Individualism: Good or Bad?

If you subscribe to my email (which you should!), back in a November email, I narrated the attack of a Facebook troll who trotted down an ad hominem line of attack aligned against many the supporters of a free society. In essence, it is this: “You are all just rugged individualists with greedy appetites to take from others, void of compassion or care.”

My readers already know that is false for this blog’s author, but it’s not just false for me. Many people who call themselves libertarians are regularly attacked by the same argument. So I wanted to just bring a few points of clarity to the issue of individualism.

First of all, let’s just review the basic definition of libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy (and nothing more) that advocates for as minimal a government as possible, based on (or resulting from) the ideas of property rights and the non-aggression principle (I wrote on both these at the posts each are linked to). It doesn’t, in and of itself, subscribe to any religious position (it’s not a religious principle) or moral positions related to what is good or bad to do beyond those two basic foundations. Despite what the activists may communicate, libertarianism is simply a political philosophy. (Previous blog dealing with this: “Libertarianism v. Authoritarianism”)

Back to the idea of individualism. This idea is also foundational in the libertarian political philosophy, but not in the way that it is often used in attack. Individualism merely means that each person is responsible for their own actions, and the consequences of those actions.

Most people’s reaction: “well, duh.” But then look around you at the world we live in. Look at the students who are coming out of college straddled by tens of thousands of dollars of debt. The movement for government cleansing of all student debt is growing. “I shouldn’t have to pay all this off,” they say.

In this example, there is the counter-argument to be made that government has made the credit for college cheap and consequently, through the logical incentive processes, flooded the market with more and more people with college degrees, thereby diminishing the value of those degrees and driving up the price of college. (This is entirely true.) Doesn’t the government hold some responsibility, as well? Oh, most certainly, and part of the purpose of this blog is to clarify the nature of just this sort of thing.

But that does not eliminate the responsibility of the individual who took out the loans. There was not a gun placed at his or her head.

This is but one example. Without exhausting your attention, I’ll leave your imagination (or, more likely, your observational experience) to more. Individuals are responsible for their own choices and the consequences of those choices. Individualism is, then, put another way, personal responsibility.

An elementary concept that seems to be rapidly vanishing amidst my own generation.

What does individualism, in this sense, encourage? It encourages thrift. It encourages work ethic. It encourages forethought, planning, and seeking good and varied council, and follow through. It encourages taking responsibility for your own choices and actions.

So, what is usually meant by individualism when used in attack? Just the way it was used against me. Selfish. Self-centered. Greedy. Uncaring. Lack of compassion.

But that’s not what individualism is for the advocates of liberty. That is an entirely different sort of ideology than personal responsibility. Individual does not preclude working together, collaboration, mutual support, community, relationship, generosity, or any other similar ideas! In fact, I would argue emphatically, it encourages them.

(In a very real spiritual sense, I believe that Christians have a spiritual obligation to volunteer their resources, time, talents and influence in ways to help others. That is not a libertarian or non-libertarian position. Libertarianism, again, is a political philosophy that does not deal with that, at all, except to say that the government cannot use threat of force to take from some against their will and give it to others.)

Individualism (personal responsibility) and compassion (voluntary generosity) are the best and most powerful of companions. The strongest of societies are built on both.

On a somewhat related note, many people are very much unaware of what it means to be conservative, liberal or libertarian. I have been taking a class on this over at Liberty Classroom, and will be relaying the history of these ideologies and what they mean over the coming months. I hope you’ll be watching for them! And again, please subscribe to my email. I don’t send out many, but when I do, you’ll enjoy them!

Negative v. Positive Rights

Right off the bat, understand that negative does not mean bad, and positive does not mean good. Like getting back the results of a cancer screening.

We’re going a little philosophical this time, very much in the thread of posts related to rights, which I originally write about here (it will be helpful to read these, if you have not done so):

In this particular post, I need to explain the problem with people’s conception of the word “rights.”

“I have a right to healthcare.”

“They have a right to free college education.”

“They have a right to clean water.”

“I have a right to a living wage.”

And you can keep the list running…

If you go back and read my posts listed above, notably the three in the “On What Basis Liberty?” series, you understand that rights are not derived as an obligation of one party to someone else, but rather they are derived primarily from one party’s protection from someone else.

Let’s break that down in re-visiting it. I have a right to my own life because nobody else has a right to take my life. I have a right from a violation of my life. Likewise, I don’t have a right to steal my neighbor’s truck. He, accordingly, has a right from theft.

And that’s essentially what a negative right is. A negative right is a right from something. A right from someone killing you, harming you or taking your stuff. Negative rights follow from the logical conclusions drawn in the three posts mentioned above. (This also applies to things like speech or religion. I have a right to worship how I want, as long as I am not violating anyone else’s property, because nobody has a right to violate my life or liberty.)

Now to positive rights. Those phrases I placed above in quotes (ie, “I have a right to healthcare”) is an example of a positive right. The question is: are positive rights even rights at all?

Well, now, how can I even ask that!? Surely, it is the worst of humanity that would entertain such vile notions.

Well, maybe not. Here’s the problem. Every single positive “right” violates somebody else’s negative right: it puts a legal obligation on another person. For example, if somebody has a “right” to education, then, taken as the dominant “right,” it falls to someone else to provide that “right”. Now, let’s assume that nobody is there to offer their time as an educator. Well, if that is the case, and education is, in fact, a “right,” then somebody is going to need to be forced to teach via force or threat of force. And that, as you’ve already likely drawn the conclusion, is a violation of somebody’s right to life—their right to not be forced into any sort of servitude.

We could continue to look at other examples. Do you have a right to clean water? Then somebody must, as the logical conclusion, offer that clean water. Do you have a right to healthcare? Then someone is going to be paying for it. All of these negative rights are violated by a so-called positive right.

“But, but, Lukas, it’s not like people are actually forcing people to be teachers. People don’t have to be teachers if they don’t want to.”

Yes, I am aware. Nobody forced me to be a teacher. It is my passion.

To that counter-argument, though, I have two responses.

First, this is largely an academic argument showing that there is an inherent contradiction between negative and positive rights. You cannot have both. A positive right is an oxy-moron.

Second, there is, nevertheless, a very strong pragmatic side of this issue. It is correct that, at least in the United States, nobody is being forced to be a teacher. But taxpayers are forced to give money over for public education. Remember, aggression includes the threat of force. No, men with guns probably won’t show up at your house to collect your taxes, but they will if you don’t volunteer those taxes (after the auditors, of course).

Think about the extensions of this inherent contradiction with regard to healthcare. Do I have a right to good medical access? Then somebody is going to have to pay for that, violating their negative right to their property and the produce of their own labor. A positive right means that someone else has an obligation to surrender some aspect of their life, liberty or property.

And you can continue down the list to positive “right” after “right.”

Besides, what makes a positive “right” is terribly subjective. One person may say they believe everyone has a right to clean water, but I may say I have a right to a $100,000 per year salary (which really means that any employer I have has an obligation to pay me $100,000, regardless of the value I am offering his company). Who’s to say that the first person is right and I am wrong? There is no standard by which to judge what a positive “right” actually is.

And now the more antagonistic readers out there who don’t know me personally think I am of the more despicable of the earth. Based on the very fact that I support the non-aggression principle, I have already been marked by one internet troll as worthy of a lifetime prison sentence. So I get it. Ad hominem is an internet favorite.

But to believe that negative rights should be honored, and not violated in favor of positive “rights” does not make anyone heartless. I believe—and advocate for—abundant generosity. I believe it is far more loving and compassionate to volunteer your time to build wells in Africa, then to vote in politicians who will tax your neighbor to then provide those wells, instead. (And I haven’t even brought up a study that shows government charity programs have a less than 20% efficiency rating: meaning that less than one out of every five dollars reaches the person that money was intended for. Source link here.)

Do you believe firmly in positive rights because you truly desire to help people, as many who make the above claims do? Then donate. Offer your time and resources. Become a teacher in the inner-city. Begin a charity organization and ask for donors. Offer to pay for someone’s medical care. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Don’t use the threat of force to demand people donate to what you consider to be a positive “right.”

(Which reminds me, there is an excellent way to give to projects all over the world at DonorSee.com. Check them out!)

Understand, that every time you say someone has a right to something, you are advocating for the violation of someone else’s right from a violation of their person or property.

And in that understanding, might I encourage you to give generously and abundantly of your own person and property. But I’ll just try to influence; I won’t use a gun (or the threat of one).

 

Learn the Truth: Liberty Classroom

lc

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson

Naturally, as a teacher, you would all expect me to emphasize the importance of learning. My career is built on just such an emphasis.

Most of us also understand that a huge problem is that many sources for historical information are skewed. Textbooks are framed in a politically correct, if historically incorrect, understanding of the world that pushes an agenda supporting the progressive movement (the movement that looks to government, mainly central, as the key to social and economic progress). Why else would you find textbooks explaining the 2nd Amendment as established primarily for self-defense in an unruly countryside where an effective state-sponsored police force had not yet been established? (It was established to deter government from becoming tyrannical. They didn’t need an amendment to the federal Constitution to protect gun ownership for the sake of self-defense; that was a given. They would only need the 2nd Amendment if they were concerned about the nature of power as inherently susceptible to abuse and tyranny. And now I’m getting off on a tangent…)

As many of you know, the 2nd Amendment is an easy rally point for conservatives, and most in my experience understand it.

But that’s only the beginning. Textbooks—even many conservative ones, if you can find them—teach that the Gilded Age monopolies were bad and government regulation fixed that.

They teach that child labor was the result of capitalism gone awry and government bans on child labor saved our children from terrible deaths in the factories.

They teach that World War I was the great war for democracy, and that without U.S. entry with the Allies, the world would have descended into greater depravity.

They teach us that without government inspection of our food, we’d all be living to the ripe old age of 43.

False. False. False. False.

Yes, I know for some of you, that seems like a pretty bold case to be made.

I’ve spent the last several years using what little “free” time I have to study and learn history, economics and political policy—I’ve committed hundreds of hours to studying.

“Well, you’re a history and government teacher. Of course, you would,” comes the reply.

Well, yes. You do have a point.

Stick with me for a minute? The fact of the matter is, especially in light of a presidential election year, our understanding of these topics is very important. Do we really understand the implications of the candidates’—and now, specifically—Trump’s policies (the ones he has clarified)? The fact of the matter is, there are so many subtly (and no so subtly) taught misconceptions and bold-faced fallacies.

The best place I have found for true, substantial learning of this material is Liberty Classroom.

courses-preview

Courses Preview (see full list below)

Do not think Liberty Classroom is a gimmick. If you ask my wife, I tend to be very tight-fisted; I don’t spend money easily. I spent months of debating it and four hours of research before buying a $60 mp3 player. So I promote Liberty Classroom boldly and without reservation. It has been one of the best educational expenditures I have ever made (yes, I did go to college).

The teachers on Liberty Classroom are not just bloggers with passion (yes, I am aware of what I just said). They have Ph.D. level education (some have multiple Ph.D.’s) and years—if not decades—of teaching experience in universities and elsewhere. They are experts in their fields.

Courses List (more courses added regularly)

Courses List (more courses added regularly)

They cover a myriad of topics. Tom Woods’, himself having a Ph.D. in History and years of teaching experience at the college level before spending the recent decades in educating the public through books (he is a New York Times bestselling author), speeches and other content (like Liberty Classroom), has been forging this online learning source with accuracy and professionalism.

Yes, this is a plug…as if you didn’t notice! This weekend, November 25 (today) – Monday, November 28, Liberty Classroom is offering their best prices of the year: $5.16 a month for Basic Membership (though you pay in lump sum) if you buy today, and then just $5.42 a month through Monday night. You probably spend more on just Netflix, just Spotify or just Redbox in a month—for entertainment. Can I suggest you spend less than Netflix for some of the best education in history, government and economics that you could get (with the goal of keeping my integrity, I say that whole-heartedly).

And I also know that some of you will think it’s going to be Libertarian Party activism like that exposed by media. False, again. Entirely false. To repeat, the teaching here is professional and the professors are experts on their sources and subjects.

I do earn commission on this, but I’d promote it even if I didn’t (yes, yes; they all say that). If you know me, however, you know that I certainly would not promote something unless I was really behind it.

Check out and sign up for Liberty Classroom through my affiliate link here (or click the “Join Now” image below to take you to their home page; just scroll down on the home page for the three levels of membership and pricing).

And for your viewing pleasure,  below is a favorite video of Tom Woods in his “Interview with a Zombie” on his book and the issue of nullification, followed by his promotional video of Liberty Classroom.

Remember: BEST PRICES today! Discounted prices END MONDAY NIGHT. Click here:

Click here to go to LibertyClassroom.com

Click here to go to LibertyClassroom.com