4 ms·
Honestly I think individualism is inherently in conflict with populations in the hundreds of millions. The more people you have, the more your chasing a local m
by wayoutthere 5y ago
Honestly I think individualism is inherently in conflict with populations in the hundreds of millions. The more people you have, the more your chasing a local maximum contributes to a tragedy of the commons situation.
This works across a whole bunch of smaller geographic or even ideological alignment. Eventually you have to draw a line on individual freedom when it oversteps the values of the society, and you have to draw more of those lines the more edge cases you have to accommodate.
- csee 5y agoI think the opposite is the case. The larger the population, the more infeasible central control becomes. Also, individualism doesn't support polluting commons. To the contrary, I have no moral right to pollute another individual's space or air under individualism.
- wayoutthere 5y agoMoral right or not, you have to violate individualism on some level to enforce any action about it. Individualism need not be curtailed by a central authority; cultural norms can do just as good a job. And for too many people, “individualism” really just means “other people should be free to be like me”.
- csee 5y agoEvery individualist I know, including myself since I consider myself one, believes that a state is necessary to resolve and mediate disputes between individuals. So I don't think this is a violation of individualism. Even Objectivists believe in the courts and police. The key is that the state is there to protect individual rights, that's it.
- jrumbut 5y agoI think you're exactly right, another poster raised the interesting point of whether where those lines are drawn is inevitable based on the circumstances or if we have a lot of collective control. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.