Tibor R. Machan
The idea may appear to be an oxymoron but it isn’t. The seeds of a sound
revolution do not come out of a vacuum. Although the American Founders did
upend the previous practice of entrusting countries into the hands of
monarchs, czars, and other potential despots, the roots of the
individualism with which they achieved this were already in place.
It all came out of the idea of personal responsibility, something the
ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle–as well as
some less well know ones, such as Alcibiades–embraced and championed.
There was, however, a disjoint afoot. Only ethics, the concern about how
persons ought to act, was influenced significantly by the notion, not
politics. At least not much of it. The morally virtuous life championed by
these thinkers had been individualist–after all, to be morally virtuous
had to be something that individuals had to choose. There is no ethical
life without choice. Aristotle, who is often said to have been a kind of
communitarian in his politics was, in fact, an individualist when it came
to ethics. Moral virtues such as prudence, honesty, generosity, courage
and even justice–more a political than an ethical virtue–depend for
their practice on individuals thinking and acting right. Being forced to
be virtuous is indeed an oxymoron–ethics presupposes free choice, a free
will on the part of the agent.
But while this ethical individualism had been strongly suggested way back
then, the corresponding political individualism lagged behind. One may
assume this to have been one result of, among other things, a great deal
of tribal thinking–people tended to worry mostly about their group’s
survival, which was the main if not only approach to personal survival.
(In time this changed but habits die hard!) And the ethical demands placed
on people were already substantially individualistic–they were
responsible personally, as individuals ultimately, to do the right thing
and blameworthy if they failed to do it.
However, this came into conflict with the demands of politics which often
put citizens into a position of subservience. (Sparta was the
quintessential case in point.) Nonetheless, this element of ethical
individualism–so well discussed by the late David L. Norton, in his
superb book, Personal Destinies, A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism
(Princeton University Press, 1976)–eventually bloomed into the social and
political individualism that the American Founders laid down as the
foundation of their new country. Yes, it was revolutionary but, no, it
wasn’t without earlier philosophical foundations.
The problem is, of course, that the political collectivism of the past
keeps resurfacing whenever people turn to politics, especially in scary
times like now. The teachings of the Founders haven’t managed to
thoroughly sink in, so that many people still believe that politics cannot
be individualistic especially in times of trouble, even if in fact only an
individualist politics will help them out of their messes.
Many misguidedly think that in scary times solutions have to be socialist,
communitarian, social democratic, or some other modern version of
collectivist–and thus coercive—public policy, instead of the classical
liberal idea of limited government that rests on a social, economic, legal
and other form of individualism.
Still, over time the individualist, classical liberal political economy
has shown (to anyone who pays close attention) that it really is the best
way to handle problems of human community life. The public good is indeed
what the American Founders believed, the protection of the basic rights of
individuals. Yes, there is such a thing as the public good or interest but
it is limited to providing everyone with the protection of his or her
rights to life, liberty and property. Other problems can best be solved
when this appropriately limited public good is secured and not when
governments assume responsibility for everything.
The truth of individualism is not that nothing but individuals matter but
that they matter the most. So whatever else matters must not interfere
with the conditions that make their flourishing possible.