Individualism

And I'm not certain that financially contributing to something or not, really makes a difference.

And you're about, at a time most Americans aren't.

It isn't that I dislike the term. The qualification of individualism or individualists as "extreme" is inapplicable, because individualist principles are not polarized or polarizing. I'm not confused by what you meant. I know what you meant and I'm objecting to it.

You are correct that if the orthodox intellectual concept of individualism is applied consistently as the only part of one's moral calculus then you oppose compulsory taxation

 If they don't violate individual rights per se, then what is your point? What is the purpose and intention of citing inaction in the context of individualist philosophy?

I am not an individualist in the typical sense because I think there are some circumstances where the use of force to violate individual rights is justified. However, I do agree that people should not exist as means to an end 

Side constraints upon action reflect the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means; they may not be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia (pp. 30-31). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

Individualism doesn't prevent people from becoming resources.

Individualism scrutinizes the interactions and transactions of individuals and objects to arrangements that are coerced or created through duress. If each participant is willing, then what violation has occurred?

So corporations cause starvation, that is they physically cause blood sugar and insulin levels to drop for extended periods of time by ending a professional arrangement?

So the prospect of any would-be employee who's left to their own devices would be starvation or terrible work conditions in Capitalism?

How is the corporation in any of your examples responsible for the "restricted choice" of a prospective employee?

How are they empowered under Capitalism to fuck up the planet?

Because, again, you are not understanding - its more than just physical ease of access -its also an ease of "ethical" access - they know they will be punished  - which is a type of access - how can you get away with it.

If you know what I meant, then you know what I meant by this:

You are correct that if the orthodox intellectual concept of individualism is applied consistently as the only part of one's moral calculus then you oppose compulsory taxation

And so it is obvious then that we are in agreement and should move on from semantics.

Like I said: 

I am not an individualist in the typical sense because I think there are some circumstances where the use of force to violate individual rights is justified. However, I do agree that people should not exist as means to an end 

Part of the driving force of individualism is that it rejects that people's lives are subservient to groups and interests. This is something I tend to agree with.

What bothers me about individualism is the rigid set of ethical principles it has become. Individualists like you broadly consider any use of initiatory force against an individual as impermissible but completely ignore any maltreatment of individuals that does not employ the obvious use of force (i.e. my business example). People are used in very similar ways if the aforementioned business used initiatory force to gain workers or it didn't, but somehow the former is a great violation of individualist ethics whereas the latter is totally permissible.

Well that's a problem with individualism.  

One participant in the aforementioned business-worker interaction would ideally not consent to the deal, but they have been put in circumstances where they have to.

Consent in an ideal situation is obviously different in circumstance than consent in a non-ideal situation.

Corporations can neglect to treat workers better when they are reasonably able to. That is immoral. They don't cause death physically, but through a chain of events set off by, for example, the ending of a professional arrangement, people end up dying. 

No, but I imagine that would be the prospects for many of them. 

How much choice do you have when you are dead or working under shitty conditions and with shitty payment for doing so? The corporation is responsible for these conditions in that they, as the people with power in the arrangement, chose to make the conditions as terrible as they could without dis-incentivizing people from working for them. 

They're allowed to emit dangerous chemicals into the air, the ground, etc. How much they're allowed to do that depends. 

Of course not - but it allows widespread correction of moral wrongs GENERALLY - so - without government - black people would still be enslaved

it was a government MOTIVATED by capitalism, so how you see government, I see capitalism. 

Government changes - its values, its principles

capitalism will always be about profit, that is the bottom line.

You do realize that the REASON for chattel slavery was the profit right?

Are you that ignorant of basic history

governments are MOTIVATED by the profit of capitalism

and they take on those economic theories (ya know - because the government enforces laws regarding economic theory)

which hurts people.

Your argument is wholly ignoring the actual facts: "Oh my god! The government ONCE allowed chattel slavery."

That's the thing IT CHANGED and then prohibited others from doing it - which is a moral good - in contrast - the only way capitalism would change is if it was no longer profitable

there is no care more any level of ethics - if capitalism is the only standard applicable, there is no ethical standard, period.

Um... you realize that the Union states were ALREADY SLAVE FREE? Right? You realize that slavery was abolished as a general practice informally by the Pittsburg addressed, and officially through the 13th amendment. You don't appear very well versed in history, only in misinterpreting it to agree with your biases.

And simple - because PROFIT does not care for what is ethical - it's that simple - there is no inherent framework in profit that makes any ethical declarations - and since the core goal of capitalism is profit  -  yeah - it follows easily. Capitalism - whose goal is profit - was the direct motivation for slavery - and yes - capitalism can and does influence and motivate governments, you claim it to be a tautology, but fail to actually explain how - only assert that it is the case. 

Again - you merely stating something to be the case isn't evidence of anything.

My point is that capitalism - the only standard which one can have without the "STATE" isn't giving any ethical considerations - which is my point individualism has no standard which prohibits mass unethical practice. 

I'm going to summarize why I believe what I believe here because right now these lines of argument are becoming very large and inefficient. Also, the parts of this conversation where you  ask me why people have positive obligations to other people are the most foundational. 

Every individual is worthy of moral consideration. Their life, as a whole, cannot be rendered subservient to other people's lives because it's very possible that they only experience their life and then the rest of everything is oblivion. Thus it's vital that they don't spend this small and deeply important period of time as a tool for other people who are equal to them. You may not consider this "individualism", but it at least has a nexus with individualism focused on the individual's interests over the "greater good". This "side-constraint" allows us to create societies where everyone is considered (at least ideally). 

Thus, the moral consideration afforded to each person's life makes up a large part of the basis of the obligations that people have towards each other. People, even if they do not "violate" per se individual rights, have obligations not to use them as tools or means to a end and not make it harder for them to leave their own valuable lives. That's why I believe that businesses have obligations to treat people at least fairly well, and why capitalism, as a system that does not impose that standard, is a flawed system. It allows people i.e. corporate entities to use people as means to ends in environmental cases, in cases of employment, etc. These are not the *only* values I have, but it's an important part of the way I think about ethics. 

Based on how "individualism" is currently defined, you are probably more of an individualist than me, and so I would be curious why you only care about maintaining contracts, consent, non-aggression, etc. Because that is the difference between our two views. 

Are you actually serious right now? Seriously - my god you can be daft -- the fact that the system itself is not CONTROLLED by the state, does not mean that the state itself IS NOT capitalistic. 

It's a fairly simple principle - if a government encourages capitalism, does everything it can to protect it, and has the precise same goal as capitalism THEN THAT GOVERNMENT IS EFFECTIVELY capitalistic. Like.. its such a simple idea, and your semantics are getting rather old. 

If there is no way to enforce your own will over another individual - if we are focusing on individualism - then there is literally no way to PROHIBIT anything - there are no guarantees about literally anything -by the mere definition of individualism - its kind of ironic how you fail to see that given your argument regarding capitilsim 

I'm right,

No I AM RIGHT

Saying you are right is not an argument.

Oh yeah? Well did you know that THIS IS true? That is proof of your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY!

No. Let me repeat, I am right.

It seems to me you are DELUSIONAL. I am NOT ANGRY.

'It seems' is not an argument. The clouds look nice today, I have stated to you the reasons why. If you choose to ignore that, it is your issue.

I have not IGNORED anything, I exposed your fallacious thinking and showed you that a blogger I like said the clouds are HIDEOUS TODAY.