Lovers Need Lawyers

“Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains!”—Rousseau, The Social Contract 1762
In the beginning, there was the Social Contract: a freely constructed community of Individuals who willingly give up their natural Freedom and voluntarily consent to the community's Laws if—and only if—it can sufficiently protect their Life, Liberty and Property/Pursuit of Happiness.

This is the foundation of Liberalism (the type of System we currently live under), which was discovered through a hypothetical thought experiment called the State of Nature: a device used by early Enlightenment Philosophers to imagine how Man would live if stripped of all seemingly conventional attachments to Country, Religion, and Family and existed only as the isolated, separate beings that the unity of our individual Bodies suggests.

The point of this experiment was to foment a conspiracy to undermine the legitimacy of all previously existing political regimes by exposing their Rulers’ supposed claim to serve the Common Good as nothing more than a means to exploit the Ruled for their own selfish, greedy ends.

(The formula goes something like this: We are all Selves + the Self is naturally selfish = its two strongest motivating passions are Self-Preservation and Self-Interest)

The goal was to give an equal Right to selfishness to the Ruled; to allow them to be the sole judge of their own Interests; to have the Right to freely choose Rulers who would best serve those ends. And, once the old legitimacies were sufficiently disposed of (i.e. Revolution), then the Rulers and the Ruled could consciously—using their Reason—construct a new Contract that would equally protect the Interests of both parties.

But, if one constructs a Society founded on our basest, most animal instincts will it not eventually reduce us back to them; if all these Social relations are shown to be merely conventional, with no natural basis, how do you prevent that line of thought from eventually extending to every form of relationship? And now, “History” has seemingly led us full circle back to the once fabled State of Nature—not as an experimental hypothesis as those who first proposed it, but, instead, as an ever increasingly realized reality.

The Youth today are now well provided for by our Country—and continue to demand more and more social security from their government—yet there is really little to no reciprocal civic engagement required of them; they are free to choose which, if any, Religion they wish to practice; and now, even sexual involvements have been completely liberated as well—no longer necessarily leading to commitment or Family life—completing the triumvirate of conventional attachments: Country, Religion and Family. We now exist as the naked Individuals who once “inhabited” the State of Nature—but with one little difference: we still inhabit Society and like to think of our-Selves as “civilized” creatures, but, as the State of Nature originally showed, the result of disconnected Individuals all asserting equal Rights to a finite amount of Nature’s bounty is really…a War of All Against All.

Despite the radicalism of the Philosophers that first proposed this new scheme for Society, they never imagined the break down of the Family as well, and had relied on this semi-natural, or at least unavoidable, necessity to provide some sort of bridge to connect the Individual and Society. The Individual would take a material stake in his community, in order to provide the best possible atmosphere in which to raise his Family—a way to ensure the Common Good that flows naturally out of our Self-Interest. Also, the concern for the safety of one’s Family is a powerful reason for loyalty to the State that protects them.

Rousseau, however, knew better and could see where the rising tide of Egalitarianism and Individualism (which he agreed with in principle) caused by this new philosophy would eventually lead. This inspired him to devote his entire career to encouraging passionate, Romantic Love to attempt to create a bond between Men and Women that was greater than mere Bourgeois calculation of Self-Interest. But, based on this sketch by Chappelle, it would appear that his great effort has failed and our view of our-Self as simply freely contracting Individuals has now penetrated our every relation—officially destroying any semblance of a natural basis that once connected Human Beings to one another.

Rousseau tried to discover/create Molecules (Family), as opposed to simply Atoms (Individuals), as the building blocks of Society because then Society’s parts would already be moved by different motivations than mere Self-Interest—which then could hopefully be extended to Others. People in love constitute a visible proof that Man can act for other reasons besides the Economic/Utilitarian motivations that dominate Modern Theory. In contrast, each partner in the Molecule is instead motivated by forces found in true attachment and concern for Others, whereas a Society constructed out of radically separate Atoms creates no shared basis of concern—only diffidence or, even worse, war.

We have now turned the most intimate connection that can unite two Human Beings into just another contest in the War of All Against All—the final development of founding all human relations on mere contracts; simply another contest for the “Will to Power” to assert itself. The only possible peace is to be found in an artificial construct: the Business Contract—which we enter into for as long as it is convenient and serves our Interests; a union of two equally Self-ish Individuals who hopefully each have a good lawyer to settle the statistically inevitable Divorce.

And you know what the silliest part of all this is: a concurrent attempt by the same Individuals to turn the actual Social Contract—the societal one—into a more compassionate/caring relationship—i.e. some sort of Socialist type structure that could help to reduce our selfishness—while at the same time reducing real Human connection to an abstraction, with no natural basis. In the end, it appears that we all love our Rights, but hate their consequences. We want to be respected as an Individual, but also want to have real human connections.

And, what we are creating instead are a bunch of Social Solitaries and Isolated Individuals—all with their “own little separate systems”—who have no alternative to collapsing into their Self because everything else has lost its foundation. There is no longer any connection—natural or artificial—to make us care for anyone, except for number one; to draw our attention outward and give us a reason to care about a Community or Society; to not just use one another simply for bodily pleasure…

“I don’t know about you, but I’m still horny.”

You Can Lead a Man to Reason, but You Can't Make Him Think

The word Kultur or “Culture” was first used in its modern sense by Immanuel Kant—who was thinking of Rousseau’s description of the Bourgeois—in an attempt to make up for the, supposed, deficiency in character of this new type of man. The Bourgeois was neither Citizen nor Individual, and his Self-Interest—even his Enlightened Self-Interest—it appeared, was simply not a sufficient basis upon which to unite a People and create a Common Good. After Rousseau’s critique, the new Liberal doctrines—based upon the early Enlightenment thought of Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu—had become insufficient, or at least too unattractive, to found truly Human societies upon. To “Enlightened” Europeans of the time, countries like America looked merely like an aggregate of Individuals, or disorderly marketplaces—dumping grounds for the refuse of real Cultures—where Individuals would simply bring their sellable commodities in the morning, and then at night return to the privacy of their own homes and enjoy, privately, the proceeds of their day.

These new Commercial Republics had as their foundations the pursuit of Material Well-Being and Self-Preservation and had stripped politics of its old imaginary goals—dedication to the preservation of throne, altar and country—leaving Man unclothed and unprotected in a new “civilized” War of All Against All. The idea of “Culture” was created as a way to somehow make up for the loss of these higher goals after the demystification of Religion by the Enlighteners—to preserve something like Religion without having to resort to superstition and myth; it was an attempt to give Morality and Art a place in the Modern World, in order to preserve the “Dignity of Man.” This new Liberal mode of Politics, with its Universalistic view of Man as Man—as opposed to the man of a particular time and place—ended up not being as attractive as was first thought, and the Culture Movement—which continues, although in a deformed manner, to persist to this very day—was created as a proposed corrective to Liberal Society or as a radical rejection of its new mercenary Morals and indifference to Art and Politics.

Plato, almost 2,500 years ago, in The Republic, gave an allegorical account of what it means to be part of a Culture—although he never actually used the word and there is no Ancient Greek word that can even be translated as “Culture.” He said, more or less, that the particular Cultures/Communities of the world are caves into which we are all born and are chained with our heads restrained forcing us to look only forward. We all stare at a wall in front of us, upon which shadows are projected that constitute the gods and heroes that are particular to our time and place that the Culture’s ideas of the good and justice are based.

There is, however, a steep incline that leads out of the cave through which the bright light of the sun shines blindingly through. “Philosophers” are people who have broken free from the chains, have exited the cave and can see the situation for what it truly is. And, for Plato, it is their responsibility to the Common Good to come back into the cave and to try and influence the politicians to rule more reasonably. But this does not mean the execution of the gods; it does not mean the empowerment of the People; it does not mean the multitudes be made capable of philosophizing. Only the Leaders—and the Philosophers who inform them—know the truth of what’s outside the cave but the masses, in the end, can at least profit from the insights of this blinding Truth. However, they are never to be told the Truth because they “can’t handle the Truth.”

Modernity changed all that. The Enlightenment philosophers didn’t necessarily think that the Masses could be made into Philosophers, but they did recognize a certain level of reasonableness of the People. If Man’s deepest motivating passion is Self-Preservation, it would be logical to conclude that Man could make rational decisions about what will help preserve himself the best—especially the type of Regime that would preserve him the best. Thus a conspiracy was born to shine the Light of Being into the caves—permanently dimming the images on the wall. The task was to rationalize all the old legitimizations of power—strength, wealth, religion, tradition, birth, age—to show that they were all simply Man-made, and hence not morally binding. Revolution became Man’s greatest and most celebrated act. The new Societies that would be created no longer would put a Socrates to death because his usefulness to Society could be made evident: Science can aide in Man’s pursuit of Self-Preservation.

But as I have said previously, at the very moment of its triumph a very large wrench was thrown into the gears of this modern machine. Rousseau’s critique of these new types of Societies was undeniable and it did not paint a very pretty picture for the future of Humanity. From this new outlook, the Culture Movement was born. For some, such as Rousseau and Kant, the goal was still the universal justice of Freedom and Equality implicit in the Enlightenment project, but the character of it was in need of some slight adjustment. The bland uniformity and universal homogenization that were to be the result of this overly rational, overly calculating mode of politics was rejected because it turned out to be only an easy fix for a very difficult problem and didn’t seem to take into account the full range of the human condition. It just wasn’t capable of accounting for the creative, artistic, or “Free” aspects of Man’s Nature and its deficiencies caused a backlash that continues to persist.

Today, in America, there are two different uses for the word Culture: 1) is as a description of a People or Nation—American Culture, Japanese Culture, Iranian Culture, Jewish Culture, etc; and 2) is everything that is created that’s opposed to Commerce—Art, Music, Literature, PBS: creations that aren’t merely dictated by the amoral demands of the Market. These two conceptions are linked in that 2 is what makes up the content of 1. The Art, Music and Literature shape the world-view of the American, Japanese, Iranian and Jew and are expressed through the customs, styles, tastes, festivals, rituals and gods that unite the separate Individuals into a community with shared roots and common goals. The Individual is sublimated into the collective, which allows a People to think and will generally for their Common Good.

“Culture” was originally conceived by Kant as the goal of our highest human aspirations—an attempt to synthesize our low brutish, animal nature with our noblest Human longings; to restore, on an even higher level, some sort of wholeness that was lost after the initial Social Contract that destroyed the perfect unity of our being that we had in the State of Nature. It was on a higher level because this new wholeness now included all of Man’s faculties and capabilities and attempted to aim them toward Man’s greatest ambitions in all the creative fields we have acquired in Civil Society.

But it soon came to simply retroactively describe the various and varied Human phenomenon that had resulted during Man’s journey from the State of Nature to Civil Society. It was transformed from Culture to Cultures, and it now has become Politically Incorrect to judge the content of the these manifestations despite these old “Cultures,” as Nietzsche put it, being nothing but “superstitious custom that originated on the basis of some misinterpreted accident.”

We are now told we must respect Others' Cultures and that we are not allowed to judge the Values of them; that we must worship and promote Diversity and Multiculturalism; that what separates us (Culture) is more important than what unites us (Nature). But there is this vast contradiction of internal logic that no one seems to recognize here. Liberal Tolerance—Classical and Modern—is completely debilitating to Culture—which was first created as a response against Liberalism. Although, we currently use it as a means of building a dam against the torrents of Capitalism and “Eurocentrism,” in the end, it will completely subsume them.

Liberalism has no respect for Cultures because it is based on Reason and Science, whereas the old Cultures are all based on the dictates of a god and the attendant superstition and myth. Liberalism is based on Individual Freedom and the Right of the Individual to decide what is right for himself; it separates us by allowing our subjectivity to take preeminence over the collective expressions of our Peoples’ particularistic historical journeys. If an old value—say, the status of Women’s Equality in a particular Culture—does not coincide with Liberalism, then the Liberal denounces it because they believe in the intrinsic Equality of all. But how do we determine which Values can and cannot be judged?

Once you take that first step and decry that even one single Value that a Culture holds is unethical, or unreasonable, or indefensible, then you open up the floodgates of the dam and eventually drown the entire village. Everything is then open for critique and nothing is safe from the cold, clear lens of rational inquiry.

We may wish all we want to protect other Peoples from the ravages of the Capitalistic machine and so-called “American Culture,” but, unless we can have an honest conversation about the history that has resulted in the present, then all we are going to have are incoherent, whitewashed, ineffectual attempts to do so—such as the new “Cult of Diversity Worship” that is the intellectual rage in all the major universities of America today.

If you open yourself up to other Cultures and look into their cultural practices, what you will find there is, in fact, closedness because Cultures are, by definition, insular. They have to be; that is how they create and sustain their distinctiveness and inner-connectedness, which is what makes the world diverse. All Cultures think that their way of doing things is the best, except currently for the West. There are a multitude of reasons for this—mainly, I would say, due to so-called "Liberal Guilt" for Imperialism, Slavery and Racism—but we must realize that our current incoherent Liberal Ideology is going to result in either a) an extreme Right-Wing Nationalistic/Race-based reactionary force, who will not stand for the destruction of their Culture, or b) in the destruction of all distinct Cultures into one Universal Homogenous Culture.

Is there a way to reconcile Tolerance and Culture, or are these mutually exclusive world-views; does Tolerance necessarily require a relativism that goes to the depths of our very souls?

Who Will Help Me Bake This Bread?

“There is no power on earth that can prevent the growing equality of conditions from bringing the human spirit toward searching for the useful and from disposing each citizen from shrinking within himself. One must therefore expect that individual interest will become more than ever the principal if not the unique motive of men’s actions…If in becoming equal, citizens remained ignorant and coarse, it is difficult to foresee what stupid excess their selfishness could be brought to…Enlighten them, therefore, at any price; for the century of blind devotions and instinctive virtues is already fleeing far from us, and I see the time approaching when freedom, public peace, and social order itself will not be able to do with out enlightenment.”
-Tocqueville: Democracy in America, vol. II, 1840

After the Enlightenment, Man had been stripped bare and all the loyalties that used to direct his interest had been rationalized and no longer simply compelled belief. Country, family, religion: everything had been robbed of its mystical force and all that was left was the naked Self. In the State of Nature, it was found that Man’s two most basic motivating instincts are Self-Preservation and Self-Interest and, despite all the exhortations of Moralists and Priests over the last two millennia against them, these two dirty little Passions in the end it seemed trumped all the others. An experiment was began that attempted to substitute for unrealistic Virtue a new doctrine known as Enlightened Self-Interest, or, as Tocqueville put it, Self-Interest Well Understood. The Enlighteners lowered the bar of expectations because it was thought that since it does not appear possible to make Man good, maybe we can at least make him less bad.

This idea is most simply summed up by Adam Smith’s (author of The Wealth of Nations, the Capitalistic handbook) famous dictum: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” It was an attempt to build a Society on a more “natural” foundation-—based on how Men actually act, instead of how they ought to act. It was a simple appeal to Men’s Reason that stated: “I will respect your Right to do and think whatever you want, as long as you can do the same for me.”

Enlightened Self-Interest, as opposed to Self-Interest simply, is a nuanced distinction. It requires a new type of education—it is not necessarily something "natural"—and, if not properly cultivated, it will be consumed by greed and Self-indulgence. As Tocqueville points out in the passage quoted above, this new type of Society is built on the precipice of a very slippery slope, and if Enlightened Self-Interest ever degenerates into pure Self-Interest, the entire schema will fall apart. If everyone begins acting only according to their own myopic Self-Interest, then we are right back to the Hobbesian “War of All Against All”—the avoidance of which was supposedly the whole reason Man contracted into Societies in the first place.

Rousseau however, did not believe that Man could ever exercise such a thing as “Enlightened” Self-Interest, and that the Bourgeois—his name for the new type of Man created by these ideas—was a despicable being caught between two respectable extremes: Natural, Self-sufficient Man in the State of Nature; and the De-natured, Moral Citizen of the ancient republics of Greece and Rome. The Bourgeois simply fakes public benevolence in order to further his own selfish, private ends. Man’s passion for himself can never rationally be overcome.

According to Rousseau, Reason would always lead the Enlightened Man to the conclusion that, “it is useless for me to try to reconcile my interests with that of others; everything you tell me about the advantages of the social law would be excellent if, whilst I was scrupulously observing it toward others, I could ensure that they would all observe it towards me. But what assurance can you give me on this?…Either you must give me guarantees against any unjust undertaking, or you must not expect me to abstain from similar actions in my turn.” His proof of this claim is that this is “precisely how any sovereign society reasons when it is accountable for its conduct to no one but itself.”

But where does that leave us today, in this world that has now become radically rationalized and radically individualized? Rousseau asks, “where is the man who can separate himself from himself?” But we can never return to that fantastic (as in fantasy, as well as fabulous) golden age that immediately followed the State of Nature, where Man’s needs were few and his desires simple; nor to the peace of Amour de Soi and complete Self-sufficiency and independence. We are inescapably destined for the chains of “Civil” Society and the burdens of inter-dependence; for the daily interactions and the “Hell,” according to Sartre, “[that] is other people.”

Tocqueville was a big fan of Rousseau but knew that what he prescribed was limited and most likely unrealistic. Rousseau knew this as well—at least the limited part—and explained that what he was advocating could only work in very small, homogeneous communities, with strict moral codes and complete abandonment of the Individual Will to the General. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville tried to apply the insights of Rousseau to the exceptional situation (now known as American Exceptionalism) that had resulted in America and give us some advice as to how to combat the problems of Self-Interest and Radical Individualism that could be a resultant of our system.

What kind of education or ”enlightenment” can adequately combat these forces and attenuate the purely selfish potentialities inherent in Human Nature? Or conversely, if you don’t even believe there is such a thing as Human Nature (which would make education even more important), what needs to be taught in order to direct the Individual towards caring about the Common Good? In Rousseau’s book on education, the Emile, he very carefully goes through, step by step, how he would go about shaping the desires of an Individual from infancy through adulthood in order to reconcile him to Society and attenuate his purely selfish desires—which he saw as innate. He never does this, however, through appealing directly to the child’s Reason. Instead, he plays upon the desires of the child and very carefully, and unbeknownst to the child, leads him to the conclusions and the lessons that Rousseau wishes to instill in him.

Although the Emile is a work of fiction, Rousseau very convincingly shows how it would be possible to achieve this necessary goal, but, in the real world, we could never have an educational system as thorough as the one proposed by Rousseau, nor enough educators as patient and clever as the one portrayed in this novel. I believe however that it is possible to do a better job than we are now and that what we are currently teaching to children exacerbates the problem as opposed to alleviating it. Yes of course creativity and self-esteem should be encouraged in kids, but above all what needs to be instilled in them is a sense of their responsibilities and duties to others. As I have stated previously, kids don’t need to be taught to be more concerned with themselves; they naturally will be so either by Nature—Self-preservation/Self-interest—or by Nurture—they are already the center of the world that everything in their life revolves around.

What we need is a new attempt at cultivating an Enlightened Self-Interest that can make Man realize his responsibilities and duties, while appealing to his love of Self to achieve it. History has so far revealed Liberal Democracy to be the best and most stable of the alternatives that Modern Political Philosophy has come up with, but, as stated earlier, this schema is always poised at the precipice of a slippery slope. Today it is in our own Self-Interest to stand up for our-Selves and make a lot of changes to our System, but I don’t see how we can do that if we no longer even believe in the goodness of having a "System." The world currently contains 6.6 billion people and is growing daily. We are therefore inextricably bound to live within the confines of Society, so how should we go about ordering it? Is a Rousseauean complete Self-abnegation necessary, or can Man be taught to be reasonable enough to rationally realize the extent of his own Self-Interest and be capable of putting Self-imposed chains upon his desires?

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites…Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their own fetters.”—Edmund Burke

The High Cost of Low Prices

The foundation for our current conceptions of Individualism was laid during the Age of Enlightenment, in the 17th and 18th centuries by two men: 1) the Englishman, John Locke, and 2) the Frenchman, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A battle between these two men’s ideas has raged for the last 250 years, and, very broadly speaking, one could say that modern Conservatives are Lockeans, whereas modern Liberals follow Rousseau. Most people would probably say it is more Locke vs. Marx—and in a world-historical sense this may be accurate—but here in America, where Marx’s critique of Private Property has never held much sway, I would place it with Rousseau, who’s schema still allowed for Private Property (plus Rousseau is the initial source of the search for alternatives to Classical Liberalism which proceeded Marx by about 100 years).

Rousseau is an extremely interesting and complicated character, which I will very much be returning to at a later date, but for now I want to focus on Locke: the most influential thinker upon our Founding Fathers.

Locke, like many thinkers of the Enlightenment, based his ideas on what Modern Political Philosophers called: THE STATE OF NATURE. The State of Nature was a hypothetical thought-experiment first proposed by Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan, in 1651. It is a pre-social condition, in which Man lives as a solitary being, that “existed” before the incorporation of men into particular groups or cultures. It was used as a way to strip away all the human conventions and traditions that had been invented in order to discover Man as Man based on Nature—as opposed to Man of a particular time, place and culture—which has been the goal of Philosophy since Socrates. And what was found there, was that Man's two deepest motivating factors are Self-Preservation and Self-Interest, and these two natural ideas form the basis for all of Modern Philosophy.

Locke’s most influential work was his Two Treaties on Civil Government, written in 1689 during his six year exile in Holland. In the First Treaties, he lays out an argument refuting divinely-ordained, hereditary, absolute, patriarchal monarchy; in the Second Treaties, he argues that the only legitimate form of government is one derived from the Consent of the People based on Freedom and Equality. And as Thomas Jefferson appropriated for the Declaration of Independence, “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles.”

For Locke—and all the other State of Nature Philosophers—Man is by Nature an Individual, so he concluded that the only reason we need government is for the protection of our Individual Rights, which we naturally possess—namely life, liberty and property. In Locke’s view, governments were originally instituted among Men in order to have an impartial arbiter in Rights disputes, to protect the Rights that Men possess which predate government—Natural Rights, discoverable thru Reason, that we have in the State of Nature, before the creation of artificial living conditions known as "Societies." These are the Rights annunciated for us, as Americans, in the Bill of Rights.

These were very radical ideas at the time, and flew in the face of every previous civilization—all based on the dictates of a god. The veil had been lifted and no longer did Man need to rely on myths as the basis for their societies. Instead, they would be replaced with reasoned Consent that was available to all human beings regardless of their geographic location or cultural upbringing. It was Socrates—the original questioner—in action, but with one big difference: Socrates never believed it possible or desirable to create a society without binding myths or “misinterpreted accidents” which add up to a vision of the world for a specific People.

So…what the hell happened? How did we end up with this mess we see before us today?

—With a politician who tries to sell a President's former senatorial seat and another who thinks that presidents are above the law; with our system in shambles because of Wall Street derivative scams and Enron type meltdowns; with faith in the government, the schools, organized labor, the press, the justice system, big business, and God at all time lows.—

Unfortunately, the easy-going conclusions of Locke did not suffice, nor did their real-world application work out as well as it was hoped, yet somehow our system has not experienced any crisis of legitimacy for the general population. Our system has become a confused, incoherent amalgam of the last 250 years of Philosophy, yet somehow manages to function, and function very well, for enough of a majority of Individuals that there is no will, public or private, to do anything about it.

German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, could see all the way back in the late 18th century that this new system proposed by Locke was the greatest engine of stability ever created for a society because it was the most adept at satisfying the Individual's needs, but he had just one slight qualm: the price of it was Human Dignity.

In the Beginning There Was the Word

What does it mean to be an “Individual” and where does this concept come from?

Individualism's origins begin in the late Middle Ages (The Dark Ages) in the works of early Renaissance writers, artists and scholars rebelling against the authority of the Catholic Church. A few centuries later, Individual autonomy is once again asserted by Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation, further deteriorating the Catholic domination of the West. And the concept becomes fully developed during the Enlightenment, in the writings of Classical Liberals (not to be confused with our current crop of Liberals) such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes who helped drive the final nail into the coffin of the Church's authority over Civil Society and private life.

Being an “Individual” necessarily entails antagonism against others because of an assertion of one’s own beliefs and interests against the commonly held concerns of "The Masses.” It is the promotion of one's own goals and desires thru independence and self-reliance, while opposing most external interference upon one's interests by society (the dominant Culture/Majority) or institution (The Government/State). Individualism’s natural by-product is the concept of “Freedom,” in which one has the Right to Freedom of thought, of conscience, of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, etc., all secured by Private Property and promoted by a Government founded to protect these cherished ends.

Individualism also means the emphasis of Rights over Duties, of desire over responsibility, of the singular Will over the general. It is the Right to your own personal satisfactions regardless of the cost to the community—in which you are inextricably a part, despite your level of participation/non-participation in the Whole. It also attenuates the possibility of “Culture”—defined as a shared set of assumptions which unites and binds a People—because the Individualist’s goal is to transcend the commonly held beliefs and create one’s own standards upon which to live.

As the bohemian artist Oscar Wilde put it, “Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.” An important function to be sure, but where does one draw the line between the desire to be one’s self and the desire to be part of a community; to be independently minded and to participate in a Culture; to be a part of something bigger than one’s self as opposed to merely an atom in a continually changing flux?