Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
I have been wanting to talk about the meaning of personal or individual independence for a while, especially in light of recent discussions – that was even before I got this comment from Charles that captured the debate in a nutshell:
If you are a collection of random individuals each committed to making your own decisions independent of others, then society doesn’t really exist. There is a great deal of distance between radical individualism and a centrally planned society.
The second half of that statement is very true and everyone should keep that in mind as they read my thoughts along with the fact that only and exceptionally small minority of people will be found at either of the extreme positions.
I believe that what Charles had in mind when he spoke about radical individualism could clearly be called anarchy. It is the rule of force, in other words anything I can enforce is a legitimate choice for me to make. If I can drive 120 miles per hour then so be it. If I can afford a car that drives 200 mph then my speed limit just went up significantly. This is the ultimate expression of moral relativism.
A centrally planned society, where individuals do not make choices is tyranny even when it is benevolent; is the antithesis of liberty. It does not matter if the planning is done by a monarch, a panel of experts (oligarchy), or the will of the majority (generally called democracy, but accurately described as mobocracy).
In contrast to those options, I believe in the rule of law where individuals are free to make decisions within a relatively static set of universal rules (meaning rules that apply to everyone in the system). You may be asking yourself what that has to do with personal independence. The answer is that in a centrally planned society an individual cannot be truly independent. In a non-society ruled by anarchy some people might try to argue that every person is independent, but the fact is that only those who are strong enough to enforce their own independence are independent.
Personal independence can only be achieved in a society ruled by law for people who act in accordance with established law and who choose to be stand on their own. In a society ruled by law there will be those who choose to make themselves dependent on others (the government, their neighbors, their employer) but at least they have the option to be independent which they would not have under other circumstances.
What does personal independence mean? First off, it does not mean ignoring the needs and desires of other people. Instead it means having the opportunity within the parameters set by established law to set personal goals regarding what is important to you and to work for those in a way that abides by the rules of society.
How is personal independence manifest? It is manifest in the ability and willingness to shoulder the responsibility for meeting your own need and goals. It is manifest in the ability to be sufficiently independent of employer, family, friends, and government to make your own determination of where your time, energy, and goods will be put to use.
Why is personal independence important? Obviously for those who do not desire it it is not important but for those who value their independence it is important because it means that others have little if any ability to allocate your resources in ways that contradict the goals you have. It also means that when others make choices that oppose your goals and interests their choices do not have the power to cause you to fail.
As a nation it was the lack of independence from our major financial institutions that brought about the threat that the failure of certain corporations would collapse our entire economy. This dependence put them in a position where they could demand billions of dollars in aid. Similarly because so many financial institutions were utterly dependent on favorable government regulations many of them could not refuse to participate in the bailout scam – all they could do was take their billions and later pay them back with interest despite the fact that some of them knew that they would be better off weathering the financial storm without government intervention.