Ardy, you are a very smart fellow, so I suspect you are intentionally being obtuse
You give me more credit than I deserve. Others may be intentionally obtuse as a stratergy, but it come nateral to me.
in reference to my use of the term "collectivism". I think I have made it clear over a number of previous posts that I am using the meaning of "collectivism" (as well as "individualism") in the sense each is used in political theory.
Not being so well versed in political theory, it seems I have missed the subtlety of your argument.
So, once more, when I refer to "collectivism" I am referring to a political arrangement in which the Rights of the individual are subordinated to the interests of the state.
I think this must be where I fail to comprehend your argument. When you use the word "STATE" .... I assume that you are referring to a de facto political power that might also be a tribe or a clan or a pack of wolves an ant hill for that matter. And as far as I can tell... as we peruse back though human history.... or when we observe animal groupings ... what we see are collectivist organizations where the rights of individuals (other than the head of state) are made subservient to the overall benefit of the pack... or decision of the king/queen/leader/dictator/alpha male. And so it still seems to me that the "natural" order of most animals including humans has a bias towards both social and political collectivism.
When I refer to "individualism" I am referring to a political arrangement in which the Rights of the individual are secured and respected by the state.
I am profoundly sorry that I am unable to see the manifest historical, biological, or zoological evidence that would lead anyone to conclude that the individualism that you refer to is at all "natural."
Hopefully, that alleviates some of the confusion.
Yours,
Issodhos
No, my confusion is not entirely alleviated. Actually, not at all. It seems to me that the power of the state must inherently be extracted from the rights of the individual. And so so when ever there is any state, there is inherent tension between the power of that state and the rights of the individuals comprising that state.
As far as I can tell, there is no "natural right" to smoke tobacco... any more than there is a natural right to smoke marijuana, or smoke crack, or have consensual sex with underage children. In the end it is not some arbitrary "state" which decides what is right and what is wrong... it is a consensus of the society we live in... for better and sometimes for worse.
Ironically, the very laws that offend you are a confirmation of our freedom to govern ourselves. Many a horrible despot would have been indifferent about people smoking... and underage sex for that matter. These laws are not a reflection of a tyrannical state, but instead the reflection of our societies freedom to codify our own social values.
