Individualism, Reality and Libertarianism.

Free State Project Forum

264434 Posts in 21121 Topics by 34821 Members / Latest Member: 1XPk6WOKQC

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2013, 01:39:21 am

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

First post here, been lurking awhile and enjoying the comments here.

Why is it that almost all the Libertarian authors seem to assume that everyone is an individualist?

I live out in the mountains on a couple hundred acres by myself because I love solitude and don't like to be hindered by idiots, freeloaders and busybodies. When I moved out here a few years ago I figured that I would be better prepared than most people for the coming deterioration-SHTF-end-times-collapse or whatever that seems inevitable.
I know a few like-minded people who also live alone in remote areas but not near me. We have discussed our situation and agreed that just as individualism is a blessing, it is also a curse.

WTSHTF, Individualists may be the LEAST prepared for what is to come because the masses will form gangs grouped by age, race, culture, background etc. and will be roving around as groups looking for whatever opportunity they can find or create to secure their survival. The individualist hunkered down in the sticks will find himself with a bullet in the back of his head in short order and this may well be my fate someday.

I'm an independent loner and I'm not a popularity-seeking, gift of gab people person and I would suspect many here have the same personality type. If my only hope for survival was to get hooked up with some group of neighbors I might well perish before it happens, simply because I don't want their company all day long.

I think that because of the individualistic personality of the average Libertarian, we don't have the capacity to grasp that others actually WANT to be interdependent members of a team and they actually function quite well in that capacity.

So back to the question, it seems to me that capitol "L" Libertarian ideals do not seem to take the very real phenomenon of groups and gangs into consideration and whenever it's brought up it's poo-pood and dismissed as paranoia, or answered by a question like "What do you want the state to do about it?".

How does the individualist defend himself from gangs without the help of the state?

You seem to confuse individualism and isolationism.

Individualism means you get to decide who you associate with.

Libertarianism still leads to a highly integrated hierarchical society on the basis of individual consent.

You don't have to spend hours with your neighbors, to have mutual defense agreements. You can have whatever kind of association you want with your neighbors. I agree, if you insist on not having any kind of association whatsoever, you'll have a hard time defending yourself from a coercive gang, but that's your choice, not something predestined for you by having a particular personality. That would be isolationism, and as Alex said, it's not the same as individualism.

Libertarians actually allow for any kind of interaction that is voluntary. It's true, there are some individualist types, kind of the Ayn Rand-stereotype character, but that is nowhere near the majority.

Anyway, you don't really get that good a feel for what the Free State Project is like just from the forum. You need to visit New Hampshire sometime to really get a feel for it. Maybe you can visit for Liberty Forum in the winter, or Porcfest in June next year?

I'm moving to New Hampshire, only 3 days away now. I would have thought everyone liked to argue about political philosophy all the time if my only contact with the FSP members was on this forum, but in fact I visited for Porcfest 2010 and had a great time.

Quote from: 10stateswithnh on September 13, 2011, 04:22:47 am

I only have the choice of mutual defense agreements if there are other people nearby who wish to enter into them and if I have the people/communication skills to convince them of the need and rally them together.
I live in the 5th largest state and there are only 900,000 people here. Where I live there are about 8 adults in a 10 square mile area and many of them are old, including myself. My nearest neighbor is a half mile away.

I think it's unrealistic to assume that we could effectively defend ourselves against hungry hoards of TV addled zombies from nearby towns.

Quote from: Alex Libman on September 13, 2011, 02:11:24 am

You seem to confuse individualism and isolationism.

Individualism means you get to decide who you associate with.

HUH? Freedom of association means you get to decide who you associate with.

Quote from: devilsadvocate on September 13, 2011, 07:39:31 am

Quote from: 10stateswithnh on September 13, 2011, 04:22:47 am

How many zombies are we talking about, and is it probable that they would come through your area looking for food? If you can't defend your food stores, maybe you can hide it or keep some extra you can give people. Keeping people away with guns doesn't have to be the only way things are handled.

It sounds like you might be better off to relocate farther away from the nearby cities, or in an area they are unlikely to stream through after leaving the city, if possible, if you plan to stay in that area.

Anyway, the sparseness of population does present an issue. I agree that it's hard to make agreements with people if there is hardly anyone around, especially if they wouldn't be able to defend themselves either. Is there anyone in your area who is more able-bodied? I am trying the strategy of strength in numbers, although not specifically in a survivalist mindset (though that's always in the back of mind), that's why I am gathering to New Hampshire.

I think if there start being food shortages, your neighbors will be more receptive than they are now to some sort of defense agreement. Perhaps no one else believes now that this sort of thing is likely, but if there's any warning at all of food shortages in the cities and hungry mobs coming your way, I think that would be very different. If you and your neighbors have shortwave radios and / or amateur ham radios among you, I don't think anything except an EMP (electromagnetic pulse, caused by a nuclear detonation up in the atmosphere) would make you totally incomunicado with the outside world. So it's just a matter of knowing how to prepare in other areas, and you'll have to figure out the defense part. Good luck! Let me know if I can help.

Quote from: 10stateswithnh on September 13, 2011, 08:09:00 am

Common sense dictates that step one for procuring food and staples from rural people will be a bullet in the back of the head. Zombies will quickly learn that negotiation is expensive in terms of their lives.

Quote

It sounds like you might be better off to relocate farther away from the nearby cities, or in an area they are unlikely to stream through after leaving the city, if possible, if you plan to stay in that area.

I'm in one of the remotest parts of the lower 48, what is everyone else going to do in such a scenario if they are to pretend everyone is merely an individual?

Quote

I am trying the strategy of strength in numbers, although not specifically in a survivalist mindset (though that's always in the back of mind), that's why I am gathering to New Hampshire.

Exactly the idea that needs to be incorporated into the Libertarian mindset! The enemy has strength in numbers.

Quote

I think if there start being food shortages, your neighbors will be more receptive than they are now to some sort of defense agreement.

Defense agreement or not, a bullet in the back of the head is a bullet in the back of the head. Kinda hard to contact the neighbors in such a case. What it boils down to is that our philosophy has to consider groups against groups as well as individuals against individuals. I find that when I communicate with capitol "L" Libertarians they all seem fixated on the concept of individuals, perhaps because that's their personality

Quote from: devilsadvocate on September 13, 2011, 07:39:31 am

[...] I live in the 5th largest state and there are only 900,000 people here. [...]

If you mean Montana, then it's the 4th largest state.

Quote from: devilsadvocate on September 13, 2011, 07:41:52 am

Quote from: Alex Libman on September 13, 2011, 02:11:24 am

You seem to confuse individualism and isolationism.

Individualism means you get to decide who you associate with.

HUH? Freedom of association means you get to decide who you associate with.

Um, yes, and freedom of association is an essential attribute of individualism.

Yeah ... I think Alex is right.
You're thinking individualist = isolationist, when that's not necessarily true.

You can be an individualist, even surrounded by millions of "conformists".
On the flip side, you can be a statist even in a low population/mile area.

It's more likely that an isolationist IS an individualist.
But an individualist doesn't have to be an isolationist.

I just compared the definitions of individualism in my 1938 dictionary and modern dictionaries and it seems "Individualism" has been expanded to include a broader realm of philosophical ideals surrounding the trait of individualism.
Unfortunately, when definitions are broadened they become less difinitive.

Here is the older definition:
1,Self-centered feeling or conduct as a principle; free and independent individual action or thought; egoism.
2, The social theory which advocates the free and independent action of the individual. Opp. to collectivism and socialism.

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.