GNU social JP
  • FAQ
  • Login
GNU social JPは日本のGNU socialサーバーです。
Usage/ToS/admin/test/Pleroma FE
  • Public

    • Public
    • Network
    • Groups
    • Featured
    • Popular
    • People

Conversation

Notices

  1. Embed this notice
    h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:43 JST h4890 h4890
    in reply to
    • cjd
    • FourOh-LLC
    • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
    • Cosmic MAGA
    • ≠
    • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
    • Korsier

    @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper

    What is interesting to think about is if there is an evolving into the superman, or if it would be more of a revolution?

    Since mind has now defeated matter, an argument could be made that Nietzsches übermensch has now moved into Transhumanist circles.

    To give you one example... some billionaires, millionaires and libertarians are now modifying their genes with treatments like minicircle.io.

    In conversation about 24 days ago from liberdon.com permalink

    Attachments

    1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: minicircle.io
      Minicircle | Gene Therapy for Longevity, Performance & Wellness
      from @minicircledna
      Discover Minicircle’s advanced gene therapies designed to enhance longevity, elevate wellness, and unlock physical potential.
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:44 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper

      Very interesting. Well, in that case, I was probably inspired by Plato, and just forgot about it, with the slight modification, of bolting on extreme decentralization to that cycle.

      But stepping back from the details, I think that cycles does make sense, as long as human beings insist on not evolving their

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:44 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      • Korsier
      @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper

      The "evolving away" was Nietzsche's superman idea, I think.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:45 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper

      I disagre, softly. It can lead to egalitarianism. The reason is envy. It depends on the individualist community, the size of the community and quality of its participants.

      You might remember my theory of the eternal recurrence and cycle. Monarchy->aristocracy->democracy->individualism (the point of ultimate decentralization)->monarchy/aristocracy.

      And on and on it goes. The idea is that we moved from scattered

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:45 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      • Korsier
      @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 @toiletpaper

      "The reason is envy."

      Here we agree.

      "It can lead to egalitarianism."

      It always does!

      "Monarchy->aristocracy->democracy->individualism (the point of ultimate decentralization)->monarchy/aristocracy."

      Very similar to the Platonic cycle, except that he viewed democracy-oligarchy as shuttling back and forth (basically as democracy glitched).
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      Korsier (korsier@libertarian.communitynetwork.space)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:46 JST Korsier Korsier
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      @amerika @h4890 @Cosmic @FourOh-LLC @cjd @verita84 @toiletpaper Egalitarianism is just soft socialism. It's the morality of slaves as Nietsche would say.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:46 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      • Korsier
      @korsier @h4890 @Cosmic @FourOh-LLC @cjd @verita84 @toiletpaper

      Amen!

      "Egalitarianism is just soft socialism."

      The problem is that individualism always leads to egalitarianism, because the largest chunk of the Bell Curve are not able to figure out that this is a terrible idea.

      Thus we need culture and aristocrats to stop falling in this hole. Hoppe was right on this point.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:47 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      • Korsier
      @toiletpaper @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @FourOh-LLC @cjd @verita84

      I think, sadly, that libertarianism needs an update.

      "However when I speak of those terms I mean specifically individual liberty, and the equality of rights (specifically rights to dissent)."

      Exactly, but you cannot sever a term from its origins. Egalitarianism always turns from "equal under the law" to "make those who are less equal more equal by stealing from the already equal" #14A style.

      There are no exceptions.

      I like Golden Delicious apples, but not all apples are Golden Delicious, and I understand Golden Delicious as a variety of apple.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:48 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      • Korsier
      @toiletpaper @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @FourOh-LLC @cjd @verita84

      Two wings of the same bird, and that is bird is named democracy.

      https://www.amerika.org/texts/crowdism/

      Group psychology is destructive, but it is formed of individualism.

      The solution is to have a realistic but transcendent goal.

      Otherwise, it's just monkeys loading up at the trough, whether they do this through jobs or subsidies.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink

      Attachments

      1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: www.amerika.org
        Crowdism
        Post 'Crowdism' On Amerika.org realist conservative blog
    • Embed this notice
      ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:48 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier
      @amerika @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @FourOh-LLC @cjd @verita84

      I skimmed your essay. Some of it rung true to me, though I personally happen to like individualism and equality. However when I speak of those terms I mean specifically individual liberty, and the equality of rights (specifically rights to dissent). That said, I do think having a goal which the whole society is working towards is beneficial as you said. It's how the Giza pyramids were built for just one example. But I don't think such a goal needs to be so grandiose to fulfil the same function.

      For instance, the late Elinor Ostrom provides many examples of communally self-organised and self-governed management of what she terms "common pool resources", which can include things like an area of forest for logging, an estuary for fishing, an irrigation system, an aquifer, etc, which is public in nature, but requires a framework of communal trust and cooperation to manage equitably and sustainably for all who require access. She concludes with 8 principals which make or break the ability to do so effectively, based on 1,000's of case studies both historical and contemporary.

      Even something as small as several farms having to share a stream for irrigating their crops, and maintain the system, schedule time and duration of access, and have a framework to keep each other honest and accountable, is more than sufficient to provide the kind of goal you're advocating. It doesn't have to be on the level of an entire civilisation necessarily. You're quite right that no man is an island, and without that kind of sense of shared ethos and public responsibility, we've lost the heart of what makes us noble as a people. Yet it's far easier to take modest steps to get back to that on a smaller community by community basis, rather than trying to forcibly manufacture agreement of people numbering in the millions or billions.

      Anyway, if you're interested, here's a synopsis.

      https://earthbound.report/2018/01/15/elinor-ostroms-8-rules-for-managing-the-commons/

      And here's the entire book, which in 2009 won her the distinction of being the first woman to be awarded a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

      https://wtf.tw/ref/ostrom_1990.pdf
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink

      Attachments


      1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: i0.wp.com
        Elinor Ostrom’s 8 rules for managing the commons
        from Jeremy Williams
        The commons are those things that we all own together, that are neither privately owned, nor managed by the government on our behalf. Some are large scale and somewhat abstract, such as the English…
    • Embed this notice
      ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:49 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier
      @h4890 @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      The main difference of opinion between capitalists and socialists is essentially negative vs positive rights respectively. The right to dissent is the underpinning of all individual rights (ie. Take "No." for an answer in respect to others' person and lawfully owned property). The moment one tries to conceive of a right to have their "needs" satisfied by others, it starts to impinge on the former, because it requires the collective to seize the property of the individual involuntarily (eg. taxation), and apply force against their person if they resist.

      On the other hand, there's a lot of circumstances where without reasonable limitations on the right to accumulate exclusive property, you could end up with the bulk of society being effectively enslaved to a minority who have monopolised the available property (aka: the 1%). That's basically the crux of the turmoil between the two. Until we figure out a way of sustainably harmonising those two conflicting concerns, the problems will continue.

      The other thing is that concepts like democracy need to be limited such that no collective majority decision can undermine or abrogate the individual's negative rights, otherwise it's just gang rape by another name.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:50 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      Disagree. There is not standard definition, and that is beside the point. When I argue, I do it based on my definition, which I have given, and in light of that, any other definition is irreleveant to the argument.

      I disagree with your definition of individualism. In my book, you are talking about egoism, which in severe cases is a psychological illness.

      When it comes to limits, there are none in some forms of individualism

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:50 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 such as Stirners for instance, or some forms of anarchism.

      When it comes to libertarianism, I'd argue that the majority do subscrib to the NAP.

      However!

      And this is a very important point... the NAP is first of all a result of game theory, which shows that it is the superior strategy for achieving stable social interactions and a prospering society. The NAP is a requirement for markets to work.

      The second point is that

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:50 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 of positive vs negative rights. As a negative right, the NAP cannot be "imposed". It is just the right to not be attacked.

      So there is literally nothing to be imposed, compared with a positive right such as the right to "income" or what ever nonsense the left works with.

      Should someone transgress, you are within your right to defend yourself.

      I fear that our differring definitions of egoism, individualism and positive and

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:50 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 negative rights, as well as how does interact within the framework of libertarianism, is the reason for a lot of misunderstanding.

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:51 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 Yes, many definitions exist. I imagine that if you check leftist publications it's similar to "monster" while checking more conservative or libertarian (if any) it drifts closer to "saint". ;)

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:51 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • Korsier
      @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      Well, actually... NO.

      We have the OED and the standard philosophical definition.

      The remaining problem is a "both sides" issue, namely the Left trying to claim they are not individualistic, and the libertarians trying to impose limits on it like they do with the NAP.

      Bottom line, individualism = me first and deny culture, history, nature, logic, etc.

      That's why it is a diseased pathology.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:52 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • Korsier
      @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      And Britannica, which points out that the definition became politicized and lost coherence beyond the point I mention:

      Individualism, political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Although the concept of an individual may seem straightforward, there are many ways of understanding it, both in theory and in practice. The term individualism itself, and its equivalents in other languages, dates—like socialism and other isms—from the 19th century.

      Individualism once exhibited interesting national variations, but its various meanings have since largely merged. Following the upheaval of the French Revolution, individualisme was used pejoratively in France to signify the sources of social dissolution and anarchy and the elevation of individual interests above those of the collective. The term’s negative connotation was employed by French reactionaries, nationalists, conservatives, liberals, and socialists alike, despite their different views of a feasible and desirable social order. In Germany, the ideas of individual uniqueness (Einzigkeit) and self-realization—in sum, the Romantic notion of individuality—contributed to the cult of individual genius and were later transformed into an organic theory of national community. According to this view, state and society are not artificial constructs erected on the basis of a social contract but instead unique and self-sufficient cultural wholes. In England, individualism encompassed religious nonconformity (i.e., nonconformity with the Church of England) and economic liberalism in its various versions, including both laissez-faire and moderate state-interventionist approaches. In the United States, individualism became part of the core American ideology by the 19th century, incorporating the influences of New England Puritanism, Jeffersonianism, and the philosophy of natural rights. American individualism was universalist and idealist but acquired a harsher edge as it became infused with elements of social Darwinism (i.e., the survival of the fittest). “Rugged individualism”—extolled by Herbert Hoover during his presidential campaign in 1928—was associated with traditional American values such as personal freedom, capitalism, and limited government.

      https://www.britannica.com/topic/individualism
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink

      Attachments

      1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: cdn.britannica.com
        Individualism | Definition, History, Philosophy, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
        Individualism, a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:53 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      Hmm, maybe we should back up here. I was talking individualism as an ethical theory. I suspect here, maybe we are talking past each other?

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:53 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • Korsier
      @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      It all descends from the same place. As you recall, ethical theories are aesthetics, and they have the same disadvantages and advantages that each philosophy does, just applied through an aesthetic filter.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:53 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      Ahh... this I remember is another one of our disagreements. On the one hand, it is just a matter of definition, and for me, I stick with the classical philosophical definition.

      On the other, I think I never was able to wrap my head around what aesthetics (leaving my definition aside for a moment, for the purpose of understanding another point of view) was, and how it was related

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:54 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      Ahh, I see. I think this rests on a misunderstanding of individualism. There is nothing stopping an individual from caring about others, loving others, working with people one does not like in order to realize a greater long term gain etc.

      The self at all cost, to the exclusion of everything else, with an intense short term focus, this I call egoism, which is

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:54 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • Korsier
      @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      I use the philosophical term: the individual above all else.

      This refers to the root of the motivation and explains why it becomes alien to reality studies.

      Related:

      https://www.jackmillercenter.org/article/the-western-canon-answers-the-why-of-journalism
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink

      Attachments

      1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: www.jackmillercenter.org
        The Western Canon Answers the ‘Why’ of Journalism - Jack Miller Center
        from @JackMillerCtr
        It wasn’t until I was halfway through college that I changed my mind about journalism. And it was changed by dead people.
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:55 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84 _in_ myself? Then it is easier to tell my emotional state. Or does it reside _outside_ of myself, such as in meetings, presentations, doing business etc. Then it is not always easy to tell what you feel.

      Naturally my mental "eye" shifts between the external and internal, back and forth, so you get a bit of both. I believe protracted external focus, over time, is not good for the mental health.

      Finally...

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:55 JST h4890 h4890
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      What do you mean with

      "Ironically this is an opposite to individualism, which externalizes the self..."?

      Could you elaborate a bit?

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      ≠ (amerika@annihilation.social)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:55 JST ≠ ≠
      in reply to
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • Korsier
      @h4890 @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      Individualism requires the self first before all else. Since this is unrealistic, it requires rationalization to others, which then twists it to become a performative, symbolic social role.

      It's The Metallica Problem but in a new form.
      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink
    • Embed this notice
      h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Nov-2025 13:02:56 JST h4890 h4890
      • cjd
      • FourOh-LLC
      • verita84 :Debian_logo: :firefox: :bing: :android:
      • Cosmic MAGA
      • ≠
      • Korsier

      @amerika @korsier @Cosmic @cjd @FourOh-LLC @verita84

      Hmm, interesting. At the risk of trying some subjective introspection... Absense of pain, to me, is a fairly neutral state. But to me, this neutral state is vary uncommon, since at any point in time, I have many things going on, or I might think about the nature of the world, myself, our conversations, etc. which does give me certain amounts of pleasure.

      There is also the distinction of attention. Does my attention reside

      In conversation about 24 days ago permalink

Feeds

  • Activity Streams
  • RSS 2.0
  • Atom
  • Help
  • About
  • FAQ
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • Source
  • Version
  • Contact

GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.