By Bill Chandler
Last year Melissa Harris-Perry, a professor (of course) came up with the absurd idea that kids actually belong to ‘the collective’ rather than to their parents. Only one year ago this seemed like the absurdest of concepts, yet look at what we have today. This excerpt from the poem “Obamapool Reflections” says it all:
. . . Common core is what to teach,
Hamas will tell them what to preach.
IRS is who they’ll pay,
Obamacare? I’ll just delay.
Al will help us with the heat,
Michelle will tell them what to eat.
My Dad will dictate what to hear,
And I will tell them what to fear. . .
.
While we stand there aghast, the United States government it rapidly taking over the role of parent by dictating how we raise our children, what they eat, how they learn, how they are disciplined, and what they are taught. As repulsive as this is to most parents, our elected officials are pushing us in that direction with very little resistance. According to Harris-Perry, a political science professor at Tulane University:
“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.”
Harris-Perry goes on to explain that kids belong to whole communities, and once we realize this we’ll make “better investments” in government indoctrination of children.
Destroy the family and empower the state. Issues like gay marriage, multiculturalism, extra are designed to undermine and destroy the nuclear family and to erase us of our ethnic, religious, and cultural identity. Once our loyalties are not to our natural families, kith, kin, folk and church, our loyalties are then diverted to the state. Plus, it's easy for the state to dominate the individual than a cohesive group. That's why if libertarians wish to minimize or eliminate the state, they have to reject radical individualism.
ReplyDeleteDefine "radical" individualism.
DeleteVery incisive post, thanks.
DeleteJeff,
DeleteI agree with most of what you've stated but, I'm not so sure you haven't committed a non-sequitur.
Why do you believe that if libertarians wish to minimize the state, they have to reject radical individualism?
Great question Hollow Daze. I was going to ask it initially but, decided against it for the time being.
Delete@Hollow Daze
DeleteThe best description of radical individualism that I can think of is that it is philosophy that places the freedom and autonomy of the individual over those of society. Granted, not all libertarians are radical individualist but there is a strong radical individualist element in libertarianism. Terms like "freedom" and "liberty" mean different things to different people. Some Rothbardians see freedom strictly in terms of the NAP. These people are not necessarily radical individualist. Others see freedom and liberty in terms of personal freedom to deviate from societal norms and obligations. These people tend to be radical individualism. Many left libertarians and beltarians promote various social causes (like gay marriage), sexual liberation, childlessness, open marriages, polyamory, etc. The "freedom" to remove the restraints from traditional society norms is considered to be "liberty" to these people.
@ Unknown
DeleteFor any libertarian whose concern is strictly about the role the state plays in society, radical individualism should be rejected. There is a basic fact that we all have to live with is that we will all be governed. The question is who do we prefer to govern us? Will it be a human scale organic society or the inhuman state? I believe that the size of the state will vary between two poles. Those two poles are individualism and family. The more a society is based on family/kin/folk, the smaller the state. The more individualist society becomes, the larger the state there will be. There is very little need for a state in societies that have strong ties to family, faith, and folk. Take the Amish as an example. They are, for the most part, a stateless society. They
1. Don't receive government welfare benefits including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
2. Don't send their kids to government schools.
3. No government subsidies (including farm aid)
4. No government loans
5. They don't rent seek their industries
6. They don't have government jobs
7. They don't serve in the government military
Even though they are largely stateless, they don't permit nearly as much individual liberty as American society. They have rules, customs, norms, obligations that extend beyond the NAP. They are not an individualist society but they have a lot of liberty from the state. Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute tout Somalia as a functioning anarchist society. But Somalia is not an individualist society. They are a clannish society and that's why anarchy works for them. Somalia couldn't be state free if it were an individualist society. There was an anarchic period in Ireland, but Ireland was a clannish society also.
I can say a lot more on this. But I will end by emphasizing that a min state or anarchy can't exist with radical individualism. Libertarians who wish to eliminate or significantly reduce the size of the state should strongly discourage radical individualism and embrace familial/folk/clannish societies, which can function on their own without the state. Furthermore, any libertarian should see any attempt by the state to undermine or eliminate the family as an attempt acquire power for itself. The family is the enemy of the state.
Jeff,
DeleteThank you for your reply; you've given me some things to think about.
Interesting. I understand where you are coming from and agree with your concepts to a point but not necessarily the terminology.
DeleteI see individualism as contra to collectivism generally. To me, radical individualism is a combination the dictionary definition of radical “the root part or basic principle” with the dictionary definition of individualism “a doctrine that the interests of the individual ought to be ethically paramount and a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests.” Tribes, families, and clans are collectivist but ultimately voluntary because they, unlike the State, do not have the right to coerce you using violence. Individuals retain the right of personal secession. Personally, I have seen both sides of family and do not put as much stock in the institution as you might.
With libertarianism, you have the NAP. Beyond that, per the authority, Rothbard, you are free to believe in whatever you like as far as lifestyle choices, etc. True freedom and liberty requires, in the most general sense, the ability to agree to disagree. However, if you choose to promote any lifestyle choice or choices via the State and its aggressions, that violates the NAP and moves you outside the realm of "libertarianism" into what I believe is the realm of cultural Marxism not radical individualism. Others that are more well versed in libertarian esoterica describe this issue using terms like "thin" libertariansm vs. "thick" libertarianism or Wenzel's term "libwaps", libertarians with additional principles. I just don’t believe “thicks” or “libwaps” who embrace State aggressions to further their ends continue to be libertarians. Such actors will obviously have great difficulty minimizing or eliminating the State.
Ultimately, the most important point I’d like to make is that, although it is self evident via deduction, it must actually be said out loud that you can be a libertarian and believe in traditional or (I hate this term but it must be used in the common parlance) “conservative” social values as long as you renounce aggression in seeking to assert such values on others. Speak up, say your piece, do not be intimidated by the cultural Marxists or their enforcer, the State.
@ Hollow Daze
DeleteI understand your points. However, I think libertarians are too theoretical on their social policy and fail to address real world reality. For example, one reason why individualist society will never happen is because women (who represent more than half of the population) are biologically driven to value security over Liberty. If a woman can receive security from a husband and an extended family, she won't seek security from the state. Women who are unmarried or are single mothers typically use the state to provide to them physical protection and material resources. It's not a coincidence that unmarried women tend to vote Democrat and married White women vote Republican (the ostensible small government party). That's why it's in the interest of libertarianism to promote marriage. It should also be noted that humans are social creatures. Generally speaking, we all seek a sense of belonging or a sense of identity. If our identity comes from our family, kinfolk, community, church, we won't seek indentity from the state. In the U.S., racial, ethnic, folk, or religious identity has been prohibited from polite society. In its place, people have sought civic nationalism (ie Americanism) to replace their natural longing for identity. This civic nationalism provides to the state loyalty and has encouraged the imperialism and aggressive foreign policy that we see.
Radical individualism doesn't serve the interest of libertarians. Various forms of voluntary collectivism serve as a bulwark against state power.
I have my own issues with libertarian theory vs. the real world but there is a consistency that is necessary for setting the terms of a debate. It's aspirational, I guess. Beyond renouncing aggression/coercion/violence, you are simply stating your preferences or opinions, to which you are, of course, entitled. That being said, I tend to be suspicious of any kind of pseudo-scientific moralization or whether a person votes Dem or Rep to signify predisposition to liberty vs. security. At this point, the State is deeply insinuated into the lives of Americans of every socioeconomic bent. I mean, there are married couples whose every cent comes from the gov't in the form of a gov't paycheck who vote Republican. Does this mean they are for small gov't and liberty? Possible, but highly doubtful.
DeleteI am puzzled by your notion that Americans embrace some form of generic civic nationalism or "Americanism" over other sources of identity. Identity politics, driven ironically by the State and its predilection towards "divide and rule" and establishing protected and rewarded classes reliant on its God-like benevolence, is the basis for politics. People are portrayed and tend to see themselves politically as "evangelicals", "African-Americans", "gays", "women" or "minorities", not as Americans. It's all anyone can talk about anymore. Then, you go a step further and connect the US's imperialistic and aggressive foreign policy to the people's "civic nationalism"? As if aggressive wars based on lies conducted solely for the profits of a few arises out of the collective will of the people and not from a cabal the politically and financially interested. That's a bridge too far for me.
Voluntary collectivism certainly fits into libertarianism. Whether it "serves the interest of libertarians" or promotes liberty is another matter. Your example of the Amish is valid, but even you admit they do not allow a great deal of personal liberty. Maybe they serve the interests of anarchists (no rulers) but they do not serve the interests of "libertarians." As far as I can tell they are a relatively tiny, isolated, and hereditary sect that seems to have been "grandfathered" some autonomy by the State, kind of like the Shakers 100 years ago, as long as they keep it quiet. Other, more modern voluntary collectivist movements that attempted to defy the State, such as the MOVE Group in Philly in the mid-80s, the Branch Davidians in the early 90s, and the Jeffords Mormon sect in the 2000s have been ruthlessly suppressed via outright firebombing and tenacious prosecution. They were hardly "bulwarks" against State power.
Both Republicans and Democrats are Big Government. However, Republican voters are less likely to vote based on getting free stuff from the government. The base on the Democrat Party is the Free Shit Army.
DeleteI should have clarified my statement regarding identity in the US. If a person is part of a victim class (Blacks/African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Asians, illegal immigrants, gays, women, etc) they are allowed to have identity. Normal White people aren't. When I spoke of Americanism as a substitute identity, it was applicable to White, Anglo Saxon, Christians, people who form the base of the Republican Party and the ones who are most into patriotardism. Americanism is their identity and American Exceptionalism and promoting an aggressive foreign policy is how they express their identity.
Anything that allows people to first identify with their group before the state serves the interest of libertarianism.