Yeah, I'm not one of the hatters who thinks the government wants to microchip us all. There's just a dynamic of problem solving by rule making ad absurdum which leaves no latitude for individual decision making or responsibility. That's contrary to the spirit of modern Western civilization, which includes being free to make bad decisions. It includes being free to do what you want even if it produces a sub-optimal result for the group. The trend I see, and dislike, is to curtail individual rights if doing so is of some utility to the communal group.
You're not nuts. We're going to see the "Do what's good for the group" case being insistently made. We may see "You must, by law, do what's good for the group." That'd be a hard sell tho.
But, predictably, when you squelch individual rights for the betterment of a group, this yields a group of squelched individuals. A lot people will make arguments in favor of the necessity of it, but a lot of us won't buy it. And we're not all bucktoothed hillbillies bellowing about muh freedoms, as the media enjoys portraying anyone who questions restrictions and mandates handed down to us by our superiors in the government.
They are welcome to try to sell me on the vaccine but I won't tolerate a mandate. Not all rules are made to be broken, but the stupid ones are.
^ Tapeworm, this is great. You're incredibly articulate. You write well, and I assume you speak well too.
You know me...my autism makes it a massive challenge to keep posts short...so if you don't read this, I won't be offended. Please let me know if my long replies bother you. You are a sharp guy, and I want to maintain a good rapport with you, since I learn a lot from men like you.
Thank you for expanding on your views with such depth and clarity. I especially liked when you said
there is a dynamic of problem solving by rule making ad absurdum, which negatively impacts individual rights.
For example, in Canada, we have "Human Rights Commissions" in every province, and a federal one, which charge people who broke no Canadian law. One case involved a Black Canadian landlord in Southern Ontario, who was charged by the Ontario Human Rights Commission
for legally entering a home that he owned, and was renting to Muslims, because he kept his shoes on, which the Muslim tenants said violated Islamic Law. Even though he only entered after giving the legally required 24 hours notice, under the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Act, and [bizarrely], neither the Muslim tenants nor the OHRC could find any Islamic clerics who said that Islamic Law requires removing one's shoes inside a dwelling home.
So these speciously-named "Human Rights" Commissions actually violate human rights. They literally charge people for "offending" others, providing the offended party is from a protected group. What's more is that the landlord in this case was a Nigerian immigrant - a protected group of its own. This video covers just how ridiculous this case was:
So you're spot-on about rule-making ad absurdum leading to all sorts of problems for individuals.
I feel similarly...but I struggle to find what works best, as no system is perfect.
My only point of contention with your valid point about individual rights is this:
What is now happening in the West is that individualism is being weaponized against Whites, by way of encouraging all other races to collectivize by adopting identity politics to protect their group interests, while Whites are not allowed to do anything to stand up for our own group interests [which we do have, and which are legitimate]. Additionally, due to prosecutorial discretion, there are increasing numbers of cases where non-Whites are let off the hook for property crimes and other crimes in White areas, whereas if a White person does something like paint over "Black Lives Matter" graffiti, they get charged with a hate crime. Meanwhile, much worse crime perpetrated by non-Whites against Whites gets ignored.
Here are examples of how the White tendency towards individualism is being weaponized against us, whereas other races living in the West are encouraged to embrace identity politics and collectivize to protect their group interests:
Two people are charged with a hate crime for vandalizing a Black Lives Matter muralMeanwhile, look what happens when a non-White commits a crime that caused over $150,000 in property damage:
Man Who Toppled Christopher Columbus Statue Avoids Jail Time Due To ‘Restorative Justice’ ProgramAnd look at how wonderfully defunding the police in Minneapolis has worked so far:
Minneapolis Delivers on Its George Floyd Promise to Defund PoliceThis video expands upon how the Western/White tendency to value individual rights is weaponized against us, as all other racial groups living in the West [along with millions more imported every year] are not only being encouraged to collectivize to advance their own ethnic interests, but also being told that all the problems they face are caused by Whites.
So as libertarian as I want to be, it will be impossible to resolve this if all other groups are collectivizing, while simultaneously blaming everything on White people. The only way this will be resolved is it Whites join in collectivizing too.
And that realization was when I refined my libertarian views to incorporate that fact. In theory, libertarianism advocates for all people's identities being based on individuality, but in practice, White people are the only ones having individualism pushed on them while being told that caring about their group interests, at best, has no basis, and at worst - is immoral, or even "racist" and "oppressive" towards non-Whites who, as said, are being encouraged to put their own interests first.
This video covers how individualist ideas are being weaponized and targeted against Whites, at the cost of our collective group interests:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rcHgEZLOkZfTLastly - at the start of the pandemic, when we couldn't rule out COVID being a lethal plague, I was happy to see that humans - including White people - have the ability to collectivize at times of perceived crisis. That's good. Because sometimes we need to sacrifice the rights of the individual in order to protect the collective rights of the group.
My issue with this is that non-Whites are both encouraged and celebrated for doing this, as well as for adopting openly hostile stances against White people, while streams and streams of non-Whites flood into the West, who are then encouraged to adopt these same toxic [to Whites] ideas.
Meanwhile, Whites are constantly told that we must always protect individual rights, and any White person or organization that stands up for White interests is immediately attacked, called "racist", "Islamophobic", or "oppressive", and delegitimized as much as possible.
This is what made me shift away from libertarian principles - I completely agree with you that businesses and private individuals should be allowed to set their own rules, and that never-ending government laws produce an anti-freedom climate, but as long as individualism is being used as a weapon to prevent Whites from protecting our group interests, I can't look at individualism as being a solution which only produces more freedom, when it also produces a culture that de facto, makes it impossible for White people to stand up for our group interests, and ultimately aids in our own Western-wide racial demographic displacement.
^ This is basically my way of saying:
I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY...but I have come to learn in practice that models that seek to produce greater individual freedom can also be weaponized against the very same people who respect individual rights the most.
And I have yet to learn of a model that can expand individual freedom, without that same model being exploited against Whites [currently], as well as potentially any other groups who forego their group interests by adopting individualism, to ultimately leave whatever group remains collectivist as being the one who goes on to be the most dominant as a result.
Sorry for writing so much on my potential fears about what a strictly individualist ethos can create - but I can tell from your posts that you have the intelligence to contemplate the potential downside to what has been one of the most progressive and successful ideas to have ever been derived from Western Civilization [individual rights and freedoms].
Replying to intelligent posts makes me write a lot. I hope you are not bothered by it.
