I’m extremely confused by how the lesson you drew from Wengrow and Graeber is that the notions of freedom to relocate, disobey your community, and keep the value of your labor are actually universal and not based in a specific notion of individualism.
It seems like you’re making an argument about hierarchy, rather than individualism. Yes, hierarchy is not universal. But I’m not sure what that has to do with the above freedoms you describe? Taxation? The existence of laws? Please enlighten me.
If anything the lesson from The Dawn of Everything is exactly that there are no universal or even “native” notions of society, collective, hierarchy, etc.
sorry for paraphrashing sloppily, I wrote the OP hastily because usually this kind of anti-capitalist stuff is unwelcome here and gets downvoted lol, I didn't expect this attention
this is the specific passage of what they suggest as new measures of social liberty:
> (I) the freedom to move away or relocate from one's surroundings; (2) the freedom to ignore or disobey commands issued by others; and (3) the freedom to shape entirely new social realities, or shift back and forth between different ones.
It seems like you’re making an argument about hierarchy, rather than individualism. Yes, hierarchy is not universal. But I’m not sure what that has to do with the above freedoms you describe? Taxation? The existence of laws? Please enlighten me.
If anything the lesson from The Dawn of Everything is exactly that there are no universal or even “native” notions of society, collective, hierarchy, etc.