In the FEE article Is Individualism vs. Collectivism the New Left vs. Right?, Nicholas Baum gets off on the right foot, correctly pointing out the collectivist orientation of both conservatives and liberals/progressives. He then advises, again correctly, that the real alternatives are individualism versus collectivism. (Individualism versus collectivism has, in fact, been the fundamental philosophical battle at the heart of the American Revolution since America’s Founding).
I believe that Baum’s definitions of the terms are mixed. On individualism, Baum writes:
The first side of this spectrum is known as “individualism.” As Ayn Rand writes, “Individualism regards man… as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”
Individualism believes that every person, because they are rational and equal, are independent beings entitled to the largest possible domain of freedom. This freedom of choice and action only stops when it directly conflicts with the ability of others to do the same, mainly if it intrudes upon their life, liberty, or property.
To an individualist, the maximum role of the government is to protect our lives, liberty, and property. If the government were to perform an additional task, whether it be for “progressive” or “conservative” ends, it would be, in the words of Frédéric Bastiat, “legalized plunder.”
On collectivism, Baum falls way short. He writes:
The other side of this spectrum is “collectivism,” and it encompasses most of the beliefs we are commonly exposed to. Whether it be conservatism, progressivism, or socialism, collectivism involves the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society.
Whereas the key tenet of individualism is the maximization of freedom in order to live by one’s own morals, a key tenet of collectivist ideologies is the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda. This may come in two forms. The government might subsidize activities they endorse, or they might restrict people’s freedom through regulations for activities they disapprove of.
Baum is spot-on with regards to individualism. But he misses the essential nature of collectivism. It’s true that collectivism leads to statism, which leads to “the imposition of a certain belief or point of view on the rest of society” and “the willingness to use coercive means to promote a desired social or economic agenda.” But that’s an effect, not a fundamental definition. He could have consulted Ayn Rand like he did on individualism. As Rand explains:
Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”
Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.
But that’s not the worst of Baum’s article. The worst comes under the heading “The Ultimate Dichotomy” and deals with morality. After defending the individual’s independent rights to life, liberty, and property, Baum writes this surprising statement:
One may be tempted to assume that individualism is a form of egoism or selfishness. But in his classic work The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek points out that this is hardly the case.
“(Individualism) merely starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more than a sector of the needs of the whole society,” Hayek observed.
Baum drops the ball, falling back on the utilitarian argument that collectivism is not good because no individual is smart enough or knowledgeable enough to know everyone’s needs. Presumably, if someone could know, or convince enough people that he does know, then he would be justified to “use coercive [state] means to promote a desired social or economic agenda” on “the rest of society” in the name of “the common good.”
This is a complete capitulation to collectivism by a supposed individualist. This is the consequence of the failure to defend individualism on moral grounds. I left these comments:
Baum is correct that the common Left/Right spectrum is a false dichotomy, since these days both sides represent some variation of collectivism. But he ignores the other false dichotomy, the moral one. This is a crucial mistake.
The conventional conception of egoism or selfishness is of a predatory individual who lives by harming others. The only opposite of selfishness, on this view, is said to be altruism, which means living for others at the expense of self-harm. Given that unappetizing choice, most people would say altruism is the better choice, even though most people don’t practice much of it because common sense tells them it’s completely impractical if you want to live and achieve your own values.
Thus, we’re given a choice; sacrifice self to others and be moral, or sacrifice others to self and be immoral. But as Ayn Rand understood, this is a false and fraudulent choice. She advocated a third alternative, rational selfishness, which means achieving your goals by neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self, getting along with others according to the non-sacrificial method she called The Trader Principle.
It’s obvious that collectivism thrives on altruism. That being true, and if individualism is collectivism’s opposite, then the only moral foundation of individualism has to be rational selfishness. Nobody’s going to believe that individualism, which defines every individual as “an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, liberty, and property,” is altruistic. It is implicitly egoistic. So, if egoism is immoral, then so is individualism . . ., and so is the whole point of the rights to life, liberty, and property—the pursuit of your own happiness. From this view, collectivism wins on the most important ground, the ground of morality.
If man is by nature a being possessing a rational faculty, then it is right to live by one’s own judgement. If that is so, then rational selfishness is morally right, and individualism wins. Collectivism always leads to a predatory, ultimately self-destructive society because altruism is fundamentally predatory. After all, if it is moral for you to live for others, then a moral life logically means that “society”—others—must live for you. If you really think it through, altruism and conventional selfishness are really two sides of the same predatory coin.
If we are to get rid of the false collectivist Left/Right dichotomy and embrace individualism, we’ll need to get rid of the false moral dichotomy, as well, and give individualism the moral high ground it deserves, rational egoism. If you can’t defend egoism or selfishness, then it’d be better not to mention morality at all, and simply add the pursuit of happiness to life, liberty, and property, and leave the moral defense of individualism to those who will properly frame the moral conflict underpinning individualism versus collectivism—egoism versus altruism.
Related Reading:
QUORA: Is Ayn Rand's 'Selfishness' 'the middle between altruism and selfism?'
QUORA *: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’
Books to Aid in Understanding Rational Selfishness
‘Can Anyone Be Truly Selfish?’
Is Science Catching Up to the Objectivist Ethics?
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle
Related Viewing:
VIDEO: Individualism vs Collectivism - Dr. Yaron Brook
No comments:
Post a Comment