Etymology[ edit ] In the English languagethe word "individualism" was first introduced, as a pejorative, by the Owenites in the late s, although it is unclear if they were influenced by Saint-Simonianism or came up with it independently.
This was, on the whole, about as edifying and productive an exercise as you might expect, but having already expended an hour or two in this questionable way, I figured I might as well reproduce a couple main points here in case anyone else finds this sort of thing interesting.
Matt Zwolinski recently brought up a thoughtful old Loren Lomasky essay arguing that this is an unhelpful way for libertarians to talk, and promptly drew all sorts of fire from people who are fiercely committed to their slogan and, if anything, wish it would be chanted louder and with greater frequency.
Which is not really possible, of course: Over the long run, what words mean really just is a popularity contest. But framing the view that way just adds a dash of empty melodrama.
Every political viewpoint has some set of principles for determining what rights over resources people have—and, implicitly, is committed to the idea that the alternative ways of allocating resources are wrong.
Not all disagreements, of course, are so easily resolved. Even in anarcho-capitalist utopia, after all, there would be some kind of legal system providing for non-consensual transfers of property in the case of disputes.
Some of these disputes will actually be pretty complicated, and not easily resolved by recourse to simple moral first principles.
Invariably, either because the facts or the legal quasi-legal? We can stipulate language evolving however we like in an imaginary anarcho-capitalist utopia, but it seems most natural to imagine the denizens of AnCapistan distinguishing between these kinds of inevitable good-faith errors and plain old theft.
And it seems natural because there is a morally salient difference between simply taking what you like without regard for whether you have a right to it, and adhering to some process designed to adjudicate and enforce rights claims, even when that process will necessarily yield an unjust outcome in some cases.
It implies that this ought to be so self-evident to any reasonable person that those who disagree are at best just engaged in some kind of transparent rationalization for disregarding the rights of others. That seems both clearly wrong and unfair, even if anarchists are ultimately right about the illegitimacy of taxation.
Usually, though, it seems to be neither fair nor effective—except, perhaps, at delivering whatever psychological satisfaction people obtain from imagining themselves among the righteous few in a sea of thugs and moral imbeciles.
When one is politically impotent, I guess, one takes what consolation prizes one can. The second claim, it seems to me, is indefensible even if we suppose the anarchists are right as a matter of ideal theory. God did it up to amoebas, but THEN evolution.
I would love to be able to point to a few serious book-length efforts, but the Year Zero approach that just takes current holdings as given and proposes Entitlement Theory Starting Tomorrow have always struck me as the sort of ad hoccery that makes caricatures of libertarianism as an elaborate rationalization for privilege more plausible than they ought to be.
Libertarians, anarchist and minarchist alike, still lack a theory of remediation serious and robust enough to meet the demands of their own priors.
Just in case though: I find it morally outrageous that we imprison people for selling drugs to willing adult buyers; such imprisonment is always unjust.As recently as a couple years ago, “political correctness” was one of those phrases that triggered a reflexive eye-roll from me: Sure, it was a thing in the early 90s, but had long since morphed into a tedious gripe typically voiced by folks chagrined that nobody finds their racist jokes funny anymore.
Social Psychology and the Stanford Prison Experiment by Philip Zimbardo - Social psychology is an empirical science that studies how people think about, influence, and relate to one another. Moral Relativism.
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral.
Little Drummer Boy, Harry Chorale Simeone, Harry Simeone The Effective Reader, D. J Henry Competition and Development - The Power of Competitive Markets, Susan Joekes, Phil Evans Algebra 1 Study Guide and Intervention Workbook, McGraw-Hill . The Bolsheviks had their own ten commandments and, like the church, they also mocked their opponents.
The totalitarianism of the church belongs to the past but if the church should ever regain its former power, its atrocities would probably be repeated.
Given that our memories can fool us sometimes, it is still hard to understand why or how people would want to believe that their parents committed such awful acts upon them.