the surface level private companies, but also the freedom to read what you wilt; a legal system that is completely in service of the rich, while abusing the poor in the worst ways, such as lack of speedy trials, or to trial by a proper jury, (lack of equality under the law); the allowance of executive orders to be treated as law, in violation of the separation of powers, the waging of forever wars unconstitutionally with flimsy AUMF's that abdicate the constitutional responsibility of congress to declare war; the complete dominance of a non-federal entity congress was deviously manipulated into giving the power of coin, the Fed (money printer goes brrr, but wait now the fed wants in on fiscal policy too!); a large movement against second amendment rights under the false or foolish guise of security (the same justification for many of the other abuses)... I could go on and on. I have a list written down somewhere, where I took the time go through each clause and amendment of the constitution and listed all the violations currently happening to each. The point is that I think it is these fundamental principles, all based on the foundational principles of individual liberty, that have been eroded and are at the heart of the vast majority of our troubles as a nation these days. Black Lives Matter is about the abuse of these rights, for example, though they may fail to articulate it as such, and to their detriment. Many minorities of all types (Women, LGBTQ, Native Americans, atheists, etc) oppressed have found refuge in these principles and have indeed often won the legal battles necessary to create a state of things where the individualism you refer to can flourish. What I am saying is that I am warning you and all other Americans, that a failure to understand this, and therefor guard against it, will mean both types of individualism shall increasingly fade away. A casual dismissal of the true state of things such as you responded with will fail to encourage the constant vigilance needed, for as Thomas Jefferson said ""eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty". No, the system was never perfect, and the actual implementation even less so, but we are losing our sight of the value of the foundational principles of the constitution, the declaration of independence that enabled it, and the enlightenment and renaissance that enabled them! So yes, in the halls of true power I see an alarming increase of technocracy, coporatocracy, kleptocracy, inverted totalitarianism (Sheldon Wolin reference for the Chris Hedges readers), neofuedalism, neocolonialism, supranational globalism, bipartisan authoritarianism, totalitarianism, oligarchy, and dystopia, all discussed as the the normal and desired state of things. In the halls of the masses I see a desire to burn the whole thing down having lost all influence on those halls of power. Both are a threat. One thing I've said to others is this; just because the pendulum has swung back towards liberty a few times in history, doesn't mean that at some point the revolution of technology won't enable the oligarchs to stop the pendulum dead in it's tracks on their next turn... and it is surely looking to be swinging their way. I'll leave you with part of the response from the late, great, Christopher Hitchens, when asked if he though America was the greatest nation: "The American revolution, the one that says 'build your republic on individual rights, not group rights, have a bill of rights that inscribes these, and makes them available and legible to everybody, separate the church from the state, separate the executive, the judicial, and the political branch' do all these things, it doesn't sound like much but it is really a very revolutionary idea, there is hardly a country in the world that wouldn't benefit from adopting those principles. I think that gives the United States a really good claim to be a revolutionary country as well as of course paradoxically it's a very conservative one" and in another response to the same question called America "the last revolution that still stands a chance". If we lose sight of what makes that so, all the advances in individualism in both senses will be under threat of retrogression, for there is nothing in history that says progress must always be forward. Mark my words well, ye reader.