The Classic Liberal Blog

We, as Americans, have moved so far away from our traditional classical liberal roots, "individualism" has now become a dirty word.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...

The critics on the left subordinate the individual to the "greater good" of society, while critics on the right claim that individualism denies man's social nature. Based on these points of view, attempts are made to vilify the individual as an egoist, libertine, materialist, isolated, utopian, etc. Yet all these invectives are based on misunderstanding at best.

The following is an attempt to explain why we are individuals, why only individuals have rights, and dispel the myth that individualism separates us from one another.

Metaphysical

Metaphysical individualism means that man is metaphysically prior to any form of social network. In other words, social phenomena have no existence apart from the actions of the individuals who make up the network. Social institutions are real, but it is only because individual man is a social creature that these institutions have being at all.

See also: The Myth of Collectivism.

Spiritual

Individualism is based on Christian concepts as well, particularly those written by Martin Luther during the European Reformation. In "Concerning Christian Freedom," Luther writes:

I first lay down these two propositions, concerning spiritual liberty and servitude:

A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.

Although these statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are found to agree together, they will make excellently for my purpose. They are both the statements of Paul himself, who says, "Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all" (1 Cor. ix. 19), and "Owe no man anything, but to love one another" (Rom. xiii. 8). Now love is by its own nature dutiful and obedient to the beloved object. Thus even Christ, though Lord of all things, was yet made of a woman; made under the law; at once free and a servant; at once in the form of God and in the form of a servant.

Let us examine the subject on a deeper and less simple principle. Man is composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily. As regards the spiritual nature, which they name the soul, he is called the spiritual, inward, new man; as regards the bodily nature, which they name the flesh, he is called the fleshly, outward, old man ...

We first approach the subject of the inward man, that we may see by what means a man becomes justified, free, and a true Christian; that is, a spiritual, new, and inward man. It is certain that absolutely none among outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or liberty, nor, on the other hand, unrighteousness or slavery.

While the above is just a brief excerpt, Luther draws a sharp distinction between spiritual and worldly authority, insisting that they be clearly distinguished from one another.

Luther teaches that "liberty of conscience" (freewill) is a principle of Jesus, and that God requires spiritual belief to be voluntary. Since compelled or coerced faith is insincere, it should never be allowed. So the role of civil government should simply be to keep the outward peace in society, because it has no business enforcing spiritual laws.

Luther stated:

The laws of worldly government extend no farther than to life and property and what is external upon earth.

Sound familiar? That's because you remember Thomas Jefferson's famous words:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

Classical Liberal Philosophy

From "Fighting Statism":

The philosophical arguments of individualism hold that rights are derived from the factual traits of human nature. It is the individual -- not society -- that must use his thinking mind in order to produce what he needs to survive and pursue his own happiness. The only way to live with others is to recognize this fact and respect it by never initiating force upon another, because force negates a thinking mind. Since societies are made by individuals working together, it follows that a stable and thriving society necessarily respects its fundamental unit: the individual. After all, a building will not stand with its foundation destroyed.

See also: Definition of Individual Rights.

Morality

It is the individual who has a nature (soul), not mankind, society, or a government; thus, for any natural law ethic, the individual man must be the measuring stick. In other words, only man is a moral agent, because only the individual can choose. So therefore, any coherent notion of moral good or evil must be traced back to the choice of an individual man.

Since individual man is the only morally relevant unit, all legitimate moral claims, including the value of institutions, must be framed as to be individually meaningful. For if not looking to the individual, how does one determine in the first place that the family is superior to the sword?

Moral individualism is not the same thing as egoism; as Luther said, "a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all." Yes, altruism towards one's fellow man is important, but it must still recognize in those fellows their value as individuals rather than as an indeterminate social blob.

This is the flaw of collectivism in all its forms; it replaces concern for man with concern for society, which is nothing but a pattern resulting from the acts of individuals. A shift in concern that can only come at the detriment of the welfare of the individual man.

Bureaucracy

In replacing concern for man with concern for society, personal relationships and community institutions become subordinated to administrative bureaucracies which are designed to make people conform; thereby suppressing man's unique individuality (soul), and replacing man's moral culture with a culture of hierarchy.

Administrative rules then replace individual freedom. The manipulation of those rules then replace the rule of law. Once this happens, each individual is no longer equal, for the manipulator will always be of higher authority; thus spreading wretchedness throughout society replacing morality.

Just look to the old U.S.S.R., or Hitler's Germany to witness this undeniable truth.

The State

Why does the State pick on family and religion? The answer is as Walter Block states in his defense of religion:

Because these are the two great competitors – against the state – for allegiance on the part of the people. The Communists were quite right, from their own evil perspective, to focus on these two institutions. All enemies of the overweening state, then, would do well to embrace religion and the family as their friends, whether they are themselves atheists or not, parents or not.

The main reason religion sticks in the craw of secular leaders is that this institution defines moral authority independently of their power. Every other organization in society (with the possible exception of the family) sees the state as the source of ultimate ethical sanction.

If man is a unique individual who has a soul, he therefore has rights that are prior to government - which "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." For example, killing a man is not immoral because it breaks the law, but immoral because it steals his inherent right to life.

Having rights prior to government also means that man can, and will, choose allegiance to his family, church, and local community over the State. Therefore individual man does not need the State to administer morality, because morality comes from within (his humanness') and cannot be coerced.

See also: Another Atheist Defense of Christianity.

The Virtuous Society

Since morality comes from within, virtue can only be derived from an individual's choice to live an honorable life. Just like religious faith, virtue must be voluntary. If man's virtue is coerced by the cruel sword of the State, it is insincere and meaningless.

To build a virtuous society then, one must start with himself and his family. This means if families taught respect for life, abortion clinics would go out of business; if families taught morality, there would be no profit in pornography; if families were religious, it wouldn't matter whether there were public displays of religious symbols or not.

Instead, we've turned to the State for our morality, giving money and votes in the hope that politicians and lawyers will litigate our virtue for us. The unintended consequence of this absolution of individuality, is the advancement of the administrative bureaucracy, which replaces man's morality with manipulation and the sword.

America

Any significant change in our country we wish to see, must start in the hearts and minds of the individual; from there extend to the family, from the family to the community, from the community to our states, from our states to regions, and from regions to Washington DC.

In other words, a virtuous society is created from the bottom up ... it's a grassroots phenomenon.

As an individual with rights inherent to your being, you cannot allow yourself to bow down to political correctness either. You have to be outspoken in defense of your rights, and never surrender to the politics and litigation of the administrative bureaucracy.

If Americans can find it within themselves to embrace their individual rights, and rediscover that the use of government force upon one another not only violates our individual uniqueness (soul), but negates man's thinking mind as well ...

We'll be able to change the direction of our country for the better..

For further explanation, please see:

• Getting It Right!
• What is a Classical Liberal?
• What Is the Free Market?
• American Classical Liberalism