[botker]

It's ironic that my anti-dogmatic stance (None of us has the right to dictate the behavior of strangers) came across as being dogmatic (Thou shalt not dictate the behavior of strangers).

Of course you're right that this is how the world works, from a Collectivist perspective. The Individualist perspective, which I tend towards, asserts that individual happiness is far more important than any attempt to "optimise behaviours".

  There are many choices, from outright dictatorship to various levels of democracy.

Tyranny of the majority is not inherently preferable to the tyranny of a dictator. The other end of the scale is self-ownership, which is not widely practiced today.

At the end of the day, my giant sign isn't harming anyone, and no one's forced to look at it. Restricted speech in the name of "cleanliness" is not acceptable in my book, but from a Collectivist perspective I guess it's alright.

If that stance invites ridicule, I accept -- just as long as we all remain mutually respectful about letting each other voice our opinions -- and that includes businesses and politicians.

[jarek]

Serious question: do you consider it practically possible to live in an Individualist way in a modern city?

[botker]

Yeah, I do, although I think most people would answer "No". Culturally, in the US at least, there's a distinct tendency toward Individualism in rural areas and Collectivism in urban areas. But the distinction is cultural, not inherent.