Every time I write about freedom or individualism, there is always a voice of opposition in the comments. And while this is perfectly normal, we don't have to agree 100% (in fact that is what individualism means), however we should be able to agree on only 1 thing:

Do to others what you want to be done to you.

This is the only moral rule (except if you are a masochist, then it it's an issue, but let's just assume that you are a healthy and rational human).

• So when you advocate for taxes, you should also be ok with burglary, mugging, armed robbery happening to you too.
• When you advocate for war, then you should also be ok with an enemy invading you and subjugating you.
• When you advocate for jailing weed farmers, you should also try 30 years of jail yourself, to see how good it feels to be jailed for a plant.
• When you advocate deportation of minorities, then you should also go back to 1935 to see what it really means to be persecuted.
• When you advocate for mass surveillance, then you should have no problem uploading videos of yourself while on toilet, or doing other ackward, humiliating things. It should be all public.

So yes, these are the basic requirements, and if you want these things to happen, but just not to you, then you are a shameless hypocrite.

---

Now with these thoughts out of my mind, let me respond to a discussion I had with @telos previously, that had gone on in my other article:

• https://steemit.com/freedom/@profitgenerator/layers-of-government

We were in the middle of discussing individualism, specifically a topic about violence in society without a benevolent government looking over our shoulders:

You realize there actually were shootouts right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_West_gunfights

Like, that video I posted is how Wild Bill Hickok actually died in actual reality. (I think the rest of the events in Deadwood are hyperbolized, but that was accurate.)

Alright, so this is simple. Gunfights and duels are perfectly OK if they are voluntary. It's an extreme, but morally acceptable way of solving a situation. I would prefer if they would rather play a chess game instead, but if it's a duel, then whatever. I would have no problem with that if both parties would consent to it. It would also save a lot of court fees.

There are 44 people murdered per day in the US. (That doesn't include attempted btw.)

I go outside a lot, and while I've never been in that dangerous of a situation I have seen fights break out several times. I've also been robbed several times. The world is not magically perfectly safe to support your argument.

Moreover I live in a relatively safe area because of police and laws. Again, in places with weak/untrustworthy police you see things like mob justice rather than a decrease in violence.

This is the media exaggerating bad events. Statistically the 44 out of a 325 million population is nothing, so the chance of you getting murdered is 0.000013538%, probably less if you stay out of bad neighborhoods, and probably more if you go out at night or get into unnecessary fights.

This is nothing, it's just that the media likes to hype bad things, because that gets people's attention and generate ad revenue. It's the old scare tactic, because people respond to fear very easily, it's a psychological trick.

People die either way, you can't save everyone. More people die from falling down the stairs, or car accidents.

Police has little to do with keeping a zone safe, because they respond after the crime has been committed. I live in a pretty police free zone, and the crime is low as well. So the correlation between public safety and police is very weak.

In my opinion public safety can be increased in the following ways:

• Promoting a civil society, and friendship, cooperation, starting in schools.
• Promote mixing of cultures, slowly, but effectively, in zones where minorities are in ghettos.
• Decrease the testosterone levels to normal levels, very high testosterone level is always linked to extreme violence.
• Everybody should learn self-defense skills, including the right to bear arms if necessary.

I think if these things are done ,then you will have no need for police, at all.

Go back to my other example. Please tell me how that guy was attacked because of collectivism rather than because he was cheating on his wife?

Ok but usually people don't kill a guy for cheating their wives. They might beat them, but murder is very unlikely. Besides as I said above, if testosterone levels are lowered, people are less violent, this is a proven scientific fact.

I am not even sure if monogamy is the most efficient ways for humans to be. Monogamy was only useful in harsh times like the ice ages, and plagued middle ages, when the survival was hard. But now given all this technology, I hardly doubt there is any need for a permanent wife.

The family bond is not that strong these days as back then, and it is just a reflection of the freedom the individual has. The family is also a form of government, although it's less regarded as that since we are so accustomed to it.

Individualism will mean a break up of the cohesion of the family, whereas you individuals will make free choices, and not be forced by their spouse or parents to do things they don't want to. I'm sorry but this has to happen.

You know the Trojan Wars broke out of a marriage problem. But today who would be so stupid to start a war for a woman?

For instance, why do you post your articles on Steemit? You could set up your own website, and affiliate advertising and sell products (well, I know you've got an eBook) but being part of this collective helps you build an audience that would be more difficult to obtain otherwise.

No, I think a website is easier to profit from but harder to manage, however I don't have time for it. Steemit is quicker and easier to use, and I am not really doing it that much for profit, I just like to share my thoughts here for now. This has nothing to do with this debate.

You say that, but mafia in-fight all the time even knowing they're all armed and the penalty will be death. For instance when one faction hijacked a truckload of illegal liqour (resources!) it touched off a war within the mafia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonanno_crime_family#Castellammarese_War

A mafia is a government. It's just a disorganized, directly violent, and an infant stage of the more organized government you have.

Clearly knowing everyone is armed does not ensure people are respectful to each other. Individuals have even been known to duel over insults, such as when Lincoln publicly chastised James Shields and then had to duel him: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/lincoln-hub/abraham-lincolns-duel.html

OK, so what, if the duel is voluntary and consentual by all parties, then let them have it. If you have 2 idiots who duel eachother over an argument, and they both shoot eachother, then good riddance, you have 2 less idiots on the planet, who could have otherwise harmed innocent people, at least they have eliminated eachother.

Nope. First and foremost, no one ever does something like this expecting to get caught.

Well, the leads will either way lead to them. I mean murdering the lover of their wives, guess who will be the NR.1 suspect. I hardly doubt people can get away with murder with the current technology. And there will be private detective agencies, who will easily find the bad boys.

So if an individual can solve all his own problems, and you think the government is the problem... why don't you solve it?

Well I am trying to solve as much as I can alone, but I can't do it alone. For example I invest my money in cryptocurrency to avoid inflation, and I spread liberty ideas, but that is really all the power I have. It takes a consensus of people to achieve individualism, because only 1 thing we have to agree upon, is the statement I wrote a the beginning of the article.

BTW... I remember you posting an article about owning farmland in another country for passive income. How do you manage to ensure you maintain ownership of that land and no one misuses it or avoids paying you? You know, as an individual?

Well ,if there would be no government, then I'd have to hire security guards to protect the land. As simple as that. As of now ,I pay land taxes and the government supposedly does that, but I have never seen any police guy defending the land.

What the fuck does that have to do with little kids getting kidnapped in the modern day? And do you honestly think that such things only happened due to government? Because obviously, what, no individual pedo would do something like that?

Parents should teach their kids about the dangers of the modern world, something that you don't get taught in public school. One thing is like not uploading provocative photos of your teen daughter on social media, and of course not letting underage girls into nightclubs, that are made for >18, but somehow underage girls still get in there.

Ahh but that's the thing, that's the point really. People have continually had more and more influence over government. That's why such practices were stopped, that's why marijuana is becoming legal, it's why gay marriage was legalized. You call yourself a slave but you just told me how people control the government!

That is nothing. People don't have control over the government. It's just that the rulers have been fed up with all the revolts, so they toss a bone from time to time to the dogs. They compromise a little bit on unimportant issues, so that they keep their power of big issues.

Legalizing drugs? Legalizing gay marriage? These are tiny things. Tell me more when the income tax will be eliminated ,and the military will be reduced by 90%.

Pseudo-economic theories? Huh. Interesting, because whenever anyone argues against minimum wage I'm told increasing everyone's wages just means prices will go up to match.

No. It's far more likely that you will be left without a job. Automatization of labor is coming, and it will be like this:

• Joe makes 1200$/month , Sarah makes 1300$/month, so if minimum salary is increased to 1500$/month, then Sarah gets fired, and Joe will earn 1500$/month. So the company saves 1000$, and who cares about Sarah right?

Says the guy who thinks no human has ever committed violence for individualistic reasons. Or are you going to claim Hermits are collectivist now?

"convicted of being a werewolf" , ah c'mon, I know you can come up with better examples like that. The story is 500 years old, and besides individualism =/= caveman. You would still have a society, it's just that each individual would be the center of it.

---

So this is my response, I hope to hear from @telos to address thee counter-arguments.

---