"The individual is the greatest minority"

[GPDP]

I've been hearing this from "libertarians" quite a bit, with an obvious jab at what they perceive to be ruthless collectivism, even in today's day and age.

Does this statement even make sense? What do you say against that?

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

"Hence the control by individuals of large scale MOP which are used by many is great tyranny."

[apathy maybe]

It is a damn stupid statement if the term "minority" is used in the same was that "queer" folks are considered a minority.

Individuals are not routinely harassed, denied jobs, have legal sanctions against them, etc. merely because they are "an individual". Queer folks are.

------

Of course, if they merely wish to draw attention to the rights of individuals as opposed to the collective, then that's fine, they just shouldn't use terminology that is understood to mean something else.

(I personally completely agree with statements such as "'the majority has no more right to dictate to the minority, even a minority of one, than the minority to the majority".)

[Demogorgon]

Given that everyone is an individual, it doesn;t exactly make a lot of sense, does it?

The individualism you get from Libertarians is an intellectual con. What they really mean is removing constraints on individual power which in practice means a few people getting to increase their wealth and power while others look out. All those forced into a worse position are also individuals, but you wouldn't think that from the way they talk.

[GPDP]

It just sounds to me like a rhetorical trap, to feign some sense of urgency towards some kind of plight of the "individual".

Thinking of it, doesn't abstracting the "individual" as some concept to defend and give power to give off collectivist vibes? Because we're not talking about a single person here, but everyone that is an individual, which is, of course, everyone.

[Drace]

I have become tired with the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", or all together the 'individual rights' crap.

Those arguments are just dramatizing the non existent. The chains of society, the free market, individual rights...

One does not inherit directly from such freedoms. One does not look up at the sky and praise his liberty and that he is able to pursuit his happiness.
These are of no emotional value, they do not exist.
The term can be used to explain the opportunity of one to do so. The way I hear it from these guys is that those things alone are great fortunes. Determinism guides one to where he will be, so unless this capitalist system allows all to have true opportunity and not "you'll get there if you just try!", none of these terms can be put in effect.

They will describe communism as that of which chains are placed around everyone to disallow one from living for one self.

These individual rights are that of to be able to live, fairly..

The free trade, and these individual rights are only fair if the trade is fair. All trade is meant to be done fairly, but the free market has everyone live under exploitation.
It allows the evil's mind of greed freely take on the others.

Socialism just puts a regulation on trade, to make sure its only done for its right intention. Fair trade.

Who would deny fair trade? -- A capitalist who can exploit others for more then his share? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Moreover, you are part of society.
So do they think that the evil dictator by the name of "Society" will rule everyone for him?

Or as they saw it, the "greater good", which is of course 'bad' (In their delusional vision)
But even so, is it not justified if you have someone work 15 hours for a week if it saves a person's lives? Now our evil leader, Socialist,
will have the person who has his life saved work 30 hours for a few days so the guy who helped him is repaid. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

/end.