Polio Making a Comeback?

NC

Just to clarify a point in my most recent post .
I said “Your system sounds evil. sure government has its problems but these are bugs not features. Your approach is designed this way”

What I mean is any problem with the government, my response is “ok lets work to fix it” Government led to holocaust? Ok lets have a system with checks and balances/separation of powers to prevent one branch (certainly individual) from becoming too strong. Any other problem you identify my response will be the same, ok lets fix it. The “fix” may even be ok lets give that role to the private sector.
Plus the private sector ALSO exists so going back to my original point of discussion regarding clean water. I’m on board with allowing individuals to sue if an entity contaminates water supply. I am not saying leave it solely to the government. I dont think thats enough PLUS as alluded to in last psot STILL need government to adjudicate the lawsuit and to enforce its decision
with your system when there are problems (and there are plenty as I identified) repsosne is thats just the way it has to be.

Also your original comment that first intrigued me namely “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.” was a bit of an understatement. within your worldview of course you don’t

NC

“I’m arguing that the only people making life altering decisions should be the individuals involved. It’s nobody else’s business.”

That isn’t completely true. Depends how you define “individuals involved” obviously you polluting water supply or not paying your fire insurance affects others, arguably those too are “individuals involved” yet they cant stop you

NC

forgive me I have lots of pending comments, but I genuinely find this interesting.

you are exactly right in your analysis of how the conversation progressed

In a pending comment I wrote in response to your comment “I’m arguing that the only people making life altering decisions should be the individuals involved. It’s nobody else’s business.”

That isn’t completely true. Depends how you define “individuals involved” obviously you polluting water supply or not paying your fire insurance affects others, arguably those too are “individuals involved” yet they cant stop you

I think this is the crux of our discussion.
when your decisions DOES affect me do I get a say. , I would assume you’d say no its solely your decision Even if you have say TB you should be allowed to travel the world as you see fit . You should be allowed to dump your toxic by products wherever you want (in public areas) – correct me if I’m wrong.
(You seem to offer conflicting responses since a few posts were defending why private fire departments would be better – if I understand you correctly it doesnt matter, If you choose not to pay for fire insurance and set fire to your house 10 feet from mine during a dry windy season that is yoru right Even if it was a worse system still nobody;’s business what decisions you make. correct?)
Do I have this right?

and other issue of people who cant make their own decisions, whci you conceded was a “kasha”

“What I mean is any problem with the government, my response is “ok lets work to fix it””
How much does it make sense to sink into repairs before it’s just time to scrap the thing? Should China try to “fix” communism rather than abandoning it? Should Germany have tried to “fix” the Nazi Party?

“Ok lets have a system with checks and balances/separation of powers”
Agreed that this is the best we can do in reality.

“The “fix” may even be ok lets give that role to the private sector.”
That’s not a “fix;” that’s just you being maskim in those cases that the government should stay out of it.

“was a bit of an understatement. within your worldview of course you don’t”
No, because you can have an ideal for a perfect government (or lack thereof) while also holding opinions on how the US government should operate in real life.

“no problem is the opposite of what you are suggesting in whcih we only help put out your fire if you pay us”
Ah, no that’s my bad. We were talking about private fire departments because you brought an example of one, so I was defending the idea. I still agree that volunteer ones are good and potentially superior. I was not arguing against voluntarily putting out fires.

“Are you suggestign there would be less abuse of children with no government?”
No, I agree that you’re most likely correct that the problem would get worse. Nonetheless, it’s still a prediction whereas government atrocities are an observable reality.

“go for it. I cant think of any specific areas”
OK, since you can’t think of any areas where you would cut back government I’ll use the same argument you used above on this page: when you said you do support public health, it “was a bit of an understatement. Within your worldview, of course you do.”

“when your decisions DOES affect me do I get a say”
The problem is then it becomes a game of how to twist everything into “affecting me” so that I get to tell everyone how to live their lives.

“Do I have this right?”
I’m not sure. I don’t mean to be rude, but I actually didn’t understand a lot of what you meant in there. It seemed like there were some words missing or something.

NC

How much does it make sense to sink into repairs before it’s just time to scrap the thing? ….
Agreed that this is the best we can do in reality.”

So we are doing ok! Not like China or naziism.
No need to scrap . If there was then scrap

“That’s not a “fix;” that’s just you being maskim in those cases that the government should stay out of it.”
Yes!
I propose the perfect system call it a fix or not. Whatever works

.

I’ll use the same argument you used above on this page: when you said you do support public health, it “was a bit of an understatement. Within your worldview, of course you do.”

Yes! Not an argument. That’s a compliment. Public health is probably the greatest government success there is eradication of smallpox near eradication of polio. Clean water sewage control all has led to a huge rise in life expectancy.
Of course I support it directly led to better outcomes. Something the private sector did not and could not do.
That’s not a gotcha. Exactly right of course I support it

“when your decisions DOES affect me do I get a say”
The problem is then it becomes a game of how to twist everything into “affecting me” so that I get to tell everyone how to live their lives.

Thats true
So we vote and decide as a group.
It has to be that way. Your system.has the same problem. I say target shooting in my apartment with its thin walls and a family on the others side only affects me. I imagine they feel. Differently. Some say polluting drinking water doesn’t affect anbody else those down stream feel differently
How do we decide what’s your own buisness and what affects others?

amom > Public Health may have parts that were successful, but mostly unsuccessful.
Look at the trust the public has in this agency

If you take a broader/longer view of public health, it is extremely successful. Just think of families, R’L 100+ years ago when up to half of children routinely did not survive till adulthood … there were also problems that were caused by modernity. For example, people drank milk with reasonable safety – until they moved to big cities and milk was transported and stored …

Of course, Jews were practicing natilas yadayim well before that. Interesting fact, Natan Strauss (Macy’s/Netaniya, Rehov Strauss in Yerushalaim) spend a lot of time convincing New York City to pasteurize that milk – fighting those ignorami who did not trust it. Btw, he also built Lakewood hotel – because when his relatives were visiting him, they were not allowed to stay at the hotels in Lakewood …

“That’s not a gotcha. Exactly right of course I support it”
So then my response when you said the inverse to me is:

That’s not a gotcha. Exactly right, of course I don’t support it!
You’re consistent in your shittah of seemingly always supporting government, and I’m consistent in my shittah of seemingly never supporting it.

“So we are doing ok! Not like China or naziism.
No need to scrap . If there was then scrap”
To circle all the way back to my original point, I believe the CDC and NIH are bad enough to need to be scrapped.

“So we vote and decide as a group.”
If the majority, or even plurality of people drive Fords, should I have to drive a Ford instead of anything else? Why should I be given the individual choice to go against the majority? You like the services that the CDC and NIH provide, so you can pay for them, but I don’t, so why should I have to?

“How do we decide what’s your own buisness and what affects others?”
With guns and lawsuits.

“just think of families, R’L 100+”
None of the federal, public health organizations in question existed 100+ years ago. Louis Pasteur did not make his discoveries on behalf of the government.

“Natan Strauss (Macy’s/Netaniya, Rehov Strauss in Yerushalaim) spend a lot of time convincing New York City to pasteurize that milk – fighting those ignorami who did not trust it.”
I don’t think the City is in the business of pasteurizing milk. I assume you mean he lobbied them to ban unpasteurized milk even though it in no way affects him if someone else choses to take the risk and drink it. Yes, people were forcing their own beliefs on others a long time ago too, maybe even more so. That doesn’t prove that it’s a good idea.

NC

“You’re consistent in your shittah of seemingly always supporting government, and I’m consistent in my shittah of seemingly* never supporting it.”

That isnt my shita. but yes You’re consistent I didn’t mean to imply otherwise

when conversation first began and you said “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.t” I thought I would “get you” statement was (and is) so preposterous to me that I assumed 1) you dint know what public health was (are we differed on what was included) or 2) you hadnt thought the statment through

I was completely wrong
You have your shita driven by, I’m not sure what exactly, but interesting nonetheless
But it isnt a “public health” shita. At first I (wrongly) assumed it was. thats what I meant by my comment.
Granted I dont have a soley “public health” shita either, but the conversation started with your statement which I thought was about public health

“If the majority, or even plurality of people drive Fords, should I have to drive a Ford instead of anything else?”
no.
See I dont always support the government. There should be no regulation requiring everyone to buy Fords

“You like the services that the CDC and NIH provide, so you can pay for them, but I don’t, so why should I have to?”
Because you benefit from them. And even if you think you don’t or even if you actually dont its part of living in society. Same as if you oppose war your taxes fund wars. You are of course free to vote for an anti-war candidate or and anti-CDC candidate. But at some point collective decisions need to be made and not every indicdual is happy (You knew this I dont get what your getting at)

“With guns and lawsuits.”
Am I right in assuming you oppose gun limiting legislation? what about machine guns? heavy weapons/explosives such as bazookas/ grenades? chemical weapons? any restrictions on those?

Also how are the judges apointed who enfoirces their decisions?

(* you stuck in “seemingly” was this intentional? is there some government entity/regulation that you do support that I haven’t uncovered?)

“Then give me an example where you don’t support the government. A real, concrete example. ”

I thought I did
I oppose a regulation requiring everyone to buy Ford cars.

“I have yet to see any evidence that you actually support any limits on the government by the people or even from within the government.”
Because you have yet to provide an example where we would be better off not being regulated. (Besides the Ford example)

“I would benefit from the Ford too,”
I’m not sure what you mean. you DO benefit from the eradication of smallpox, you DO benefit from clean water and air. you benefit from food safety regulations etc etc. Not “would benefit” therefore it is fair to have your taxes fund them. You say “Also, I’d prefer to leave it up to me what I do and don’t benefit from.” But the problem is youre wrong. You don’t think you benefit from all these examples when you clearly do . You think a private fire department would work and that everybody would pay their fire insurance (a demonstrably wrong supposition) . This answers your question “Why are you so afraid of leaving it up to this”

Agree with you on slippery slope arguments.

“If you have time, look up “night watchman state.”

Thanks! (earlier I asked for more background on this view of yours – thanks)

“I thought I did
I oppose a regulation requiring everyone to buy Ford cars.”
That’s not a real example. That was a hypothetical I gave to make a mashal. If you have no examples of anything the government currently does that you would want to cut, then I stand by what I said. If my opinion on public health is invalidated by me being too anti-government in general, then your’s is invalidated by you being too pro-government in general.

“I thought I would “get you” statement was (and is) so preposterous to me that I assumed 1) you dint know what public health was (are we differed on what was included) or 2) you hadnt thought the statment through”

Just to recap this again because I think it’s important: when you failed to “get me” because I was actually consistent, you switched to calling me evil. Obviously, I’ve considered the merits of the pro-government side since that occupies the mainstream. Have you ever truly entertained the merits of the alternative? Have you even tried? So far as I can tell, your only interest in keeping this going is to be “fascinated” by me as you would by a circus freak. That’s not really a role I’m interested in continually filling for you.

“Because you have yet to provide an example where we would be better off not being regulated.”
Most people asides from diehard bootlickers are finally coming around and admitting that the 2020 overreach was too much. I guess your motto is that we’ll have to pry your medical tyranny from your cold dead hands. Also, why do you need me to feed you an example? Most people, even liberals, have examples of government functions or regulations that they would like to see go. The fact that you don’t seem to have any might make your position as un-mainstream as mine. At the very least, you would end up with more stiras. Do you support state bans on abortion while also supporting federal funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you somehow support republican-proposed bans on trans athletes while also supporting their forced inclusion?

“you DO benefit from the eradication of smallpox, you DO benefit from clean water and air.”
So, if the government did force me to buy a Ford, and I drove that Ford around and benefitted from it, then it would be wrong to me to oppose the law mandating me to get it? Once I benefit from something, I’m no longer allowed to oppose it? That makes no sense to me. Of course you could point out that I “benefit” from these things. I just think I would “benefit” more if it were turned over to the private sector, or I could just be saying the costs outweigh the benefits. My point has never been predicated on the argument that I don’t derive any benefit from the government.

“Look up negative externality”
Doesn’t really seem to be a new point that hasn’t been discussed. The Love Canal example from early on here would be an example of that. It’s notable that this economic concept was invented just over a century ago to justify more taxes. It’s even referred to as the “Pigovian Tax” after the economist who mainly wrote about this.

“Your opinion on public health isnt “invalidated” either again I’m not sure what you mean.”
It seemed like you were suggesting that I don’t have the right to specifically criticize public health when I also have criticisms for all parts of government. I don’t actually believe your argument is invalid, I was just showing you what it feels like to have the shoe on the other foot.

“I didn’t call you evil, I called not caring about children getting … evil.”
Agreed, but you’re obviously implying that I don’t care about that, which I never said. I said that was a weak spot in my shitta since I don’t see how that would be mitigated without government.

“Any problems with my system are ones that I’d address. A system that addresses problems is better in my book than one that ignores them.”
So, you would contend that you have the answers for literally everything? By me admitting that I don’t, I somehow lost credibility? Does that really make sense?

“I dont support state bans on abortion”
OK, yet you do support regulation in other areas (which is fine). Yet, somehow if I support deregulation in one area, I have support it everywhere? I’m not going to ask you if you want to legalize random other things just because you want abortion to be legal. So, why did you keep asking me about other government functions? What if I had said “yes, I do support THAT part of government” to one of you inquiries? Would I then “lose” for being inconsistent?

“not being mainstream isnt a problem. Whatever works. thats my position. yours doesn’t”
I don’t mean to devolve this into insults, but this is just flat out arrogance. Of course you believe your ideas “work” and mine “don’t,” otherwise there would be nothing to talk about. There’s no constructive point in saying that other than demonstrating that you’re very sure of yourself. And, while I’m being a degenerate anyway, your opinions actually just seem like mainstream, textbook liberalism at this point (not saying that as an insult as I couldn’t care less about the left/right split). The unwavering dedication to the moral superiority of collectivism seems a bit foreign like Canadian/European or Israeli perhaps, but I guess it’s frighteningly possible that full-blooded Americans are now ending up with that level of disregard for individual liberty.

NC

“Your opinion on public health isnt “invalidated” either again I’m not sure what you mean.”
It seemed like you were suggesting that I don’t have the right to specifically criticize public health when I also have criticisms for all parts of government.”

You have the righjt to criticize whatever you want. I’m sorry if I implied otherwise

“So, you would contend that you have the answers for literally everything? By me admitting that I don’t, I somehow lost credibility? Does that really make sense?”
Yes.
Keep in mind my system includes yours. So while in your system the only thing stopping a terrorist from releasing chemica l wepaons on the subway is threat of a lawsuit. In my system yo ucna still sue him! Plus we have regulations to (try) to prevent him from getting them in the first palce. Ditto for posoing water whith heavy metals

“OK, yet you do support regulation in other areas (which is fine). Yet, somehow if I support deregulation in one area, I have support it everywhere?”

I’m not sure what you mean by “have to” I though t that was your position, no government regulation. as mentioned several times (though you dont believe me) , my position is not “regulate everything” my position is whatever works.

” So, why did you keep asking me about other government functions? What if I had said “yes, I do support THAT part of government” to one of you inquiries? Would I then “lose” for being inconsistent?”

Lose what?
Yes you would be inconsistent. when I described your position as “closer to anarchy” you said this was correct. (1/6/25 CE 10:45 AM) So yopu supporting “parts of government” makles you not an anarchist.

“I don’t mean to devolve this into insults, but this is just flat out arrogance. Of course you believe your ideas “work” and mine “don’t,” otherwise there would be nothing to talk about. There’s no constructive point in saying that other than demonstrating that you’re very sure of yourself. And, while I’m being a degenerate anyway, your opinions actually just seem like mainstream, textbook liberalism at this point (not saying that as an insult as I couldn’t care less about the left/right split). The unwavering dedication to the moral superiority of collectivism seems a bit foreign like Canadian/European or Israeli perhaps, but I guess it’s frighteningly possible that full-blooded Americans are now ending up with that level of disregard for individual liberty.”

Not an insult. Agree with (almost) every word of this paragraph. copied it verbatim, very well put. (except 1) “frighteningly possible” thats a great thing not frighteing
and 2) you said “Of course you believe your ideas “work” and mine “don’t,””
Its not a “belief” Ive demonstrated it. Child abuse, you agree on. ditto for other vulnerable groups. fire department weve covered you are forced to create an imaginary world where “probably” people would buy insurance . etc etc. You support terrorist having the right to buy automatic weapons and chemical weapons (1/11/25 CE 9:16 PM) . I dont hink its fair to call it a “belief” that this wont work. I get it, you view “individual liberty” as being the most important goal. and this is the price to pay but this is not a workable system

ubiquitin,

“I propose the perfect system call it a fix or not. Whatever works”

The elephant in the room is that what to you is the “perfect system” and “whatever works” might just be a nightmare system to someone else. A debate on the methods to “get there” is meaningless when the debaters don’t even agree on the destination.

ubiquitin,

“and I’m not sure we are “debating” I don’t think there is a possible winner.”

The definition of a debate is discourse where two opposing opinions are presented, so it seems to me that this is precisely a debate.

“The individual believes he is a great driver even drunk”

So your presumption is, in essence, that individuals are too stupid or selfish to do the right thing, so we need some form of “benevolent” collective that, in addition to providing societal services, also rigorously polices behavior. Maybe that’s how we got ham handed Covid policies that treated citizens as if they were the problem, not the virus. The catch to the collective is that it is really just a bunch of individuals put together, so it follows that they will also be too stupid and selfish to do the right thing. Maybe that’s why the Covid policies enacted were astonishingly ineffective at dealing with Covid and downright toxic to the public well being, but quite good at idolizing certain people while lining the pockets of special interests and pharmaceutical companies.

My presumption is that most individuals try to do what is best for themselves and for others. There is a minority who are anti-social or malevolent, and some who may be ignorant of the effect of an action on others. That’s why we need some government regulations and enforcement, but the preservation of individual freedom to act in one’s own interest should be preserved to the highest extent possible, which you do not seem to value. My guess is that you will try to say we agree because we both support regulations in some instances, but that is not the case. Intent is important. A government creating regulations because it distrusts the population will ultimately result in tyranny. When reading the US Constitution, it seems that the biggest concern it attempted to address was the behavior of government, not of individuals.

avram

quick clarification of what I meant by “and I’m not sure we are “debating” I don’t think there is a possible winner.”

Yo uare are of course right that strictly speaking it is a debate. I meant that I’m not looking to convince him nor do I supect it is possible, nor am I looking to be convinced (it definitely isn’t possible).
Most people I hang out with are fairly similar. We agree more than we disagree, yo ufall squarely into that category. You said “That’s why we need some government regulations and enforcement” Sure a little more regulation a little less, more weight to the individual vs to the collective. meh that isnt interesting to me (no offense) Your entire last reply and mine didn’t really add anything

Im just learning more about a fascinating view. One that advocates for unrestricted access to biological weapons, , thats not a view I encounter everyday

Also one other point:
your point about the constitution shows the opposite you said “When reading the US Constitution, it seems that the biggest concern it attempted to address was the behavior of government, not of individuals.” they took it as a given that a government was necessary. Sure they favored a limited government, but the need for a Government was a given “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” EXACTLY as IVe been saying not like NC
They (correctly) realized that every man for himself would NOT result in general welfare notr establish Justice nor secure blessings etc .
Again this isnt a real chidush to you I iamgine you agree, (of course he can argue that they were wrong, and would have MORE general welfare and blessings of Liberty WITHOUT a constiton. ) Sure we can quible how strictly you interpret the constitution but again I dont find that particularly interesting

ubiquitin,

“No, with a group of people and checks and balances hope is the stupidy will “even out””

Hasn’t been my experience. Maybe you hang out in better groups 🙂

“sure we can quibble on HOW MUCH regulation.”

I don’t see it as a quibble. You’re in the medical field. Is it a quibble on HOW MUCH medication to give a patient? How are those outcomes for ya? But I get it that you’re trying to create a dichotomy with Neville’s philosophy, so fine, have it your way.

“Though doesnt this undermine your problem with my approach. If most people “try to do what is best for themselves and for others” then how did we we get ham handed Covid policies that treated citizens as if they were the problem, not the virus?
People want whats best unless theyre int eh government? seems odd, and even if true ok then lets get a new government”

There’s a few reasons for this. One: to quote Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” It’s not odd, studies have shown that a disproportionate number of sociopaths become business leaders, government leaders, etc. And those who come into politics or other positions of authority face an extreme yetzer hara of corruption. Two, note I also included a category of those ignorant of the effect of their actions. That category is much larger than sociopaths and malevolents, and unfortunately ran rampant during Covid. Part of the problem was a worship of “experts” who may have been trained in a specific area (and sometimes not – why were media outlets seeking medical advice from Bill Gates?), but were asked to inform decision making in arenas far removed from their expertise, or pushed for solutions that personally benefited them. Three: groups are subject to groupthink and herd mentality.

AAQ
“I am, frankly, for almost any regulations at state level.”
It seems like what you meant to say is that you support relegating all regulations to the state level rather than federal. The way you worded it made it sound like you would always vote yes on any new regulation proposed by a state regardless of its merit, which is why you got the strong response from Avram. I initially read your comment in that way as well and was taken aback at first, but I’m guess you’re opinions are actually largely in line with Avram’s given what you’ve since said about federal government.

Ubiq
“No, with a group of people and checks and balances hope is the stupidy will “even out””
Yet you don’t actually support this. You overtly support government bodies that create rules without an act of congress. If you actually supported checks and balances, you would be fine getting rid of the EPA, for example, and letting all of its rules just be enacted through the normal channels. You would also oppose emergency powers for the president since there are almost no checks or balances to that potential stupidity.

“Hasn’t been my experience. Maybe you hang out with better people”
The mere fact that you are shocked by the novelty of caring about individual liberty speaks volumes about who you surround yourself with. So, yes, I can tell you confidently that Avram and I hang out with better people. You either exist in a very liberal bubble, or modern-day conservatives just do a terrible job of articulating these concepts because they’re too busy whining about political correctness and other things that don’t matter, so you’ve never actually come across the real meat of it before.

Ubiq, could you explain within your shittah why it wouldn’t just be intrinsically better for everyone if you were just the dictator of the country? Even by your own admission, the checks and balances that you claim to support only partially filter the stupidity. In a democracy, you’ll have people coming to the “wrong” or “stupid” conclusions at least some of the time. Wouldn’t the only optimized system be the avoid this completely and let you just enact your perfect system? I’m saying hypothetically, not accusing you of actually supporting totalitarianism in real life. Also, if your answer is “yes,” I’m assuming you would contend that everyone else also theoretically holds this way regarding their own ideas for ideal government, so my question is pointless and contrarian?

“Seat belt laws are an example that some would argue doesn’t affect others.”
Hate to waste time on this side point, but this really trolled me. “One could argue?!” How could you possibly argue not wearing a seatbelt DOES affect others? If you’re willing to stretch to the point of saying someone else’s decision to not wear a seatbelt actually affects you personally, then I’m sorry but you cannot in good faith keep saying that you “only support regulations when it affects others.” What the proper phrasing would be is: “I always support regulations that make people behave more like me, and will always reframe reality in such a way that I can argue it affects other people no matter how ludicrous it may seem.”

“People want whats best unless theyre int eh government? seems odd, and even if true ok then lets get a new government””
We could just easily flip this argument on you: People are all selfish and stupid as individuals unless they work for the government? Only people working for the government want what’s best? Seems odd.

Neville > The way you worded it made it sound like you would always vote yes on any new regulation proposed by a state regardless of its merit,

Of course, I’ll vote according to my own sechel. What I am saying, a lot of things that are considered, l’havdil “sacred” by one or another side of american politics, will be ok to be violated at state level. USA will still work if Connecticut will have an official church and if Pennsylvania quakers will ban all guns. Early on, all freethinkers from Massachusetts moved to form Rhode Island and both states survived fine. If things will be difficult, maybe enough Yidden would move to South Dakota and make it into a halachik state that will live in peace with a sharia state in North Dakota.

With less federal power, we will stop these silly high stake battles for president. You want to have high taxes, live in a state with high taxes … The Presidential elections then will be mostly about military and foreign politics.

Neville, states had those rights as you admit; Connecticut did have official religion. Things changed after post civil war amendments when rights were expanded to states, maybe also some court decisions. I am sure there are lawyers here who can explain further. And that was not the end of changes, with income tax, direct vote for senate allowed dramatic expansion of federal government. You can try to restore state rights without restoring slavery, of course.

Again, difference between moving to another country is that states have common language, economy, interstate travel and commerce making moving between states easy.

NC

“the arbitrary distinction everyone makes between private and government in the favor of government (eg. a corporation paving over a community = evil, but the government eminent domain’ing over a community = progress)”

I’m not sure thats arbitrary. Arbitrary means based on random choice or whim. There’s a reason why we have that distinction. A good reason in my opinion, one that you certainly reject but that doesn’t make it a not system. Its not random that we allow the government to lock up people even kill people but not private people, similarly the government taking over land is not the same as a private person doing so. I get that in your view it is (if not worse) but the distinction is not arbitrary.

I do agree that staes vs federal distinction, today is somewhat arbitrary. Historically people views it as “These United States” though htis is has been largely if not completely supplanted by “The United States”

“I’m curious if this is a strictly government thing, or individuals always trump groups”
The simplest answer is that individuals trump groups, but I sort of reject the whole idea of “groups.” Even a hardcore collectivist such as yourself is inherently acting on your own self-interests. You’ve just convinced yourself of your own benevolence and selflessness. Your insistence on using the state to coerce people to fit your ideals has everything to do with wanting people to conform to be like you and nothing to do with caring about anyone. If you cared about people, you would let them live their best lives by their own free will. This trait is shared by seemingly all doctors, so I find it impossible to believe that you’re “the odd one out” in the people you associate with. Most doctors basically wish America was North Korea.

“Is this wrong in your view, since the individual is losing his rights? Or no, the individual chose to join the group and that includes giving up his right to music”
The question is a false dichotomy. If he has the choice to leave and go listen to music, then he isn’t losing his right (unless I’m misunderstanding the scenario). He’s not being coerced if he’s agreeing to live by a certain set of rules. We agree to abide by the halacha without being coerced; why would that be a problem?

“Is it immoral to force him to abide by it?”
Yes, but that isn’t the scenario you created. You said people came together willingly and formed a pack to live by these rules. Anyone can just leave the pack at any time. Where’s the coercion there?

“I bought or inherited one of these homes, am I bound by the rules? I never agreed to them”
You would look into the HOA rules before buying a home, right? By buying it, you are agreeing to the rules.

“Is any of the above different if I play music quietly on earphones (hard to imagine how that affects anyone else. even Icant come up with an argument) vs out loud on speakers on my porch vs at 2 AM”
Depends on how the rules work in your hypothetical universe. Are you asking me in real life if I think there’s a difference between listening quietly and out loud? Yes, obviously, and so do you. If this imaginary HOA built into the contract that they can evict or fine people even for headphones, then I guess it wouldn’t make a difference in that universe.

What’s the ikker here? Are you asking if I would agree with the music ban that affects nobody else? No, would you? Are you asking if the general idea of HOA rules would exist in an anarchist society? Yes, of course, they would probably be way more prevalent than they are today, but it’s not coercion if people agree to it.

“I get that in your view it is (if not worse) but the distinction is not arbitrary.”
You gave no reasons as to why it’s not arbitrary. You just repeated several times that it’s not even though I think it is. You agree in principle that someone should not be coerced into paying for a product they don’t want… but, somehow it’s okay when the government does exactly that, ah but only in cases where you personally approve it, so not the Ford example. The only reason the philosophical logic makes sense to you is because you were raised with it and have never considered anything else. If you are still going to steadfastly refuse to consider the possibility that this axiom of government’s right to coerce is false, then why are you still talking to me?

NC

“Even a hardcore collectivist such as yourself is inherently acting on your own self-interests. You’ve just convinced yourself of your own benevolence and selflessness”

for sure true (the first part) I dont want drunk drivers becasue I dont want to get hit by one. This is true for all the examples given I dont want anyone to have access to chemical weapons becasue I dont want them to harm me (or those I care about)

“. If you cared about people, you would let them live their best lives by their own free will. ”

No this is silly. Letting someone follow his beleif of achieving eternal salvation by following his free will and releasing a chemical weapon isn not “caring about people” ditto for drunk driving, poisoing water. or all the examples we gave.
The one time were it was strictly carign about OTHER people, Seatbelt laws were I dont cover their health care, I’m a little conflicted should we protect “the brain too stupid enough to protect itself”? I’m not sure.

” This trait is shared by seemingly all doctors, so I find it impossible to believe that you’re “the odd one out” in the people you associate with. Most doctors basically wish America was North Korea.”
I dont hang really hang out with doctors, and definitely never discuss politics

What’s the ikker here?

Trying to understand your view of the groups, at first yo usaid “The simplest answer is that individuals trump groups, but I sort of reject the whole idea of “groups.”” Though HOA’s you are ok with . Which is throwing me off a little

“You gave no reasons as to why it’s not arbitrary. You just repeated several times that it’s not even though I think it is. ”

Apologies I thought I did .Arbitrary means with no rhyme or reason
An individual acts in his own self interest, even at the detriment of others. People have different even conflicting self interests. Too sort out who wins we created a government to weigh different options, whats more important this guy living here or a road to benefit many? So the Government representing the people decides on behaldf of the most people. This is not the same as an a individual deciding for himself.

you definitely dont agree with it. But it isnt “Random” it is a system. A bad one in your opinion, but a system nonthless.

“You agree in principle that someone should not be coerced into paying for a product they don’t want… but, somehow it’s okay when the government does exactly that, ah but only in cases where you personally approve it, so not the Ford example. The only reason the philosophical logic makes sense to you is because you were raised with it and have never considered anything else. ”

No, its not ok when the government does that. It is ok when the government does that for the benefit of society. So would society beenfit if you had a Frod? No therefore it is an example I dont approve. Would society benefit if you had to buy Auto insurance yes, therefore you have to buy that.

how did we decide Ford is not beneficial but auto insurance is? We elect representives to decide these things.
(IF you dont like the representative sytem, we can switch to direct democracy but that ios a side issue, the main issue is that as a group we are all better off if indivudals follow rules)
Again, I’m not trying to convince you. But this isnt arbitraary this a clear system.,

“he only reason the philosophical logic makes sense to you is because you were raised with it and have never considered anything else.”

No IVe considered it, I’ll consider it again. Do I want drunk drivers ? Nope. Molested children? nope (not sure if this is due to self interest but if it is, stil ldont want it) people poluting my drinking water? nope I dont like it.

If you are still going to steadfastly refuse to consider the possibility that this axiom of government’s right to coerce is false, then why are you still talking to me?”
Ive considered the possibility
As I said I find your view fascinating

“Though HOA’s you are ok with . Which is throwing me off a little”
I still don’t understand the kasheh. Were you actually asking if I would support collectivist-inspired HOA rules? Of course I wouldn’t. Was the question on individualism or on anarchism/minarchism? They aren’t intrinsically related at all.

“What do you mean by “people agree””
Lol it was your hypothetical! What did YOU mean by people agree? I thought you meant everyone in this theoretical pact agreed to stop listening to music, not just a majority.

“Why isnt a state or a larger country (like you I agree this distinction today is arbitrary) simply a large HOA?”
This is the main argument of the so-called “anarcho-communist” Noam Chomsky types, that being subjugated by private companies is no better than being subjugated by the government. I don’t agree with them, because in a free market you can take your business elsewhere (at least more freely than you can take your citizenship elsewhere). The larger country or state is worse because it’s inherently a monopoly and even worse a monopoly that can force people to give it money.

“implying you are ok with the group trumping an individual.”
Again, morally/philosophically I don’t think an individual should get in trouble (whether by a state or an HOA) for doing something that does not affect anyone else, so I would oppose the HOA rule you had in your scenario. To clarify as best as I can, if you were asking:
-As an individualist, would I support HOA rules that are collectivist in nature simply because an HOA is private not public? No, individualism doesn’t have anything to do with government or lack-thereof.
-Are anarchists ok with HOA rules? Depends on which school of anarchism. That one is probably the far more interesting question, but I’m not really the person to ask.

“No IVe considered it, I’ll consider it again. Do I want drunk drivers ? ”
You’re conflating individualism with anarchism (and also misunderstanding anarchism a bit). This is my fault for murkying that up. Individualism is a very mainstream approach that has nothing to do with politics. If you’re now admitted to making decisions based on your own self-interests rather than for the good of the motherland/humanity/collective/whatever, then you’re theoretically an individualist, but I don’t really buy it. Your stances show that you do want to tell people who to live their lives even when it has no effect on you whatsoever. Allowing people to hurt other people is not an individualist ideal, nor have I ever claimed it was.

AAQ
“look up commerce clause that leaves interstate commerce to congress and not states”
How would you maintain this while also having the states not be chayev in the Constitution? If a state wanted to make their own currency, and refuse to do business with any other state, what would stop them? And, what makes the commerce clause a “fundamental of the Constitution” while the 14th amendment is just something you think should be scrapped? How can you use a constitutional argument from authority when your whole stance is predicated on ignoring the constitution?

“because in a free market you can take your business elsewhere (at least more freely than you can take your citizenship elsewhere). The larger country or state is worse because it’s inherently a monopoly and even worse a monopoly that can force people to give it money.”

Got it thanks

“To clarify as best as I can, if you were asking:
-As an individualist, would I support HOA rules that are collectivist in nature simply because an HOA is private not public? No, individualism doesn’t have anything to do with government or lack-thereof.
-Are anarchists ok with HOA rules? Depends on which school of anarchism. That one is probably the far more interesting question, but I’m not really the person to ask.”

It was the second.

.” If you’re now admitted to making decisions based on your own self-interests rather than for the good of the motherland/humanity/collective/whatever, then you’re theoretically an individualist, but I don’t really buy it. Your stances show that you do want to tell people who to live their lives even when it has no effect on you whatsoever.”

I don’t really buy it either. I think I would support telling people how to live even when it has no effect on me whatsoever.. But IM more on the fence about it and definitely don’t think its crazy or evil to think otherwise. That was not the part of your view I found interesting (again IM not sure especially when we consider that the example I did call evil namely being ok with child molestation (not that you’re ok with it but your system is) isn’t one that affects me yet that was one of my earliest problems with your approach).

Allowing people to hurt other people is not an individualist ideal, nor have I ever claimed it was.

No but it is an inevitable absolute certain outcome of your approach. More so than mine. If there is no rule against drunk driving people will drive drunk and hurt other people (even with the rule people do it 1. Its probably less 2. We can stop them if caught BEFORE anyone is hurt)

AAQ
“I am not sure why you don’t agree with this,”
Because if I’m going to have a state that can coerce me into giving it money and being subjected to its will, then I want it to be as limited as possible. States are free to “compete” by giving us even more rights that what the Constitution guarantees, but I see no advantage to the consumer in them being able to give less.

“14th amendment came later after civil war. Constitutional structure existed from the beginning. Ikar v tofel.”
That’s a cute way of justifying only using the parts of the Constitution that serve your shittah, but it’s a nonsensical distinction. You now have to also ignore the Constitution’s ability to be amended so that you can justify ignoring all amendments, but to do so would ignore part of what you call the “ikar.”

Ubiq:
“No but it is an inevitable absolute certain outcome of your approach”
Again, individualism isn’t anti-rule and has nothing to do with government. It’s a philosophical school associated with people like Ralph Waldo Emmerson. It has no shaychus to anything you’re saying.

“If there is no rule against drunk driving people will drive drunk and hurt other people”
I actually think this is a horrible example for your own argument. If someone is willing to take the risk of killing himself and/or other people, it isn’t a traffic ticket that’s going to stop him. I agree there should be rules against drunk driving (not sure why you keep saying I say otherwise), but they’re punitive, not preventative.

“And I say even on the federal level”
There are still a couple of differences. In the free market, you not only can chose to take your business elsewhere, but you can chose to take it nowhere and just not pay for that service. The other difference is that business go bankrupt when nobody likes their product. States just double down and coerce even harder when nobody likes their actions. Say, for example, NASA was a private company and those who think it’s for the “greater good” would chose to pay for it just like they pay for it with taxes now. Those who don’t see the benefit, would not pay. Everybody wins, in theory. In reality, NASA would have to justify its existence enough for people to give money without coercion and would probably fail and go bankrupt. The nay sayers wouldn’t care, and the supporters would go home sad that they weren’t able to force all the unenlightened simpletons into giving up money they earned to pay for something they will never care about. This reality is even better than everyone winning, because the bad guys lose.