"Libertarianism" formally debunked by science - "individuals" do not exist

[SkyChief]

I view most people who identify as "libertarians" to just be libertines in disguise. And most of them would probably start identifying as "Nazis" or "Communists" if they thought they could get something free out of it.

I do appreciate your honesty.

We are done.

 

[Blaq]

When you say they have no identity or utility outside the whole what you clearly mean is purpose and have entered into philosophy and have strayed from hard objective science. Atoms form together to make molecules, molecules form together to make organisms all of these things are part of a larger and smaller eco system.

It's not that complicated.

If someone is a "professional athlete" - they cease to be a "professional athlete" if they leave their team or are no longer able to play the sport on behalf of the team.

Their identity as a professional athlete only exists in the context of the team, and ceases to exist when they fail to provide that service or utility.

So are many other social constructs that doesn't mean they exist beyond our imaginations.

Right, and the imaginary imperative to believe that "rights to life, liberty, and property don't exist" doesn't exist beyond your imagination - just as atoms and molecules don't exist outside of your imagination and have never been seen with your naked eye, nor can they be.

There's no imperative to believe that outside of a social construct, so people can believe in different variations of rights all they want to and there's nothing wrong with it, nor any imaginary "sky daddy" telling them not to.

 

[digsbe]

Likewise, the "individual parts" don't matter at all outside of the context or role which they play in the whole. For example, when a living cell stops functioning in unison with the organ or living body which it is a part of, it becomes cancerous or malignant, and is discarded for the greater good and health is the body. On its own it is nothing and ceases to have any identity whatsoever - much as how disparate molecules are not a "cell" unless functioning together, and disparate atoms are not a molecule unless likewise functioning, and so on and so on.

There is only one human race, homo sapiens. That race is made up of individual human beings. You have a flawed concept of "science" and how cancer works... Cancer happens when a living cell has mutations at all the right spots where tumor-suppressor genes and growth promoting genes are all messed up causing rampant cell growth which later leads to spreading in the body and potentially death. Guess what? Because those cells are human cells, many times the immune system can't recognize them and cancer cells will tell epithelial cells "hey! I need some blood" and epithelial cells respond with "Ok! Let's send some capillaries your way!" Molecular signaling literally tricks the body into feeding cancers that ultimately kill the body. It is not discarded for the "greater good." If anything the opposite is true.

Right, this is one of the problems with pro-homosexual or pro-"LGBT" views - which are heavily rooted in the more "self-centered" varieties of libertinism, for example.

People who think that society should tolerate homosexuality, transgenderism, and other aberrant lifestyle choices have a narcissisic worldview and believe their behaviors should be "accepted" simply for the sake of "diversity" even if they provide no social utility.

From an evolutionary perspective, obviously homosexuality provides no procreative or survival utility, with certain types of homosexual acts contributing significantly to the AIDS crisis, simply as a biproduct of their selfish physical indulgences.

Obviously these undeniable facts have played a role in which homosexuality, rightfully so, has been considered a mental disorder by top psychological and psychiatric organizations, and is still being defined as such in nations such as China, which have been less tainted with the more self-centered, libertarian ideas which the West has embraced and which give rise to oddities such as "LGBT politics".

The fact remains that nobody physically forces homosexuals to participate in same-sex activity, and if they were less selfish, they could conform more to societies norms and simply elect to abstain from homosexual acts and enter a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. This would not only reduce the likelihood of contracting or spreading AIDs, but would also tend to result in procreation and population replenishment, which is another potentially positive effect on society.

But of course, due to the selfish, socially libertarian ideas which the pro-homosexual and other lobbies have embraced - they don't care for social or biological norms which better benefit society - rather, they merely care about their own selfish whims and desires to sexually-indulge themselves in aberrant ways. To the point that even the UN had to step in and encourage gay men to seek out fewer sexual partners as a means of reducing the AIDs crises.

And that's just one example.

"Homosexuality" is not some lifestyle choice, scientific analysis increasingly shows it's basically parts of the brain in charge of sex, sexual attraction, emotions, etc. are intersexed which causes someone to be attracted to someone only of the same sex. Increasingly scientists believe homosexuality happens due to a lack of androgens (or surplus in lesbians) while the homosexual fetus is in the womb, by epigenetic factors, and by auto-immune (for homosexual males) where the mom's body may make antibodies to male receptors causing them to be blocked in terms of development. Some theorize homosexuality can be advantageous as homosexuals will be "nurturers" in a community.

AIDs is spread by hetero sex too (heterosexuals just tend to use condoms more due to pregnancy risks) and also spread largely by IV drug abuse and sharing needles. In todays ago many gays living in hookup culture take PrEP to prevent HIV infection. In the West and many Asian countries (Especially eastern Asia) populations are shrinking or set to shrink as fertility rates lower. In some places like in Africa where there is famine and lack of resources, people are having too many kids. So in this area is everyone selfish for having hetero sex and making babies putting a strain on resources? Maybe in those countries people shouldn't be "selfish" and everyone should just be gay (do you see how stupid this argument sounds?)

 

[Blaq]

There is only one human race, homo sapiens. That race is made up of individual human beings. You have a flawed concept of "science" and how cancer works... Cancer happens when a living cell has mutations at all the right spots where tumor-suppressor genes and growth promoting genes are all messed up causing rampant cell growth which later leads to spreading in the body and potentially death. Guess what? Because those cells are human cells, many times the immune system can't recognize them and cancer cells will tell epithelial cells "hey! I need some blood" and epithelial cells respond with "Ok! Let's send some capillaries your way!" Molecular signaling literally tricks the body into feeding cancers that ultimately kill the body. It is not discarded for the "greater good." If anything the opposite is true.

I'm not getting into the nitty gritty - the point is that cancerous or tumorous cells threaten the survivalistic interest of the body, or collective self and lose any value they otherwise would have had.

"Homosexuality" is not some lifestyle choice, scientific analysis increasingly shows it's basically parts of the brain in charge of sex, sexual attraction, emotions, etc. are intersexed which causes someone to be attracted to someone only of the same sex. Increasingly scientists believe homosexuality happens due to a lack of androgens (or surplus in lesbians) while the homosexual fetus is in the womb, by epigenetic factors, and by auto-immune (for homosexual males) where the mom's body may make antibodies to male receptors causing them to be blocked in terms of development. Some theorize homosexuality can be advantageous as homosexuals will be "nurturers" in a community.

Those factoids definitely give credence to the notion that it could be classified as a disorder inherited from abnormal birth circumstances subject to treatment.

AIDs is spread by hetero sex too (heterosexuals just tend to use condoms more due to pregnancy risks) and also spread largely by IV drug abuse and sharing needles. In todays ago many gays living in hookup culture take PrEP to prevent HIV infection. In the West and many Asian countries (Especially eastern Asia) populations are shrinking or set to shrink as fertility rates lower. In some places like in Africa where there is famine and lack of resources, people are having too many kids. So in this area is everyone selfish for having hetero sex and making babies putting a strain on resources? Maybe in those countries people shouldn't be "selfish" and everyone should just be gay (do you see how stupid this argument sounds?)

Obviously creating surplus population - such as producing excessive children which can't be reasonably supported is selfish. Regardless, that fails to address the facts that the rationale behind pro-homosexual, social libertarianism is simply one of selfish narcissism and the deluded view that society as a whole should fit the bill for selfish lifestyles choices just for the sake of "diversity".

 

[Lisa]

I can't speak for that person, but since of the two I'm the more educated person here, I'll articulate some of the problems with libertarianism:

While people can be justifiably forced to do certain things (most obviously, to refrain from violating the rights of others) they cannot be coerced to serve the overall good of society, or even their own personal good.

-Prohibiting people from "violating the rights of others" is coercing them to "serve the overall good of society". Telling a murderer he can't murder, or a rapist he can't rape - is forcing them to stifle their own aberrant desires for the good of society.

This argument is used by abusers and crimicals everywhere.

As a result, libertarians endorse strong rights to individual liberty and private property; defend civil liberties like equal rights for homosexuals

-Homosexuality is an aberration which serves no evolutionary purpose or social utility. Encouraging homosexuals' to perpetuate their abnormal lifestyle choices just for the sake of "diversity" is self-centered and narcissistic, and plays a part in many social ills such as the AIDS crisis. Homosexuals have the ability to choose to enter relationships with people of the opposite sex if they so want, and that's what they should be encouraged to do for the sake of evolutionary and social utility rather than their own selfish, narcissistic lusts.

The baptist church called and their want clocks turned back 300 years.

1.) Being gay isn't a choice and it cannot be changed. Being gay is no more narcissistic than being heterosexual.

2.) There is an evolutionary benefit to homosexuality.

Male homosexuality doesn’t make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable, but because homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men, shouldn’t the genes for this trait have been extinguished long ago? What value could this sexual orientation have, that it has persisted for eons even without any discernible reproductive advantage?


One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the “kin selection hypothesis.” What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being “helpers in the nest.” By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.


Two evolutionary psychologists, Paul Vasey and Doug VanderLaan of the University of Lethbridge, Canada tested this idea for the past several years on the Pacific island of Samoa. They chose Samoa because males who prefer men as sexual partners are widely recognized and accepted there as a distinct gender category—called fa’afafine–neither man nor woman. The fa’afafine tend to be effeminate, and exclusively attracted to adult men as sexual partners. This clear demarcation makes it easier to identify a sample for study.


Past research has shown that the fa’afafine are much more altruistically inclined toward their nieces and nephews than either Samoan women or heterosexual men. They are willing to babysit a lot, tutor their nieces and nephews in art and music, and help out financially—paying for medical care and education and so forth. In a new study, the scientists set out to unravel the psychology of the fa’afafine, to see if their altruism is targeted specifically at kin rather than kids in general.

Study Reveals Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

Male homosexuality doesn’t make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable, but because homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men, shouldn’t the …

www.psychologicalscience.org

 

[madman]

I find it odd when people who claim to ascribe to some variant of "libertarianism" also use the the sciences as an argument from authority on various topics.

In reality though, "libertarianism" or "individualism" in general just a rather childish myth which science completely debunks:

In the natural sciences (e.x. physics, chemistry, etc) - there is no such thing as an "individual" except as an arbitrary social construct or figment of the imagination.

Every physical thing or being which is exist is a collective of parts functioning in some kind of unity (such as hadrons, atoms, molecules, or cells) - this is what a "self" is defined as in science, not an "individual" as in popular myth or misinformation, but a collective or whole.

Likewise, the "individual parts" don't matter at all outside of the context or role which they play in the whole. For example, when a living cell stops functioning in unison with the organ or living body which it is a part of, it becomes cancerous or malignant, and is discarded for the greater good and health is the body. On its own it is nothing and ceases to have any identity whatsoever - much as how disparate molecules are not a "cell" unless functioning together, and disparate atoms are not

libertarians are just jaded conservatives.

 

[Blaq]

This argument is used by abusers and crimicals everywhere.\

Oh? Well that's just libertarian logic then.

The baptist church called and their want clocks turned back 300 years.

No one's listening to you and it's you who isn't up-to-speed with the 21st century.

Roe vs. Wade was overturned, and Obergfell is likely going to overturned as well in the near future. I bet you said the same thing before Roe ended up going away, didn't you?

China, which has over 4X the population of the US, the world's most-spoken language, and a thriving economy which will likely surpass that of the US has classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

It's you who appears to live in the past. You think this is still the 1960s "Summer of Love". But, news flash, it isn't - it's the 2020s.

1.) Being gay isn't a choice and it cannot be changed.

Wrong. They can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. And if they claim they constantly "feel an urge" to enter into sexual relationships with the same sex, they could opt for chemical castration if it bothered them that much:

New age eunuchs: motivation and rationale for voluntary castration - PubMed

We used a survey posted on the Internet to explore the motivation of men who are interested in being castrated. Out of 134 respondents, 23 (17%) reported already having been castrated. The 104 (78%) individuals who said they had not been castrated were asked why they wanted to be castrated and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No one forces them to act out their urges or fantasies, that's an elective choice.

Being gay is no more narcissistic than being heterosexual.

No, the problem with social libertarians like you is that you just refuse to accept these facts due to your own selfishness and narcissism on the matter.

Heterosexual relationships provide well-documented, survivalistic benefits in humans and animals which have been observable for all of human history.

Homosexual relationships do not - and the social libertarian lobby which supports pro-LGBT politics doesn't care about "the good of society" - they only care about themselves and their own selfish desire to have society cater to the abnormal sexual preferences of less than 3% of the population.

2.) There is an evolutionary benefit to homosexuality.

Study Reveals Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

Male homosexuality doesn’t make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable, but because homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men, shouldn’t the …

www.psychologicalscience.org

"Studies" are dime-a-dozen, and are often of skeptical reliability - being merely intended to sell to less-informed people who just want someone to tell them what they want to hear.

The fact remains that the survivalistic benefit of heterosexual unions has been observable for all of human and animal history (not just in the context of a single, random "study") - homosexual unions don't have that benefit, and views held by the pro-LGBT lobby are purely about the selfish interests of individuals who identify as such and want society to pander to them just because they exist.

 

[Master Debator]

It's not that complicated.

If someone is a "professional athlete" - they cease to be a "professional athlete" if they leave their team or are no longer able to play the sport on behalf of the team.

Their identity as a professional athlete only exists in the context of the team, and ceases to exist when they fail to provide that service or utility.

What does this have to do with your previous assertion that individuals don't exist outside of arbitrary social constructs? Clearly all the atoms and molecules of a tree exist separate from the atoms and molecules that exist within say a Lion sleeping underneath it.

Lebron James is a separate, individual professional athlete from Lewis Hamilton. Correct? You can recognize those are separate individuals can you not?

Right, and the imaginary imperative to believe that "rights to life, liberty, and property don't exist" doesn't exist beyond your imagination.

Legal rights exist. They are enforced through governments and laws. Inalienable rights don't exist and if you want to assert they do its on you to prove that they do.

There's no imperative to believe that outside of a social construct, so people can believe in different variations of rights all they want to and there's nothing wrong with it, nor any imaginary "sky daddy" telling them not to.

Yes, people are free to believe in whatever fantasies float their boats, that doesn't make their fantasies objectively real.

 

[digsbe]

"Studies" are dime-a-dozen, and are often of skeptical reliability - being merely intended to sell to less-informed people who just want someone to tell them what they want to hear.

The fact remains that the survivalistic benefit of heterosexual unions has been observable for all of human and animal history (not just in the context of a single, random "study") - homosexual unions don't have that benefit, and views held by the pro-LGBT lobby are purely about the selfish interests of individuals who identify as such and want society to pander to them just because they exist.

"Studies" are usually scientists doing paper reviews and writing about their findings given the data presented to them. Tell me, how is it survivalistic to have too many kids and put straight on essential resources like food and medicines? What about infertile people? Homosexual unions provide for two mutually and naturally attracted people the ability to pursue happiness in their lives just like any heterosexual. It's about equal rights, not selfish interests or wanting society to pander to them. Homosexual unions also tend to prefer adoption when it comes to having children which places kids in loving homes with parents rather than suffering in orphanages.

 

[Blaq]

Legal rights exist. They are enforced through governments and laws. Inalienable rights don't exist and if you want to assert they do its on you to prove that they do.

"Legal rights' don't exist at all. They're just another imaginary social construct.

There's no physically-observable difference between a person "enforcing" a legal right, and a rapist "forcing" themselves on his victim.

Yes, people are free to believe in whatever fantasies float their boats, that doesn't make their fantasies objectively real.

I don't believe your fantasies at all, that's the point - or your misunderstanding of what "objective" means.

You believe there's some imaginary imperative to believe that "inalienable rights don't exist" - despite there being no evidence of that imperative whatsoever.

So no, people can believe in inalienable rights all they damn-well want to - they don't have to believe in your imaginary, nonexistent imperative to believe otherwise, one which you can't provide any proof of whatsoever outside of your naïve, imaginary ideas about what "truth" is that have little-to-no value in the real world anyway.

 

[Blaq]

"Studies" are usually scientists doing paper reviews and writing about their findings given the data presented to them.

Studies, to a not-particularly-educated person as I presume you are more-than-well known to be heavily-financially marketed and are mere blips on the intellectual radar compared to long-observed phenomenon which have been observed for thousands of years, such as the survivalistic utility of heterosexual relationships.

The problem with people of little apparent education or discernment is that they just see simple, little words like "scientist" - without having even a grade-schooler's understanding of what "scientist" even means in the myriad of practical (or impractical) contexts it can be used.

This naturally allows marketers to sell to simple-minded and superstitious people and merely "tell them what they want to hear" - knowing that their limited critical thought stops the very second the read the word "science" or "scientist", and immediately take even the most intellectually controversial assertions as "gospel" with all the childish naivete of a school child.

Kind of like those people who idly watch TV commercials or informercials and believe everything being said is undeniably true simply because someone says "I'm a doctor".

(Or in contrast, just discounting everything said and the credentials provided, no matter how irrevocably credible it is just because they don't like the asserted truths or conclusions).

Tell me, how is it survivalistic to have too many kids and put straight on essential resources like food and medicines?

Having excessive children which can't be reasonably supported isn't survivalistic.

Regardless, there is no societal benefit behind the demand for recognition of purely homosexual unions - it's purely a selfish whim about "what they want" simply because "they exist".

Heterosexual unions are nature's default for evolutionary reasons, so no, they're not an unusual, self-centered want being demanded without any regard for society's interests on the whole.

What about infertile people? Homosexual unions provide for two mutually and naturally attracted people the ability to pursue happiness in their lives just like any heterosexual. It's about equal rights, not selfish interests or wanting society to pander to them. Homosexual unions also tend to prefer adoption when it comes to having children which places kids in loving homes with parents rather than suffering in orphanages.

That further proves my point - such as wanting to adopt children for purely selfish reasons or preferences rather than putting the objectively better interest of the child first in allowing them to be adopted by a heterosexual couple.

 

[Master Debator]

"Legal rights' don't exist at all. They're just another imaginary social construct.

I'm not sure you comprehend entirely what all those words mean. The supposed righteousness of law is an imaginary construct whether or not you'll go to prison if convicted of violating said law is not subjective, or imaginary. Prison does actually exist.

There's no physically-observable difference between a person "enforcing" a legal right, and a rapist "forcing" themselves on his victim.

I don't know what you mean by this. There is absolutely a physical observable difference between me say exercising my right to free speech and another person trying to rape someone else.

I don't believe your fantasies at all, that's the point - or your misunderstanding of what "objective" means.

You clearly don't understand what it means judging by your comment below.

You believe there's some imaginary imperative to believe that "inalienable rights don't exist" - despite there being no evidence of that imperative whatsoever.

It's not imaginary that I questioned the existence of inalienable rights. I did. Just now.

So no, people can believe in inalienable rights all they damn-well want to - they don't have to believe in your imaginary, nonexistent imperative to believe otherwise, one which you can't provide any proof of whatsoever outside of your naïve, imaginary ideas about what "truth" is that have little-to-no value in the real world anyway.

 

[Blaq]

I'm not sure you comprehend entirely what all those words mean. The supposed righteousness of law is an imaginary construct whether or not you'll go to prison if convicted of violating said law is not subjective, or imaginary. Prison does actually exist.

Atoms are an imaginary construct. It's impossible to see them with the naked eye, therefore atoms don't exist.

[/quote]
I don't know what you mean by this. There is absolutely a physical observable difference between me say exercising my right to free speech and another person trying to rape someone else.
[/quote]
Not according to the laws of physics, no.

There's no physical difference in the velocity of a bullet which is used to shoot an armed attacker than there is in a bullet used to shoot an innocent schoolchild.

Just as there's no physical differences in the inserting of a penis into a vagina in the context of consensual sex than there is in the inserting of a penis into a vagina in the context of rape.

Anything else the application of logic and rationality - something you seem to conflate with "imaginary construct" while seemingly not knowing what those words even mean to begin with.

You clearly don't understand what it means judging by your comment below.

It's not imaginary that I questioned the existence of inalienable rights. I did. Just now.

No you didn't. You only exist in my imagination. And I've never seen you with my naked eye, just font on a screen which any of a thousand different people could've typed.

 

[Master Debator]

Atoms are an imaginary construct. It's impossible to see them with the naked eye, therefore atoms don't exist.

Because you can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist. Our eyes don't see the entire electromagnetic spectrum but we can detect its existence through other means.

Not according to the laws of physics, no.

There's no physical difference in the velocity of a bullet which is used to shoot an armed attacker than there is in a bullet used to shoot an innocent schoolchild.

I said there was a physical difference between me speaking and another person raping. Those are two different physical processes.

In this new scenario there absolutely can be different physical differences in the velocity of the bullet depending on its size, the grain and the distance to target.

Just as there's no physical differences in the inserting of a penis into a vagina in the context of consensual sex than there is in the inserting of a penis into a vagina in the context of rape.

You actually just described a major difference. One was consensual and the other wasn't. Do you even know how to discern one thing from another cause I'm not even sure you could pass Trump's Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV test at this point.

Anything else the application of logic and rationality - something you seem to conflate with "imaginary construct" while seemingly not knowing what those words even mean to begin with.

Says that guy that claimed atoms don't exist because you can't see them with your naked eye....

No you didn't. You only exist in my imagination. And I've never seen you with my naked eye, just font on a screen which any of a thousand different people could've typed.

So you're arguing with yourself and this is an argument meant to bolster your credibility?

 

[Goshin]

Utter nonsense. Science does not deny the existence of individual consciousness at all, nor proclaim the individual of no value.

Be careful, next you'll use "science" to proclaim up is down and fall off a stairwell.

 

[Simpletruther]

I find it odd when people who claim to ascribe to some variant of "libertarianism" also use the the sciences as an argument from authority on various topics.

In reality though, "libertarianism" or "individualism" in general just a rather childish myth which science completely debunks:

In the natural sciences (e.x. physics, chemistry, etc) - there is no such thing as an "individual" except as an arbitrary social construct or figment of the imagination.

Every physical thing or being which is exist is a collective of parts functioning in some kind of unity (such as hadrons, atoms, molecules, or cells) - this is what a "self" is defined as in science, not an "individual" as in popular myth or misinformation, but a collective or whole.

Likewise, the "individual parts" don't matter at all outside of the context or role which they play in the whole. For example, when a living cell stops functioning in unison with the organ or living body which it is a part of, it becomes cancerous or malignant, and is discarded for the greater good and health is the body. On its own it is nothing and ceases to have any identity whatsoever - much as how disparate molecules are not a "cell" unless functioning together, and disparate atoms are not a molecule unless likewise functioning, and so on and so on.

---

Since "libertarianism" as per its various definitions depends on childish faith or belief in the myth of the "individual" (which science shows does not exist), libertarianism is hitherto debunked, and believing in libertarianism or the fictional "individual" is no different than not believing in evolution, physics or chemistry. Since again, according to science, "individuals" do not exist - the only thing which exists is the tribe, self, or collective whole.

(As far as a "scientific" explanation of why people believe in scientific falsehoods like "libertarianism" at all, despite it being no different than believing in the tooth fairy - likely it's just a childish complex or holdover which results in maldevelopment and is normally just matured or grown out of when development is healthy. Seeing as parents often talk to children in terms of them being an "individual", with children having limited awareness of the world around them, let alone understanding the reality that their body is not an "individual" but a collective of mutually-functioning cells. And when child development and nurturing is more healthy, this nonsense is naturally grown out of and not given anymore serious consideration by adults than the idea of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy is).

And there are no such thing as cars, just parts.

Lol

 

[Slartibartfast]

libertarians are just jaded conservatives.

Most of the time, this has mirrored my own observation. The other portion of libertarians are people who just don't understand human nature and are naive to think that power vacuums won't be filled by unscrupulous people.

 

[Razoo]

The Koch family and ALEC leadership claim to be libertarians with fascist leanings which dates back to Fred Koch the father. Fred Koch built Stalin a refinery ......... which should have been declared an UN-American Activity which was used to bust Prescott Bush for selling weapons to Hitler. Bush had to leave the senate and lost his bank due to money laundering.

 

[HonestJoe]

In the natural sciences (e.x. physics, chemistry, etc) - there is no such thing as an "individual" except as an arbitrary social construct or figment of the imagination.

If this were true, why would the only impact be on libertarianism? Surely any socio-political concept that involves the concept of the individual or any other social construct (material value, society, natural rights etc.) would be invalid too. In fact, it could be said that all socio-political concepts, including any alternatives to libertarianism, are arbitrary social constructs in and of themselves.

Can you have any fundamental rights at all if "you" only exist as an arbitrary social construct? Can you have the freedom to own and trade property with other individuals? Can you have the right to an equal share of the community property? Can an individual have right to lead the group on the basis of authority granted to them by an individual god?

 

[MamboDervish]

I find it odd when people who claim to ascribe to some variant of "libertarianism" also use the the sciences as an argument from authority on various topics.

In reality though, "libertarianism" or "individualism" in general just a rather childish myth which science completely debunks:

In the natural sciences (e.x. physics, chemistry, etc) - there is no such thing as an "individual" except as an arbitrary social construct or figment of the imagination.

Every physical thing or being which is exist is a collective of parts functioning in some kind of unity (such as hadrons, atoms, molecules, or cells) - this is what a "self" is defined as in science, not an "individual" as in popular myth or misinformation, but a collective or whole.

Likewise, the "individual parts" don't matter at all outside of the context or role which they play in the whole. For example, when a living cell stops functioning in unison with the organ or living body which it is a part of, it becomes cancerous or malignant, and is discarded for the greater good and health is the body. On its own it is nothing and ceases to have any identity whatsoever - much as how disparate molecules are not a "cell" unless functioning together, and disparate atoms are not a molecule unless likewise functioning, and so on and so on.

---

Since "libertarianism" as per its various definitions depends on childish faith or belief in the myth of the "individual" (which science shows does not exist), libertarianism is hitherto debunked, and believing in libertarianism or the fictional "individual" is no different than not believing in evolution, physics or chemistry. Since again, according to science, "individuals" do not exist - the only thing which exists is the tribe, self, or collective whole.

(As far as a "scientific" explanation of why people believe in scientific falsehoods like "libertarianism" at all, despite it being no different than believing in the tooth fairy - likely it's just a childish complex or holdover which results in maldevelopment and is normally just matured or grown out of when development is healthy. Seeing as parents often talk to children in terms of them being an "individual", with children having limited awareness of the world around them, let alone understanding the reality that their body is not an "individual" but a collective of mutually-functioning cells. And when child development and nurturing is more healthy, this nonsense is naturally grown out of and not given anymore serious consideration by adults than the idea of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy is).

Individualism is a difficult mythology to overcome, and more and more so as science advances. It is driven by human ego, and buttressed by pride, greed, jealousy, ... a whole host of other lesser human emotions associated with our identity. But some recent science has postulated that what we assume is individual creativity is actually non-localized - which is to say not originating within us, but coming from outside of us. We often use the word inspiration without actually giving any thought to what that word really means. And that mythology gives rise to egoistically abstract phrases - like "intellectual property".

 

[NatMorton]

The concept of “individual” is certainly more nuanced than we might think, but if you’d like to read vastly more interesting scientific take on what it means to be an individual than this I’m-anti-gay-but-clearly-demonstrating-repressed-feelings-about-homosexuality OP, here’s one:

What Is an Individual? Biology Seeks Clues in Information Theory.

To recognize strange extraterrestrial life and solve biological mysteries on this planet, scientists are searching for an objective definition for life’s basic units.

www.quantamagazine.org

 

[Lisa]

libertarians are just jaded conservatives.

Libertarians are short-sighted narcissistic conservatives who don't want to pay taxes but they want to smoke weed and enjoy all of the benefits of an advanced interconnected society while someone else does the hard work.

 

[madman]

Libertarians are short-sighted narcissistic conservatives who don't want to pay taxes but they want to smoke weed and enjoy all of the benefits of an advanced interconnected society while someone else does the hard work.

people can call themselves anything they want that makes them feel "special" or "unique." When it comes to pulling the lever at the voting booth, "libertarians" tend to pull the R lever. This is WHAT MATTERS. Not labels.

 

[Felis Leo]

I find it odd when people who claim to ascribe to some variant of "libertarianism" also use the the sciences as an argument from authority on various topics.

In reality though, "libertarianism" or "individualism" in general just a rather childish myth which science completely debunks:

In the natural sciences (e.x. physics, chemistry, etc) - there is no such thing as an "individual" except as an arbitrary social construct or figment of the imagination.

Every physical thing or being which is exist is a collective of parts functioning in some kind of unity (such as hadrons, atoms, molecules, or cells) - this is what a "self" is defined as in science, not an "individual" as in popular myth or misinformation, but a collective or whole.

Likewise, the "individual parts" don't matter at all outside of the context or role which they play in the whole. For example, when a living cell stops functioning in unison with the organ or living body which it is a part of, it becomes cancerous or malignant, and is discarded for the greater good and health is the body. On its own it is nothing and ceases to have any identity whatsoever - much as how disparate molecules are not a "cell" unless functioning together, and disparate atoms are not a molecule unless likewise functioning, and so on and so on.

---

Since "libertarianism" as per its various definitions depends on childish faith or belief in the myth of the "individual" (which science shows does not exist), libertarianism is hitherto debunked, and believing in libertarianism or the fictional "individual" is no different than not believing in evolution, physics or chemistry. Since again, according to science, "individuals" do not exist - the only thing which exists is the tribe, self, or collective whole.

(As far as a "scientific" explanation of why people believe in scientific falsehoods like "libertarianism" at all, despite it being no different than believing in the tooth fairy - likely it's just a childish complex or holdover which results in maldevelopment and is normally just matured or grown out of when development is healthy. Seeing as parents often talk to children in terms of them being an "individual", with children having limited awareness of the world around them, let alone understanding the reality that their body is not an "individual" but a collective of mutually-functioning cells. And when child development and nurturing is more healthy, this nonsense is naturally grown out of and not given anymore serious consideration by adults than the idea of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy is).

Do you have any peer-reviewed articles or news sources referencing them which demonstrate the apparent non-existence of individuals?

 

[Lisa]

people can call themselves anything they want that makes them feel "special" or "unique." When it comes to pulling the lever at the voting booth, "libertarians" tend to pull the R lever. This is WHAT MATTERS. Not labels.

We have seen over and over that the so-called libertarian party couldn't put a dozen functional neurons together to create a rational policy or a platform. Gary Johnson was no more intelligent than MTG or Boebert.