[Daktoria]

Following are two segments in Hayek's essay which clarify the essence of individualism. The essay in general is about distinguishing individualism from religion as well as continental mythology, and these principles are vital for any understanding of what individualism really means beyond a hedonist, selfish, narcissistic, libertine neglect of others:

Far more important than this moral attitude, which might be
regarded as changeable, is an indisputable intellectual fact which nobody
can hope to alter and which by itself is a sufficient basis for the
conclusions which the individualist philosophers drew. This is the
constitutional limitation of man's knowledge and interests, the fact
that he cannot know more than a tiny part of the whole of society and
that therefore all that can enter into his motives are the immediate
effects which his actions will have in the sphere he knows. All the
possible differences in men's moral attitudes amount to little, so far
as their significance for social organization is concerned, compared
with the fact that all man's mind can effectively comprehend are the
facts of the narrow circle of which he is the center; that, whether he is
completely selfish or the most perfect altruist, the human needs for
which he can effectively care are an almost negligible fraction of the
needs, of all members of society. The real question, therefore, is not
whether man is, or ought to be, guided by selfish motives but whether
we can allow him to be guided in his actions by those immediate consequences
which he can know and care for or whether he ought to be
made to do what seems appropriate to somebody else who is supposed
to possess a fuller comprehension of the significance of these actions
to society as a whole...

...Another misleading phrase, used to stress an important point, is the
famous presumption that each man knows his interests best. In this
form the contention is neither plausible nor necessary for the individualist's
conclusions. The true basis of his argument is that nobody
can know who knows best and that the only way by which we can
find out is through a social process in which everybody is allowed to
try and see what he can do. The fundamental assumption, here as
elsewhere, is the unlimited variety of human gifts and skills and the
consequent ignorance of any single individual of most of what is
known to all the other members of society taken together. Or, to put
this fundamental contention differently, human Reason, with a capital
R does not exist in the singular, as given or available to any particular
person, as the rationalist approach seems to assume, but must be
conceived as an interpersonal process in which anyone's contribution
is tested and corrected by others. This argument does not assume
that all men are equal in their natural endowments and capacities
but only that no man is qualified to pass final judgment on the capacities
which another possesses or is to be allowed to exercise.

Individualism is a perspective, not a judgment.

[Rei Murasame]

So it's not a "a hedonist, selfish, narcissistic, libertine neglect of others", but in fact a strident proxy-defence of the liberal-capitalist system, which just so happened to arise (convenient!) at the point when capital gained control of the state and decided that it needed to try to prevent people from becoming too aware of the systemic contradictions that were in play.

This argument does not assume that all men are equal in their natural endowments and capacities but only that no man is qualified to pass final judgment on the capacities which another possesses or is to be allowed to exercise.

In other words, a very impassioned attempt to convince the public that no form of mass movement aimed at changing the economic or social order can be justified as moral. Very convenient.

Individualism is a perspective, not a judgment.

Getting people to adopt that perspective causes them consequently to make judgements that are less conducive to them gaining any form of group consciousness that can be acted on. I'm sure you can see how that serves the interests of liberal-capitalism.

After you have a situation where people were thrown together in various new ways, three types of group conciousness were emerging which could have social efficacy:

• 1. Class consciousness.
• 2. Gender consciousness.
• 3. Ethnic consciousness.

These things -- the potential of them -- scare the hell out of liberal-capitalists who just want to be let alone to run finance and sell products. One way to surefire prevent those consciousnesses from forming would've been to reverse the processes that gave rise to them like so:

• 1. Send everyone 'back to the fields'.
• 2. Send women 'back to the kitchen'.
• 3. Put everyone back under a clerical feudal system.

Those reversals are of course ridiculous and not good for the economy anyway, so you could never choose those, we both know that. At least, not in that exact way.*


You instead would need to come up with a morality that is aimed at nipping those consciousnesses in the bud, or at the very least stifling their effectiveness, while maintaining the same mode of production that presently exists.

That is the challenge that the defenders of the capitalist system had to rise to. You hope to have it both ways by being able to get everyone to engaged in liberal-capitalism without them actually becoming aware of any of its systemic contradictions, or at least, if they do become aware of it, they would lack the social organisation to do anything about it. That's what your morality (the individualist perspective) is ultimately all about. Isn't it?

A very refined form of 'divide and conquer'.

*To some extent liberal-capitalism automatically half-does #2, and it has a whole separate arsenal of bullshit designed with the aim of conveincing women to just placidly exist in the gap between the two modes without ever questioning the contradictions involved in it. But I will not cover that here since that would be branching too much.

[Daktoria]

Can't you just forget about capitalism for a sec? Individualism arrives before capitalism, not after.

[Suska]

Anarchy and individualism are the foundations of organization; the tabula rasa. We think and learn and know personally, but all for social reasons, direct social connection is not the same thing as administrative section of monolithic federalized nation. At the federal level you can talk about patterns and statistics and votes, wherever these are not good translations of the interests of individuals they need to be shredded. Genuine authority cannot run the other direction (top down that is) without running the risk of defeating it's own purpose - which is to be useful to individuals and their small groups of close relation and natural bonds - which in current American form not even districting practices respect.

You can't produce a world from a theory, but the reverse is done every day.

see also Nominalism.

Just trying to put the matter in perspective...

[Rei Murasame]

Can't you just forget about capitalism for a sec?

No. It's kind of hard to ignore that elephant in the room, especially when you are quoting an Austrian economist.

Individualism arrives before capitalism, not after.

Historically? Or in the argumentative sequence that you guys use to build the justification for liberal-capitalism in people's minds?

Anarchy and individualism are the foundations of organization; the tabula rasa.

Is the slate really completely blank?

[Suska]

Is the slate really completely blank?

Social organization is an empty concept without individual experience, just because we cannot help but relate to each other somehow and tend to do so by a natural momentum, doesn't suggest to me that our personal will and relations can be anticipated. I don't think it's necessary to drag psychological tabula rasa into this, I only suggested that organizing is something which individuals are at option to perform.

[Daktoria]

No. It's kind of hard to ignore that elephant in the room, especially when you are quoting an Austrian economist.

See this is very strange.

On one hand, you advocate for nationalism under the concept that capitalism objectifies people.

On the other hand, you're interpreting everything through economics. Yes, Hayek was an economist. He was also a soldier, brain scientist, mathematician, and legal scholar.

Historically? Or in the argumentative sequence that you guys use to build the justification for liberal-capitalism in people's minds?

Individualism is not a construct. It's a perspective.

[noemon]

As I said in the IRC, in the official Greek dictionary, an "individualist"(aka libertarian) person is termed as idiot:

Another interesting insight into Athenian democracy comes from the law that excluded from decisions of war those citizens who had property close to the city walls - on the basis that they had a personal interest in the outcome of such debates because the practice of an invading army was at the time to destroy the land outside the walls.
A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot', which finds its origins in the ancient Greek word ἰδιώτης (idiōtēs), meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word eventually acquired its modern meaning. In his Funeral Oration, Pericles states:
It is only we who regard the one, not participating in these duties, not as unambitious but as useless.

Back then an individualist had far more reasons to get rid of his duties as a citizen, which involved more than 25 years of military service on demand, his own job or business, and the regular presence into the assembly to vote for everything with a clear knowledge, so all citizens had to get the memos and study them, therefore all citizens had to be at the same time, soldiers, politicians and labourers. Today the modern man only has labour to worry about and a bit of coffee-table politics but still wants more individual freedom for his private life. This is not just idiotik literally but dangerous for the civilizations that harbour such "individuals" as well as arrogant, selfish and lazy. This term ofc remains true in modern Greek, a private individual is called idiotes, private property is called idiotik periousia, private life is idiotik zoe and so on and forth.

Ofc a strong collective society requires strong emancipated individuals, which is in itself a very individualist state-of mind serving the collective in return for security to be an individual, but the individualist(state-abolitionist state of mind) has no purpose within a civilization since it mocks the very being of civilization, and in this sense these individuals can go live in the jungle; but if they choose to live within a state(which is a secure area full of perks), then they need to abide by the very rules that define that which gives them the perks and the chance to pursue their individualism within the channels of that civilization.

You can't have the pie and eat it too. If you want to utilize the channels of a civilization then you make a contract that you serve the civilization(the collective) and in return you get citizenship leading consequently to the ability to use her secure network. If you don't serve or don't want to serve the collective practically and ideologically, then that is breach of contract on the individual's part.

---

And no, 'stupid' has nothing to with IQ and stupid was not established when the test was established, because you claimed that a smart person cannot be an idiot, but he/she most certainly can whatever the IQ, for stupid is what stupid does. Action is being for a human agent and that is why verbs(action) agree with nouns(being).

I mean seriously...

As as a last note, I believe that this forum should give the example first and start using the Greek word idiot to refer to an 'individualist' officially in any correspondence since that is its literal sense and most Greek root words in English are used in the literal sense and not in the sense that the Greek society particularly has made pejoratives out of.

[Rei Murasame]

See this is very strange.

You know that it isn't strange at all...

On one hand, you advocate for nationalism under the concept that capitalism objectifies people.

That's just one of the issues it is capable of fostering, among many. Objectification and Subjectification are a bit more complicated than you are making them out to be, but for now I'll say 'yes' to that, then watch you jump off the deep end here:

On the other hand, you're interpreting everything through economics. Yes, Hayek was an economist. He was also a soldier, brain scientist, mathematician, and legal scholar.

Oh give me a break.

• Next you'll claim it's a paradox that I on one hand advocate for people getting their Mitsubishi Type-10 tanks off my front lawn, while on the other hand I keep drawing attention to the Mitsubishi Type-10 tanks that someone has parked on my front lawn.
  
  Where is the paradox there? There isn't one. I'm pretty consistent about not wanting the tanks on my lawn.
  
  
• Hayek's economics are kind of what he's most famous for. Are you asking me to overlook this? I love how you concede "yes, Hayek was an economist", as though that is just something off on the side.
  
  
• There's a reason that socio-economics is a hyphenated word. There's really no way that you can expect me to look at one without looking at the other.

Individualism is not a construct. It's a perspective.

Isn't it funny how that perspective manages to turn into what I described a few posts ago, without fail?

[Daktoria]

the individualist(state-abolitionist state of mind) has no purpose within a civilization since it mocks the very being of civilization

Do tell.

Civility is a state of mind. It is not something that arises through force because force is evident in the totally anarchic state of nature already.

Your statist paradigm is no more than a ransom for the individual's freedom because it depends upon the criminals you've provoked into existence for attention seeking behavior.

but if they choose to live within a state(which is a secure area full of perks)

Perks?

People don't ask to be born. Therefore, any individual who is born (or more accurately, conceived) in your jurisdiction is entitled to your legal protection because you created the circumstance upon which that person arrived into existence.

The state is not your private club.

You can't have the pie and eat it too.

You can't ram pie down people's throats and then demand them to pay for it.

And no stupid has nothing to with IQ, because you claimed that a smart person cannot be an idiot, but he/she most certainly can whatever the IQ, for stupid is what stupid does. Action is being for a human agent and that is why verbs(action) agree with nouns(being).

Actually, it does:

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqc ... ations.htm

Mental deficiency used to be divided into the following sub-classifications, but these labels began to be abused by the public and are now largely obsolete: Borderline Deficiency (IQ 70-80), Moron (IQ 50-69), Imbecile (IQ 20-49) and Idiot (below 20). Mental deficiency is now generally called mental retardation.

You definition of associating idiocy with private life is entirely circular because it begs the question over what qualifies as sufficient cultural sophistication.

Also being and doing are two different concepts. The value of civility is in having the option to be without doing.

[noemon]

Civility is a state of mind. It is not something that arises through force because force is evident in the totally anarchic state of nature already.
Your statist paradigm is no more than a ransom for the individual's freedom because it depends upon the criminals you've provoked into existence for attention seeking behavior.

Civility is not a state of mind, but a physical passport which grants you identity and the domain of your legal abilities as a human.

You are blabbering non-sense.

Perks?
People don't ask to be born. Therefore, any individual who is born in your jurisdiction is entitled to your legal protection because you created the circumstance upon which that person arrived into existence.
The state is not your private club.

The person has freedom to give up his passport and citizenship rights if the person does not want to be part of the state. There is no compulsion, you can give up your citizenship and therefore what keeps you bound to the state in contract anytime. You have all the freedom to do that, but if you do flash your ID card and utilize your citizenship prerogatives by utilizing the space, security, job market, business and academic potential then you are expected to serve the function that provides you the right to utilize its domain. Otherwise you are breaching a contract made, and what is worse is that that is stupid and suicidal since the breach of contract directly affects your private security because you can no longer exist within civilization and instead become prey of the wilderness, which is there anytime for you to walk into.

You can't ram pie down people's throats and then demand them to pay for it.

You are victimizing yourself in paranoia.

Actually, it does:
http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqc ... ations.htm
Mental deficiency used to be divided into the following sub-classifications, but these labels began to be abused by the public and are now largely obsolete: Borderline Deficiency (IQ 70-80), Moron (IQ 50-69), Imbecile (IQ 20-49) and Idiot (below 20). Mental deficiency is now generally called mental retardation.
You definition of associating idiocy with private life is entirely circular because it begs the question over what qualifies as sufficient cultural sophistication.
Also being and doing are two different concepts. The value of civility is in having the option to be without doing.

The term idiocy means individualism and defines legally the private man(the idiot), that is the reason it has been created, conceived and established as a sound in the language of homo-sapiens. If for some people it also means mental retarded according to other irrelevant and different values, that is irrelevant to the fact it means an individualist. But it should tell you something.
Also, the term 'idiot' is 'individualist' and 'stupid' prior to it becoming 'mentally retarded' as well in the clinical sense. A borrowing of a term by a particular study for use(under different constraints) does not change or cancel the term, but merely adds one extra-definition on it. Complementary if anything.

And no in terms of being a citizen, doing is being and being is doing(or lack thereof). There is no such value in civility, but in civility that is called uselessness which is akin to mental retardation since there is no value of an individual for the collective just like there is no value of a mentally retarded person for the collective but instead just a burden and therefore to be discarded from the whole like the useless member of any business or other organization. Ofc the state is kind and it does not, for the mentally retarded who are clinically as such it is understandable and so the state caters, but the non-mentally retarded though? What is their excuse? And It still does anyway.

The state is not your private club.

Exactly, It is public and requires a public life from the individual in its public affairs. Oh wait. You claim that the property of the state is your private property to be utilized regardless on whether one recognizes the public nature of it?

You are slowly slowly spitting it out. Wasn't that hard.

[Daktoria]

Civility is not a state of mind, but a physical passport which grants you identity and the domain of your legal abilities as a human.

You are blabbering non-sense.

That doesn't make sense. Recognition of the very concepts of "passport", "identity", "domain", "legal", "ability", and "human" are all states of mind.

There is nothing in nature that defines those words to you. It isn't as if you were born and derived through physical sensation alone understanding of those concepts. You had to have abstract value to grasp them.

Otherwise you are breaching a contract made

What contract? People don't ask to be born.

The term idiocy means privacy, that is the reason it has been created, conceived and established as a sound in the language of homo-sapiens. If for some people it also means mental retardation according to other irrellvant and different values, that is irrelevant to the fact it means private life. But it should tell you something.

And no in terms of being a citizen, doing is being and being is doing(or lack thereof). There is no such value in civility, but in civility that is called uselessness and therefore to be discarded from the whole like the useless member of any business or other organization.

Are you going to qualify sufficient cultural sophistication or not?

If not, then you're making "idiocy" a relativist term subject to lucky interpretation in total anarchy.

You claim that the property of the state is your private property to be utilized regardless on whether one recognizes the public nature of it?

Where did I make that claim?

Privacy =/= personhood.

[noemon]

That doesn't make sense. Recognition of the very concepts of "passport", "identity", "domain", "legal", "ability", and "human" are all states of mind.
There is nothing in nature that defines those words to you. It isn't as if you were born and derived through physical sensation alone understanding of those concepts. You had to have abstract value to grasp them.

Having a passport is a state of mind? Having legal rights by constitution is a state of mind? Why dont you abandon it then? It's all in your mind anyway. Abandon your citizenship, do not take any other or any other form of legal recognition and live your life. You are free to do so. Do it and prove to yourself that it was all in your mind.

What contract? People don't ask to be born.

Their parents are asked to make the contract(since the infant does not have that ability) and declare a certificate of birth within a jurisdiction, and the person is free to break it when he/she is no longer under the security of his/her parents, that is the 18 onwards. if you choose to stick with the contract, you are making a choice to abide by the terms and conditions of the constitution which defines your legal rights. Otherwise you are free to abandon it.

Are you going to qualify sufficient cultural sophistication or not? If not, then you're making "idiocy" a relativist term subject to lucky interpretation in total anarchy.

You are going off in irrelevant tangents with cultural sophistication in order to evade immediate reality.
Nope the meaning of idiot as in "stupid", as in "mentally retarded" and as in "individualist" is unaffected by conditions of total anarchy because there are no conditions of total solitude for a human. Humans do not get rationalized in vacuum conditions because there is no vacuum condition for a breathing human in nature. Civility is still civility whatever the scale or convention, even when there are only 2 humans as a set(that is still a set of you and the collective the 2 of you), "individualist", "stupid" and "mentally retarded" still makes sense even if the second set is not as large as you and the 100 million of you.

Where did I make that claim?

If not, then you ought to abandon it, right away if you do not recognize the domain you operate as neither public nor your own private. Is it not there?

[Ombrageux]

Daktoria - In that passage Hayek say an individual's point of view is an individual's and therefore necessary limited. He goes on to say an individual does even necessarily know his own self-interest best. This can be argued to be an argument for collectivism. We each specialize in a different fraction of activity: nutritionists about food, engineers about cars, statisticians about car accidents, doctors about medicine. It follows that a group of experts, specialists on medicine, might be better qualified to know what is healthy for an individual than the average individual.

Obviously this must done in the context of a limited state with the rule of law.

I also agree with Noemon. The entire libertarian/bastardarized liberal interpretation is based on a sort of denial of everything since Socrates and Plato, which is to say, the denial that "the City" (shared existence) and therefore "public good" exist.

[Daktoria]

Having a passport is a state of mind? Having legal rights by constitution is a state of mind? Why dont you abandon it then? It's all in your mind anyway. Abandon your citizenship, do not take any other or any other form of legal recognition and live your life. You are free to do so. Do it and prove to yourself that it was all in your mind.

It isn't just your state of mind which matters when it comes to interpersonal concepts such as passports. The states of mind of those in the supposed "society" matter as well. For example, maybe I do want to rescind my citizenship, but if others don't agree, they'll force me to keep paying taxes and adhere to their laws.

The value of individualism is to realize that the only way to avoid the war of all against all is if people choose within their own minds to come to mutual understandings.

Their parents...

No, that doesn't count, and this is the exact problem had when dealing with issues such as public education and abortion. The state gets lazy, so instead of doing its job in making sure people don't reproduce haphazardly, it lets people fuck like rabbits out of pursuit of happiness for the sake of preventing civil unrest.

Delegating parents with legal authority before people are born creates the initial principal-agent conflict by which all other political problems reside.

You are going off in irrelevant tangents with cultural sophistication in order to evade immediate reality.
Nope the meaning of idiot as in "stupid", as in "mentally retarded" and as in "individualist" is unaffected by conditions of total anarchy because there are no conditions of total solitude for a human. Humans do not get rationalized in vacuum conditions because there is no vacuum condition for a breathing human in nature. Civility is still civility whatever the scale or convention, even when there are only 2 humans as a set(that is still a set of you and the collective the 2 of you), "individualist", "stupid" and "mentally retarded" still makes sense even if the second set is not as large as you and the 100 million of you.

Perfect vacuums do not exist, but varying degrees of isolation do.

The problem with your definition of idiocy is you've made it impossible for people to analyze in advance how much isolation is too much.

Also, in line with your previous assignment to parents, you've doomed certain children to idiocy because some parents will isolate their own children. When those children get tested for adulthood, they will fail because of actions beyond their own account.

If not, then you ought to abandon it, right away if you do not recognize the domain you operate as neither public nor your own private. Is it not there?

Word salad, and it's not just because of bad grammar. This is just loaded with logical fallacies all over.

You can't abandon what you don't claim.

One area being public doesn't necessarily mean another area is private.

Publicity and privacy are not benchmarks for personhood.

[noemon]

It isn't just your state of mind which matters when it comes to interpersonal concepts such as passports. The states of mind of those in the supposed "society" matter as well.
The value of individualism is to realize that the only way to avoid the war of all against all is if people choose within their own minds to come to mutual understandings.

OI, if you dont abandon your own citizenship to set an example and abide by the precepts which you advertise, you cannot claim that your ideology has any standing.

No, that doesn't count, and this is the exact problem had when dealing with issues such as public education and abortion. The state gets lazy, so instead of doing its job in making sure people don't reproduce haphazardly, it lets people fuck like rabbits out of pursuit of happiness for the sake of preventing civil unrest.

Delegating parents with legal authority before people are born creates the initial principal-agent conflict by which all other political problems reside.

Your mind is fried. First you think that you are allowed to tell the state what to do and even express an opinion when you do not recognize the state at all. This is facepalm number 1. Face palm number 2, is what do you propose that your parents do? not give you birth certificate? You have the choice to abandon it, you are of legal age, and you can in fact take away the chains. DO IT. If not, be silent as about why I should do something which you are not doing yourself while asking from me to do it by advertising and supporting the validity of such an action. If your parents hadn't given you a birth certificate, now you 'd be something very different, something much worse off or do you claim different? Argue.

Perfect vacuums do not exist, but varying degrees of isolation do.
The problem with your definition of idiocy is you've made it impossible for people to analyze in advance how much isolation is too much.

You are incapable of rational conversation, every time your argument is trashed you move to another tangent. As demonstrated the terms I used are not relative(as you claimed) but absolutely true under any conditions. Accept the fact.

Word salad, and it's not just because of bad grammar. This is just loaded with logical fallacies all over.
You can't abandon what you don't claim.
One area being public doesn't necessarily mean another area is private.
Publicity and privacy are not benchmarks for personhood.

The only word salad is your own, if you propagate the abolition of state then do it and prove to yourself that a lack of state is valid existence, abandon your citizenship, test your theory or stop going around telling people that they should.

[Daktoria]

Daktoria - In that passage Hayek say an individual's point of view is an individual's and therefore necessary limited. He goes on to say an individual does even necessarily know his own self-interest best. This can be argued to be an argument for collectivism. We each specialize in a different fraction of activity: nutritionists about food, engineers about cars, statisticians about car accidents, doctors about medicine. It follows that a group of experts, specialists on medicine, might be better qualified to know what is healthy for an individual than the average individual.

Obviously this must done in the context of a limited state with the rule of law.

I also agree with Noemon. The entire libertarian/bastardarized liberal interpretation is based on a sort of denial of everything since Socrates and Plato, which is to say, the denial that "the City" (shared existence) and therefore "public good" exist.

Experts might know things, but still, experts have to be trusted. Hayek's argument is about character judgment in how each individual mind is the best judge of character from his or her own perspective and circumstances.

As for the rule of law, the point I'm making with noemon is that civility precedes statehood. Civility is something that ignites in your own mind regardless of whether or not laws are published and enforced. At the very least, those very published and enforced laws had to come from somewhere.

[noemon]

As for the rule of law, the point I'm making with noemon is that civility precedes statehood. Civility is something that ignites in your own mind regardless of whether or not laws are published and enforced. At the very least, those very published and enforced laws had to come from somewhere.

a) Do not steal my arguments. I was the one who demonstrated to you that civility is statehood(which is merely the codified written rules of what is already orally agreed between 2 or more consenting individuals in order to form a collective agreement), whether the set is you and the 2 of you, or you and the 100 million of you. I made this argument and NOT you.
b) Do not lie as about our discussion. You challenge the fact that "individualism" is idiotic within every level of 'civilization' all the way to the imperfect vacuum. That is you claim that your part of the deal can any time be breached between you and the collection of 2 or more because of your individualist nature and that this action(of breaching the agreement of the collective) leads to a finer way of life which you propagate as ideal. And despite the fact that you do not dare to test your theory, you are trying to convince me, or others to do it because it is so worth it that even you doesn't dare do it?

What are you smoking?

[Daktoria]

Do not steal my arguments. I was the one who demonstrated to you that civility is statehood

I'm not arguing that. I said civility PRECEDES statehood.

You challenge the fact that "individualism" is idiotic within every level of 'civilization' all the way to the imperfect vacuum.

What I challenged is your definition of idiocy being knowable in advance. People won't know how much isolation is too much or how much isolation can be afforded before reaching the breaking point.

That is you claim that your part of the deal can any time be breached between you and the collection of 2 or more because of your individualist nature and that this action(of breaching the agreement of the collective) leads to a finer way of life which you propagate as ideal.

Well we haven't even gotten to this point yet.

In any case, my argument is that deals are individualist undertakings. People can break deals all the time. The only reason deals are upheld are because people care on a perpetual case by case basis.

[noemon]

I'm not arguing that. I said civility PRECEDES statehood.

No, it does not. They both happen simultaneously and rely on each other. As soon as civil code(oral or written) is established between 2 or more individuals a State of Affairs exists among this collective. You are drawing arbitrary tangents to run off into yet another tangent in order to avoid the reality that is my argument which you did not quote in its entirety because it covers this as well.

Even within this collective that is defined by 2 people, ones individualism(for the sake of individualism rather than a tangible mischief-ACTION on the others part is not prudent at all, for that will destroy the civility among these 2 and make Both less secure than they already are. The state is merely the codified extension of this convention. You have not provided any argument contrary to this fact. That is not prudent but pure idiocy, literally and metaphorically.

You have not provided any reason so as to why a person consciously choosing to abandon his community, legal rights and passport for no tangible reason(action) at all and for no other community either, but merely for his own private selfish state of "being" in isolation is not an idiot.

What I challenged is your definition of idiocy being knowable in advance. People won't know how much isolation is too much or how much isolation can be afforded before reaching the breaking point.

I didn't make such a claim, and once again you are lying, to remind you, you claimed that the Greek meaning of idiot as stupid does not apply when an individual abandons the state for idiotic(his own holy privacy) reasons, well my friend if you have a better description of what is an individual who abandons his citizenship due to idiotik(private) reasons, than idiot(stupid), then let's hear it. The breaking point is established as soon as the Idiot(private individual) becomes an idiot(stupid) by abandoning the State(via the abolition of citizenship, when we deal with modern states), or via the abolition of pure civility when dealing merely with one individual at the lowest point of civilization of the imperfect vacuum.

Well we haven't even gotten to this point yet.
In any case, my argument is that deals are individualist undertakings. People can break deals all the time. The only reason deals are upheld are because people care on a perpetual case by case basis.

People can break deals all the time, the question is whether such an action should take place out of a knee-jerk erroneous assumption that you have been forced by your parents to be a citizen of the country you reside. And since you claim that we should and that our parents should too, then you should abandon your citizenship and not give any to your own children or you simply stop propagating that people do. It's that simple. Otherwise the only word suitable is hypocrite. Do you dispute this?