3 ms·
I think the opposite is the case. The larger the population, the more infeasible central control becomes. Also, individualism doesn't support polluting commons.
by csee 5y ago
I 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.