Defining Terms: Egoism, Individualism, and Libertarianism

I have decided that it’s time to define my terms and put them into context. I use the terms egoism, individualism, and libertarianism almost interchangeably but I have never really taken the time to explain what I think that the mean.

Egoism

Literally meaning “self-ism”, egoism is usually meant to mean a way of life, or social interaction such as hedonism or Ayn Rand’s ethical theory rational egoism. However this is not what I mean by egoism, I think it’s more basic than that, what I am talking about is a fundamental  philosophical view of existence that the human ego is the defining unit of all existence. In other words, it is only the human ego, and its nature, that makes philosophy, and any particular view of existence relevant in the first place.

Let me explain further, It is only due to our nature as an individual with certain needs, wants, and desires that makes anything relevant or irrelevant. In the same way that rand pointed out that it is only life that makes the concept value possible, so I would like to say it only the ego that makes anything relevant.

Why should anyone be scientific? Because the truth is relevant to our existence. Why is the truth relevant to our existence? Because having an accurate understanding of reality is essential to achieving my own needs, wants and desires.

It all reduces back to the ego.

Even religion and anti-egoistic beliefs rely on appealing to your self interest on some base level. You are supposed to believe in god because he exists, and if you reject that he exists there will be negative consequences. For this reason its very important to apply egoism to all aspects of life, but that is a topic for another time (I believe empiricism is the correct expression of egoism when it comes to knowledge).

In summery, only individuals have thoughts, senses, feelings, wants, desires, passions, and needs and it is therefore the self or ego that makes philosophy relevant, and therefore the ego is the defining unit of all philosophy and existence.

Individualism

I define individualism an the correct expression of egoism. It is the recognition that the ego is the defining unit of all existence and that one cannot live by the standards of others but rather only by ones own judgment and relationship with reality.

Individualism has many difference faces when it comes to different areas of life whether it be love, economics, psychology, or politics. But I believe individualism is the recognition that one’s own life and happiness are the bases for choosing ones values no matter what aspect of life it happens to be.

Libertarianism

In the same way I believe individualism is the correct expression of egoism, I believe that libertarianism is the correct expression of individualism when it comes to politics and what role violence in social interaction. This puts libertarianism into context.

When so called socialist libertarians and anarcho-communists bring up issues such as wage slavery, and the tyranny of capitalism claiming that most libertarians don’t really believe in liberty, they are taking the term liberty out of context of my over all philosophy.

When they talk about liberty, it seems to mean some vague reference to social power, when I talk about liberty it means something within the context of an over all philosophy, that no human being has a positive obligation to another, and should therefore be free from coercion. It is an expression of individualism which is an expression of egoism. Egoism is the standard, and libertarianism is one expression of that standard.

In this blog I hoped to do two things.

1. Define my terms and put them into context
2. Show that libertarianism is not a belief that stands on its own but is an expression of a more fundamental philosophy.

Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux and others have recognized this same fact. We should not pursue political liberty alone, but rather we should apply the principles of individualism to all aspects of our life.  I hope in recent posts to show what expressions of individualism in different aspects of life look like.

Four Arguments Against Authority

1. Efficiency and Motive. The typical argument often put forward by conservatives (though they never apply it consistently) is that the government is inefficient. The government has little or no motive to to supply you with your needs and interests, and I will even go a step further and say that its motives in general are entirely opposite to yours. There are those with money and influence that have the power to lobby the government, while you probably at best have a vote.

The general solution provided to this problem is democracy. However the amount of those hired by the government that you get to vote for is so limited that it has little or no effect. If we voted on every speed limit sign, every teacher, and every government bureaucrat we may have some effect on limiting corruption within the government but the process would be so insanely time consuming it clearly wouldn't solve the problem of inefficiency. But even if democracy fixed all problems of corruption and lack of motive, and could be done efficiently then democracy is a still form of authority (the authority of the majority) and the rest of the arguments provided below will thus still apply.

2. Central Planning. The world is filled with billions of people that all have their own unique and complex needs, interests, and desires. Often times it it put forward that because our industrial society is so complicated we need government central planning to keep things in balance (note every action taken by the government in the same of the financial crisis) however the argument from complexity is an argument for freedom, not power. The possibility of a committee of people in power (A) having the motive and (B) having the knowledge to provide you with its “service” is very unlikely

An entrepreneur risks significant amounts of money and puts forward significant time and energy while at the same time paying very close attention to market trends, prices and interest rates to try and provide you with your service within a limited area and population. While at the same time competing with others to find the best price and method to provide you with that service. The government simply puts forward a blanket plan for the entire population based on the limited knowledge of those in a certain committee. And if the plan fails it it will almost surely be blamed on capitalism or freedom (note Michael Moore's new movie).

For example many believe the issue of poverty is as simple as giving (or taking from some people and then giving) money to people who doesn't have money. However if this was the case (A) sense the “War on Poverty” we should be a decrease in poverty and (B) Africa would be pretty well off place by now! Neither is the case, poverty is a complex issue with complex solutions that can only be provided by freedom, not authority.

For another example take the “War on Drugs”. If central planning worked we should expect the war on drugs to be going very well. However after the countless dollars spent, lives lost, and freedoms taken away the addiction rate to illegal drugs remains at 1.3% of the population as it did long before the “War on Drugs” was ever put into action. Many would even say its worse than it was before. Drug addiction and the drug economy is a complex issue with complex solutions. Do we really expect anything better when it comes to health-care?

3. Human Nature. Probably one of the most common arguments for authority is based on human nature “Human beings are X (greedy, self-destructive) so we need government controls on Y(welfare, war on drugs).” This translates into “We can't be trusted with freedom, but they can be trusted with power”. Something to always remember, even if it is obvious, is that the government is made of human beings. If you make blanket statement that people are too greedy and self destructive to be free, then what does that say about those in power? Any argument that you put forward against freedom due to human nature applies tenfold to those in power.

We can't be trusted with freedom, but they can be trusted with power. We cannot be trusted with our own money, but they can be trusted with an entire economy. We can't be trusted with guns, but they can be trusted with an entire military and nuclear weapons. The list is endless. Our problems are always blamed on freedom and rarely on the existence of a government that holds gun to our necks every moment of our life.

4. Moral Contradiction. Authority is fundamentally a moral contradiction, it can only exist by applying opposite moral rules to everyone else than what it applies to it's self. When I take money from someone it is called theft, when the government does so it is called taxes. If I were to kill a man I would be called a murderer, however if I drop a bomb killing hundreds (that may or may not be terrorists, is there really anyway to really know?) in Iraq I am a war hero. The state reserves for its self the right of violence, and for the rest of us submission to that violence (consider a similar contradiction in communism when it comes to property rights. It doesn't matter the type of government, some just applying the contradictions more consistently).

The justification for this contradiction is always based on some kind of collectivism from “the good of society” or “the greatest good for the greatest number” or “race” or “class”. However there is no such thing as race, class, or society, these are simply ways to classify individuals. The “good of society” ends up meaning “the good of some people over the good of others.” Society does not have needs, wants, or interests, only individuals do, and any moral theory that cannot apply its ethical standard consistently to each individual at all given times and places, is simply a moral theory that applies different rules to different people for arbitrary reasons. These contradictory moral theories always end up justifying authority and often result in the deaths of millions. There is nothing more dangerous than false morality.

Public “Option” Will Destroy Competition

Hey guys, sorry its been so long sense I have written, I now right for my school news paper at UVU, and have been writing a lot of papers for school. So getting to my blog has been a little more difficult. But thanks for subscribing everybody. I haven’t quit writing or anything like that so please don’t quit checking!

There is a false notion out there that the new public healthcare “option” will bring back capitalism where it has been absent before. There is never an explanation of why healthcare has all these problems that are unique. It just is, and capitalism, freedom, and voluntarism is to be blamed.

Lets assume that this is true, healthcare is a free market (it’s not) and the result of free markets is the insanity that be face today (it isn’t). It is from this premise that the healthcare option will create competition and capitalism where it has not existed before.

Once again lets assume that all of this is true, there is a pretty important question to ask, have public “options” ever resulted in more competition in the past? No.

For an example, has the public education “option” resulted in competition? No. The poor go to public education, the more wealthy go to private, and anyone that doesn’t have the money but wants their kid to have a decent education has to do home school.

Everything that the government puts its hands on destroys competition, and you are then left at the mercy of those in power.

There can be no competition with the government because the government is a monopoly. You cannot compete with an entity that takes it money by force, and then provides it’s “service” for “free”. How would you compete with it?

Lets say I start a lemonade stand charging 25 cents per glass, then someone starts the public option down the road, and give lemonade for free. I am not going to drop my prices to “compete” with those giving out the lemonade for free down the road, but rather just not make lemonade anymore. You have destroyed the possibility of profit.

There is of course one very important difference between the analogies. The government is not just doing charity work and handing out free healthcare, it is taking your money by force and then providing healthcare and calling it an “option”. If you want to provide an “option” do it with your own time, energy and property, and don’t advocate violence against me in a self righteous manner and call it an “option” to add insult to injury.