I once heard someone describe them self as a rugged individualist. I remember thinking among other things, what the heck does that mean? So, I decided to do a little research and found that I agree with the principle of individualism and thought I would post my findings on my blog.
So what is this thing called individualism? First, as an individualist I believe that reality is absolute. This means that reality is that which exists, and that it is absolute. It is the standard of the true, the false, and the arbitrary. Things are what they are...independent of our or anyone else's feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions. Or, in the immortal words of Aristotle: A is A; to be is to be something, finite, limited and non-contradictory.
Second, I believe that reason is a person's means of survival. Reason is a person's only means of knowing reality, upon which their survival in reality depends. Whether the person is alone on a desert island, wandering around with a pack of savages, or living in a city of billions; people must think and then act on their thinking if life is their goal.
I also believe the individual is sovereign. That every person is a rational animal and reality dictates that to survive a person must be rational by choice. A person is a being of FREE WILL. A person can choose to think, drift, or evade but choose they must. Their thoughts determine: their character, their values, their emotions, and their actions, and so their thoughts determine their destiny. As reason is solely the attribute of an individual and a person's thinking determines their choices and actions, then each person is the master of their own destiny. The individual is sovereign. (sovereign=one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere)
Next, every person is an end in themself and not a slave to the ends of society. A person can gain immense value from living with other people in society-mainly knowledge and trade-if it is a human society. A human society is one in which each person holds as an absolute: that every person is an end in himself, and that other people are not his pawns, nor they theirs. Or, in the words of John Galt (from Atlas Shrugged), "I swear, by my life and by my love of it-that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Individualism is not opposed to people living in society. Individualism is opposed to people living in society as a slave.
To live in society, a person needs rights. To live rationally in society I believe that a person requires only one thing from other people and that is freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which could be taken away by a dictator or a democratic mob's whim, but the freedom to act as an absolute...by right. A person requires rights to those actions to support their own life which is the the most fundamental right, the right to life, from which all other rights (including the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness) derive. What are rights? Rights are moral principles defining a person's freedom of action in a social context. Rights are inalienable -- they may not be morally infringed upon, i.e., a thief may rob you, but morally that person is in the wrong, and you are in the right. Rights are not guarantees to things, but only guarantees to freedom of action (right to liberty)...and a guarantee to the results of those actions (right to property). The only obligation one's rights impose on others is for them to leave you alone, i.e. free to act within your sphere of rights.
In a political context, freedom only has one meaning...freedom from the initiation of force by other people. Only by the initiation of force can a person be prohibited from speaking, or be robbed of their possessions or murdered. Only by initiation of force can a person's rights be violated. Only the initiation of force against a person can stop their mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. It is for this reason that force renders a person's mind useless. Every person has the right to self-defense, the right to use force to retaliate against those who first start the use of force, but never may one morally initiate it. The use of force, in and of itself, is not evil; but to initiate force is evil. To use force in retaliation or in self-defense against those who initiate it, is not a moral option, but a moral requirement. A moral person has nothing to gain when someone tries to kill them, but they have much to lose if they do not defend themselves.
Government's job is to protect rights. A person's state in nature, where all people are allowed complete discretion in the use of force, according to the laws of the jungle, is nothing more than a state of anarchy...perpetual civil war and gang warfare. To place the retaliatory use of force under objective legal control, under clearly defined laws that are logically based on the principle of rights, a society of people delegate to government, their right to retaliate against those who initiate force. Government is an agency which has a monopoly on the use of physical force. This legal power, to use physical force, only may be used for one purpose; to retaliate against those who initiate force, according to objectively defined laws. Never is this power to be used to initiate force, but government is only permitted to retaliate and defend against those who initiate force.
The powers of the state shall never be used to initiate force. As no individual in their private capacity as a citizen may morally initiate force against others, neither may they in their public capacity, as a state official, initiate force either. Morally, no one may initiate force for any reason whatsoever, even if that reason claims to be for the "public good". (For is not the individual, whose rights are being violated for the "public good", a member of the "public" also?)
What then does a proper government consist of? In order to protect rights, a government requires three things: an army to protect against foreign invaders, a police force to protect against domestic criminals, and a court system to settle honest disputes that arise, enforce contracts, and to punish criminals, according to objectively predefined laws.
To ensure that no ruler with absolute power, whether it be a single dictator, a political organization, or a "democratic" majority of the moment, may usurp (seize and hold the power and/or rights of another by force and without legal authority) the powers of government, and turn its power upon any of its citizens, each and every aspect of government action is codified, and carried out according to objectively defined laws. In a free society each and every person lives under a rule of law, as opposed to a rule of men. The rule of law has only one proper purpose: to protect the rights of the smallest minority that has ever existed...the individual. Such a body of integrated, codified, and non-contradictory laws form objective legislation, which hold a person innocent until they can be proven guilty, as opposed to a library of irrational regulations which hold a person guilty until he can somehow prove himself innocent, to the gratification of someone who thinks people are incapable of trust. The supreme legal document of a proper society is the constitution... a person's protection against both private criminals and public officials who seek to imitate the criminal's methods. The purpose of the constitution is not to grant unlimited power to government, or to limit the rights of an individual, but to limit the power of government to its only valid purpose: the protection of individual rights. In other words, a citizen is free to do whatever they are not explicitly forbidden (under a proper legal system the only act forbidden is the violation of the rights); whereas, a state official is only allowed to carry out what is explicitly permitted.
Can you imagine what would be the result of a society where the initiation of force is banned from all relationships?
It would not make every person a moral person, nor would it prevent every injustice. But, think what it could do?
It would result in: a society of good will and benevolence, where each person sees his neighbor not as part of a gang ready to rob them, but as a potential trader, from which they can gain immense values.
A society where each person is prepared to judge and be judged -- not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
A society of free-thinking and free-acting individuals, and not a society of the collective, ruled by a tyrant who has monopolized the title of the "voice of the people."
A society where each person is free to pursue their own happiness, wherever it may take them.
That's what I believe in....what about you?
