From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Liberty and Individualism
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:24:21 GMT

[This is getting away from the campaign, so followups to
alt.individualism]

>In a prior article, Nick Szabo (szabo@techbook.com) writes:
>> Libertarians are quite in favor of voluntary collective action.  It is 
>> a common mistake (even among libertarians) to confuse liberty with 
>> individualism.  _Not_ the same thing; not even close in my book.
>
In article <1992Aug24.063734.14709@muddcs.claremont.edu> irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith) writes:
>I'm intrigued by this comment, especially so given that Nick seems to be one
>of the strongest advocates/supporters of the Libertarian Party on the net.
>
>The only real
>complaint (i.e. that wasn't just vehement sniping) that I've heard from
>Objectivists about Libertarians is that the latter group allegedly doesn't
>ground its political philosophy appropriately in moral philosophy. 

I'm not too familiar with the libertarian philosophical writings (eg
Murray Rothbard), but the LParty itself is grounded in a moral principle: 
purging force and fraud from human relations.  That, to me, says nothing
about the value or power of the individual as opposed to the community.
From observing the world, it is overwhelmingly true that various kinds
of groups (families, businesses, political parties, etc. etc.) are far more
effective than the individual in accomplishing tasks and propagating
themselves.

The Nietchze/Rand school of individual power is, to me, a seductive
but ultimately not very fruitful way of looking at human relations or 
coming up with a moral system.  For that, I greatly prefer a combination 
of Hume, the moral propagationism of Heinlein, and religious teachings.
Religions are a huge storehouse of wisdom that no abstract moral system 
can touch for specific guides and models of right behavior.  God may be dead,
but nobody is going to kill off the Ten Commandments any time soon. They 
have served millions of people well for thousands of years, and as I 
gain experience in life even the ones that at first seemed silly (eg
"thou shalt not commit adultery") take on new meaning and importance.
This giant memory-bank of civilization is based on millenia of 
accumulated experience, not on detatched, hubristic deduction.

>Side note: Individualism isn't incompatible with voluntary collective action
>either. I am benefitted by working with my fellow citizens to collectively
>improve our individual lives. Individualism is opposed to _collectivism_,
>which promotes working for "the common good" and other vague, ill-defined
>non-concepts as an ethical goal. 

Some believe that Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill define utility quite
well.  Unfortuneately their basis for utility, "happiness", is indeed 
vague as well as being only one of many states needed for propagation.
The pursuit of happiness is, however, quite seductive, as is the pursuit
of individual power.

>individualists are libertarian because they think it does them the most good
>personally, whereas collectivist libertarians are libertarian because they
>think it does "society" the most good.

There are plenty of individuals, eg those on the government dole, who
would lose, at least relatively, if libertarianism prevailed.  I think 
libertarianism does specific, well-defined, valuable groups the 
most good: families, churches, businesses, etc. Individuals are finite 
blobs, worth protecting only as a convenient political abstraction.  
(That should make for flame fodder :-)


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou