: How? Love is hugely discriminatory - socialism is all inclusive.
Socialism is not utlitarianism, socialism is about solidarity, comradeship and friendship, standing by yourself, and your fellows in class. Its not about abstract numbers or equalities, but genuine human relationship, discriminatory and close.
: It derives from JSMill, Locke, Jefferson etc.
Or rather, their individualism could not square off familly ties.
: It is incompatible with egalitarianism because the lady chooses her husband over other goals, including any 'social' goals.
And I choose workmates over otehr social goals. Solidarity.
: Husband comes before others, not equally to them. It is from 'my ability to the things I value', not to needs asserted by others.
Husband first, then workmates, then other friends, distant familly, etc.
: Society is!.....you, your valued family and valued friends.
Which stretches quite a long way beyond the competative individual, to include friends of friends, and further, good customs and manners.
:Still no where near 6 billion poeple, still highly discriminatory - hence my earlier suggestions that whilst little communes might work, a global commune would not.
But a gloabl commune would be many small communes latched into a single system that means whilst working for themselves and thema s are close in community, they will have to support the wider world ystem.
: We are already, people regularly choose a person over another opportunity. Thats the essence of 'individualism' - discrimination.
No, true indivdiualism would shaft t'other person, and not let marriage nor love stand in the way- try Thomas Hardy's 'the Mayor of Casterbridge'.
: People derive more personal utility / happiness from supporting those things they value over those things they dont value. This assumes that 'happiness' (that state of mind when one achieves ones values) is a valid goal in life - and I think it is.
Nicely cicumulocutary, but I'll take that as yes, you do support these things.
: They are resisted with various tax loops and tactics designed to avoid the full brunt of the restriction.
Only by teh very very rich, who can resist.
: Its not an anathema, its a stupid choice - it supports meritocracy by showing how trying to 'cheat' it fails - the standard being reality.
No, because that son might not bring the firm down (well paying, but not important- non-executive director time).
: Classical liberals dont suggest mankind is monadic, simply that affecting eachother does not mean becoming beholden to everyone.
No, they suggest that humans, a la Robinson Cruseo stand alone, cut off from ties or responsibilities to others.