INTERACTING FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT.

Earlier this month, I noted overreach by a distinguished anthropologist, just the latest True Believer using his stature as an academician to create and then burn a straw-man of radical individualism.  Sheldon Richman correctly dings that academician for treacherous fabrication.

What people like Terrell don't realize — or perhaps realize too well — is that the fundamental point in dispute is not whether the individual is a social animal or a creature best suited for an atomistic existence. No libertarian I know of subscribes to the latter notion. The point in dispute is whether proper social life should be founded on peaceful consensual cooperation or on compulsion.

That comes after a brief survey of serious classical thinking about the citizen and the state.  Repeat, as repeat I must. "That's not too bad a case for limiting the power of communities or societies to dictate the behavior of members, while at the same time recognizing that the power to exclude disruptive or non-cooperative individuals has value."  So mote it be.