Category Archives: Individualism

Updated Axis of Human rights 3.0

 

Here is the non-political axis version 3.0.  Changes include:

  • Preferred rights are grouped as they typically are by left/right in Hegelian Dialectics.
  • Areas of likely waste are greyed out toward anarchy.  (sources include commons tragedy, foreign states, natural disaster)   Waste (top) and corruption (bottom) are often conflated in political debate.
  • Capitalism’s center is now marked for illustrative purposes.  It is always between liberty and metrics, and freedom and investment.  If it’s somewhere else, it’s something else.

I’ve included simplified chart with some data from the USA in the year 1800.  It illustrates what can and can’t change over time with these charts.   Notice

  • Capitalism’s center has moved.
  • All but one right has been shifted.
  • Left and right have been removed since this was a concept with later origins.

 

Some other observations comparing the two.

  • In both cases justice ends up adjacent to friendship.  They both share the function of curating the conscience of others, but mainly differ in intensity and scope.
  • In both cases freedom and investment are adjacent.  This is interesting because they intersect at capitalism.    Will explore what happens if they become oppositional.
  • Justice, currency and property are easier to define (perhaps not completely) than other rights.  Perhaps that’s why they assume the role of oppositional identity?

Update: 2021-03-14: Updated both graphs to version 3.2.  Classic MacGuffin and clearer URL added.

Collectivism isn’t a thing.

(Collectivism is the ENTIRE chart)

Collectivism isn’t a thing.  Not how people talk about it anyway.  Mises and Nietzsche both saw collectivism as a weak euphemism for the authoritarian tar pit that it is.  They didn’t know about psychopaths, and therefore they couldn’t know about core human rights, which lays bare the false dilemma.  But they strongly hinted collectivism was a null type (at the discussed scale) from the start.

The reality is individualism vs collectivism is a false dilemma.  Conflation of an archetype and one of it’s sub-types.   Human organizational conflicts over how much of which human rights play out largely as individualism vs authoritarianism.  Collectivism just means human interaction.   It’s the terrain in which authoritarianism and individualism influence human decisions and their outcomes.   Which is at best, trying to compare climate with a specific snowstorm.   Of course the snowstorm is part of climate, everything touching air on earth is.

Authoritarian’s Technology

 


Authoritarians worship technology as a god. Technology is comprised of tools. A coffee mug, a manmade pond, a vehicle, a computer network, a government. An authoritarian values the output of the tool as it’s own end.

An individualist will see the tools as they operate. Measuring their utility based on how they accomplish a purpose. Function is directly derived from form. Recognizing the tool may contain compound decisions they may not or perhaps can not understand.

The authoritarian thinks they are benevolent. Standing on shoulders of giants. This could be true in some cases, but as complexity increases, so does the likelihood it is misapplied. The design data in the working tool is compound data. Narrow decisions made with broad data types for narrow applications. Because it is inexpensive and because it is simple to design as such. A tool can be, and will be, used in unexpected ways. Either as progress, or externalities. So in turn when the ‘applications’ of the tool are strictly followed, it blocks progress, or stymies adaptability to the inevitably unexpected or undesigned. Pure use can become a psychopathic, or top down, blockade to human rights

The individualist treats tools as suggestions. A machine who’s mechanizations were designed with a specific case in mind, perhaps with attributes or utility that were not foreseen. An individualist is a pragmatist in a tools limitations. Application, wear of use, maintenance, use as not intended. They spend their energy separating the compound data built into the design of the technology back into the most pure types available. It’s not that tools can not execute empathy when applied, it’s that it’s likelihood of doing so as time and externalities interact with it approaches zero.

A healthy society seeks empathy. Society will use some tools as intended. Good tool design strives for this. Some designs will be beneficial through unexpected utilities. Healthy society also gives people who will or can understand whatever technology, aka: the technocrats, the space to maximize that utility. It embraces expected outcomes while searching to elevate working knowledge. In other words it’s approach is as complex as is practical.

A healthy society may accept some authoritarian influence, but actively encourages individualism. Recognizing that tools and technology are a means to an end and not an end to themselves. The unexamined tool not only may begin as psychopathic in it’s applications required rigid hierarchy, but will certainly will become so with enough exernality and wear. Hierarchies that control and manipulate technocrats are the most suspect as ill design against a societies pursuit of empathy. A healthy society grants access to, or even provides technocrats with ownership of, all technologies. Early and often. Doubly so if they are the critical means of production on which all depend.

Authoritarians damage society by focusing on technologies strengths and ignoring their weaknesses, adding to corruptions gravity. A hierarchical structure is not a god. It can not be intelligent or empathetic in any lasting way.