We are all Individuals

(originally I posted this on Facebook, and just wanted to save it here for posterity.)


The human species is individuated which means each member of the species has its own brain, the basic tool of survival. The brain has to be programmed and its owner, the individual human, has to learn how to focus its eyes, uses its vocal cords, operate its hands, arms, legs and feet, learn how to recognize the sensations from inside the body that signal needing to empty bowels and bladder. The acquisition of such information and skills has been taken for granted by the adult world. It's really quite fucking difficult.


That's just the beginning. Obviously there are lots more. Feel free to write them in a comment if you found yourself thinking of some.

The point I was heading towards is that all of this adds up to becoming an individual capable of taking 

care of itself, which is where our species has always been headed. Individuation is something those in power don't want to focus on too much, for fear that too many will opt out of the collectivist approach, which wants everyone to buy into the idea that we're really all the same.

The only way in which we are all the same is the fact that we are all different. Additional proof for that assertion is provided by the fact of our unique DNA and unique fingerprints, which I find to be solid support for my proposition.

The fact of our individuality is what needs to be acknowledged and provided for by our system of government. Individuality means being different from one's parents, so it is more natural that a child should naturally gravitate towards being different from both parents, just as there are then conscious choices to behave the way a parent does, to imitate or emulate him. I actually think this is more about the child acquiring more information simply by copying the parent to see how that behavior feels.

More individuals capable of thinking and coming up with ideas results in more improvements possible to one's daily life. The reason coercion must be banned is that it's the only way to achieve harmonious living. Individuals will always find there is someone who disagrees with a given proposal. That individual must be left free to follow his dream and at the same time, the majority must also be left free to act to achieve their shared vision.


New humans, that is to say, babies and chiildren, are a batch of new individuals. This is true for everyone - there is no way to force a child to value every single thing the way you as parents value them. There is no way to avoid having disagreements with people, because of the fact of our individuality. To create systems of government that require our nature be collective is to court disaster, or perhaps simply to confess one's ancestry is less human and more insect..

The Law of Human Interaction is a law of human behavior that states that peace reigns and prosperity ensues when no one has the right to initiate the use of force. Individuals must develop each on their own timeline; so long as the law banning coercion is obeyed. And is it even proper to speak of obeying the law? It's really more about understanding the law and abiding by it. Either way, probably works but if someone has an idea on this please post it. Bottom line is, when people deal with each other only using reason and logic to reach a mutually voluntary agreement, persuasive arguments can create agreement among a large group, and those who disagree can be free to go their own way. They might change their minds later, or not, but as long as everyone respects the rights of all to refrain from using coercion at any stage, everyone can benefit. The one who didn't agree might change his mind, or might even come up with something else that is also great and that's why he didn't get involved in this other project, he had his own on the go. Respect for each other leads to more prosperity than is dreamed of, with the freedom to pursue one's vision and work with others in a cooperative and friendly environment.

Banning coercion promotes, provides, defends and protects peaceful coexistence among individual humans. I call it the Law of Human Interaction because it feels to me like one of the physical laws in that its essence can be stated in a short sentence and then explained and discussed and elaborated on for pages. 


Finding a concept that acts like a law of nature is what learning about the idea of banning coercion was for me. To ban coercion is to make it possible to cooperate and also to work alone and both are necessary because no value can be achieved by coercion. Each individual needs freedom in order to become an individual.

Decriminalizing Drugs

There's always a report in the news these days concerning "illegal drugs," usually a report on some mega-bust by the police.

The other day in that rag The Toronto Sun there was a Letter to the Editor pointing out that decriminalizing drugs would shut off a major income source for gangs. The Editor thought it was preposterous to suggest decriminalizing drugs.

Why is it preposterous? It seems that when it comes to drugs, most people have blinders on. Do they imagine that somehow "everyone" would spend the whole day high on cocaine, heroin, pot - whatever and the entire society would collapse into chaos? What exactly is preposterous about decriminalizing all drugs?

First of all, the so-called hard drugs have valid uses. Consider the terminally ill, for whom access to high quality morphine, heroin and opium would be a blessing. Consider the many uses to which hemp has been shown to be appropriate. Consider the huge money saved investigating, prosecuting and imprisoning people for the "crime" of providing drugs to willing consumers.

As for marijuana, the hysteria against it is certainly hypocritical. I doubt there is a single individual who publicly decries the idea of legalizing pot, but yet goes home to enjoy a glass of wine or a shot of scotch, a cocktail - whatever. Why shouldn't those of us who would prefer to relax with something ingested via the lungs rather than via the liver or small intestine have our rights respected instead of persecuted and prosecuted?

Now another benefit that would emerge is the gradual (or maybe not that gradual) disappearance of what I think of as "icky" drugs like meth, crack, and other stuff that has been concocted precisely because real drugs are unavailable.

Other countries where drugs have been legalized and/or decriminalized have experienced a reduction in drug-related crime. When the high profits disappear which can only come from a desired product being made illegal, much of the crime that came with it also disappears.

Adults' choices in life should be respected by the government. Respect for the basic right to imbibe whatever poison one chooses ironically makes it less attractive to children and adults alike. A rights-respecting government tends to create more opportunities in all arenas of life, leading more people to want to spend less time in a daze, whether alcohol or drug-induced, and more time pursuing opportunities and living life to the fullest.