Fundamental world views: individualism vs collectivism

A recent spat in the media about Rand Paul being unfairly cornered on decades-old civil rights legislation and the resulting discussion has highlighted the fundamental divide in politics today.  Indeed, it represents the fundamental divide in human thought across political parties, time, ages, races, and location: individualism vs. collectivism.

While I cannot do it justice here, a proper understanding of what these two terms are is treated at length in Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, a read that is highly recommended.  In brief, individualism is a philosophy that holds individual, natural rights as sacred, condemning violence of any kind against others except for self defense (or defense of those who cannot defend themselves).  It embodies the concept of sovereignty, which is that we are free to choose and act for ourselves, so long as we do not infringe the rights of others.  The natural result of this basic philosophy is some familiar rights we all know about: private property rights, the right to the fruits of one's own labor, freedom of speech and religious expression, the right to self-defense, and so forth.

On the other side of the divide is collectivism, or a philosophy that individual rights are not as important as the group (whatever that may be), and that all members of the group should be equal (sometimes even strictly equal).  Collectivism's goals roughly can be summed up in this: everyone should "make it," no matter what their differences are.  Where individual discrepancies become too large, they are reigned in via redistribution, coercion or other methods so as to restore equality.

Fruits of Collectivism

Just as individualism has natural results and natural frameworks that arise from it, so does collectivism.  A few philosophies of government fall into this category, among them are socialism and communism.  The stated intent to eliminate the poor or the downtrodden (economic equality) is an obvious underpinning for socialism, although degrees and strategies for implementation vary widely.

But for a moment, envision the results of such a philosophy.  If the desire for equality overrides individuality, which individuals decide what equality really means?  There are some objective measures of equality (for example, some aspects of people financial situations can be measured numerically), but the reality is that human beings engage in subjective valuation of what they encounter; recall the saying "one man's trash is another man's treasure."  If someone else decides what you can have in order to be equal to your neighbor, that may actually feel like a terrible injustice due to your own subjective valuation.

What's more, those who decide what should be given or taken are in a position of relative importance compared to those who do not have this power, and that those with that power tend towards abuse of their position, thus destroying the equality meant to belie the whole apparatus.  In addition, if many individuals in the group agree with the current rulers, what happens when a different set of rulers gain control, and what was allowed and provided for equality's sake previously is now changed to something else?  This reliance on experts or benevolent dictators necessarily will mean that, while some will agree with their actions, some will not due to individual differences that cannot be ignored.  Those who do not agree, though, generally will not have the power to counter that which they do not agree with.

History is rife with examples where socialism and communism had those in charge abusing their position to silence dissent (for the supposed betterment of the whole of course!) to gain economic advantage, such as separate housing programs for the regular people than for the party leaders, etc.

What's more, policies and laws that put individualism on the back seat compared to collectivist goals have fundamental effects on overall wealth and standards of living even when there is no abuse of power.  They largely stem from the fact that, if one is going to be taken care of and "made equal" to his peers despite personal differences, then much of the motivation to excel and produce the effort necessary to benefit himself or society is largely lost.  If responsibility for earning and working hard can be pushed on someone else without repercussions, the natural human temptation is to indulge that laziness.

The effect of the removal of motivation is that, on the whole, society becomes poorer and has a lower standard of living.  This occurs because on average people work less and produce less; work and production are the fundamental underpinnings of a standard of living for a society.  Where there is no hope to excel in an area beyond one's peers or to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, most will not bother to try.  Advancement and financial stability will slowly decelerate.  The weight of those who take more than they give (called externalities in philosophy) will eventually gain critical mass and cause a collapse of the system.  This is precisely what happened in the USSR, a sad tale confirming the drag placed on a society under collectivist government.  Underscoring the rot that was occurring in soviet society was the refrain spoken there: "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

A final note: another form of government that can be classified as collectivist is corporatism, widely regarded as a synonym of fascism.  In this case, there is generally a two-tier system of equality, with the merging of government and corporate interests forming an elite oligarchy at the top which enjoys many extra benefits and power, with those in the lower tier exercising some form of socialism or crony capitalism in an attempt to enter the ruling class or mitigate their losses.  It can be classed in form as socialism for the rich, where the redistribution is not strictly toward equality; instead it tends to move upward to the ruling class and downward to the poorest in order to secure the consent of the masses.  It fleeces the middle and working classes who are given no political power.  It is simply a more visibly corrupt, obfuscated form of socialism, but the results are generally the same in the end.

Implementation of Collectivism

We have touched on this to some degree already, but it is important to further expound on the methods through which each worldview is implemented.  It must be noted that human beings are, broadly speaking, self-interested beings.  Self interest is not necessarily selfishness, however; a self-interested being may find great reward in providing volunteer service for other people, rationally seeking a net benefit of everyone around himself or herself.  It can take on many forms and is a manifestation of that same subjective valuation that is inherent to each individual's makeup and experience.

Collectivism's goal of equality also takes on various forms: equality of race, equality of financial situations, equality of actions, equality of feelings, etc.  In order to provide equality, however, individual differences in a given area must be reduced or removed.  Being naturally at odds with subjective valuations in some individuals, this imposition of equality on those who would need to change their valuations provides a choice for collectivists: let them choose, or coerce them into being subject to the collective's rules aimed to create the equality.  It is readily apparent that if a choice is provided then equality can never be generally achieved for an entire nation, as those who do not wish to participate will simply act or speak in such a way to contradict the set terms of equality, thus destroying any perception of having reached the goal.

Of necessity, then, collectivist regimes impose the rules of equality by coercion and by force.  Any arrangement where people join the collective by choice and remain by choice is not collectivism, it is simply individualism where many choose to band together for common benefit, by contract!  This fact that the use of force is necessarily for collectivist governments is evident:  under socialism, for example, what happens when an individual does not pay their taxes to aid in redistribution of wealth (toward the aim of economic equality)?  They are harassed, fined, and ultimately jailed.  In the United States, IRS enforcement agents are even issued a badge and a gun, and if you physically resist their efforts to arrest you for violation of these rules, you could conceivably end up shot and killed in the process.

When everyone is forced to comply with collectivist policies then any complaint about the policies or their implementation are met with disdain, as the individual is often painted as not desirous of equality.  In the case of racial equality (a noble goal), they are painted as racist.  In the case of economic equality, they are painted as greedy, or as one who hates the poor, and so forth.  This perception management is necessary for collectivism, as any admission that the use of force does not justify the ends (equality) would destroy the whole regime.

Fruits of Individualism

On the other hand, individualism stresses as sacred individual natural rights, and that those rights do not come from government, but from God or nature.  And individual's rights cannot require another to do anything, such as provide a service, buy a product, or say (or not say) any particular thing, etc.  An individual's rights allows them to utilize their life, time, resources, and private property how they see fit, so long as they do not infringe the same right for others.  An individual's rights also extend to the opportunity to enter into exchanges and contracts with others freely, so long as all parties to any transaction agree and are not misled or coerced (more on this below).

Note that this broad right to do or say as one pleases does not extend indefinitely; one cannot lie or commit fraud, as knowingly spreading falsehood can easily be classed as an infringement of others' right to their agency (free choice).  Providing misleading information naturally impugns another's ability to make proper choices, and as such is a violation of natural rights.  In addition, along with each right comes responsibility to act appropriately and within the bounds of that right (e.g. don't violate the rights of others), and to uphold and defend others' rights to the same.

By deduction, it can easily be found that if all individuals acted within their rights, with self interest, a set of natural structures arise.  First, is the free market, which is simply describing in aggregate many individuals engaging in exchanges and contracts with each other freely.  Within this system, pursuing one's self interest is generally called capitalism.  Capitalism is a system of freedom for contract and exchange, and nothing more and nothing less.

The next system that arises naturally and desirably is a limited government.  No free society will be comprised of perfect individuals, and thus some lying, fraud, and violation of other individual rights is bound to take place.  Individuals have a right to enforce their own individual rights, and to request help from others in enforcing just consequences for violation of rights (a natural consequence of a violation of rights is a loss of at least some rights for the offender, pursuant to the offense).  Limited government achieves these ends by being delegated the authority to act for individuals in defense of their rights (not exclusively, but nonetheless the authority is given).  This delegation of authority is done by consent, trust, and benefits all of society when appropriately discharged; for specific functions government can increase efficiency, justice, and order in defending natural rights, particularly for those who do not have the capability to defend themselves properly.

Among many other benefits of individualism, the natural result is that individuals will pursue exchanges that will tend to be beneficial to themselves under whatever subjective valuation they espouse.  The other side of any exchange will also do so, and the matching of the two parties results in mutually beneficial transactions.  The information that flows throughout the whole society about these transactions serves to direct the ebb and flow of markets, production, and labor, and if all of these are unencumbered by intervention by third parties (where no rights have been violated), it results in a constant improvement in overall wealth and standard of living.  A metaphor typical of this type of improvement is "a rising tide lifts all boats" as all of society is made richer.

It is true that tolerance is required under these arrangements.  The freedom to do or speak as one pleases dictates that one must tolerate differences of opinion and subjective valuation, and not spuriously equate just any action to a violation of natural rights.  Those differences are precisely what makes the entire system of individualism function: they provide the dynamics and diversity that absorbs shocks and changes over time, and encourages the natural flow towards an equilibrium of the highest wealth possible.

Implementation of Individualism

It becomes somewhat impractical for individuals to enforce consequences for rights violations themselves, and there will obviously be some controversy and chaos resulting from it if someone is claiming they are enforcing their rights appropriately while the alleged offender or others say the alleged victim is not.  Naturally, a neutral third party should be agreed upon by both parties, and by agreement their determination of guilt must be accepted.  The obvious implementation of this in society is government, and a particularly relevant example is the court system.  As a check on the court system, a jury is also provided (again, if you insist on your own rights being enforced, you have an obligation to help others enforce theirs, and thus sit on a jury as needed) for similar goals of ensuring neutrality and proper enforcement of natural rights.

The government is also a natural result of individuals who would rather not have to provide for certain common needs for large-scale events, such as war defense, negotiation with other nations, etc.  Realize, however, that government cannot legitimately exist by itself; rather, it exists by contract with individuals writ large, however implicit that contract may be.  In the United States, agreement to the contract is implicit, but the contract itself is explicit (the US Constitution).  The contract is not intended to limit the freedom of individuals but rather to limit the power of government so that it only performs the duties assigned to it as a proxy for them.  The government should not be able to perform any duty, even in aggregate, that the individuals that are party to the contract cannot do for themselves in their own individual sphere (self defense, rights enforcement, contracts, and so on).

As a result, individualism rejects the notion that the government may use force to abridge any individual right if the individual has not violated another's right: a person may not be punished before they commit a crime.  This circumscribes nearly all regulation and control that government may exercise, and strictly limits its size and power; it is also desirable for the contract with government to strictly limit the delegated power, in order to keep it from abridging the rights of the individuals that authorize its existence.

There are various strategies for keeping other people and government in check so as to not allow a drifting away from its ideal limited functions.  Checks and balances between departments and branches are a prominent method.  Another is federalism, which is breaking up government horizontally instead of vertically (checks and balances between branches are a vertical separation); federalism is the separation of power between, for example, states and the federal government in the United States, or even the separation of power between states and counties.  It emphasizes that keeping power delegated more locally gives individuals more opportunity to check government and keep it from overstepping its bounds, as their voice is maximized in a locality.

Additionally, individualism is based upon core principles, rejecting the notion that other people may rule them; it is the ultimate expression of individual sovereignty, and other levels of sovereignty are built purely upon individual free association.  Thus, individuals are ruled by principles and laws made pursuant to those principles, and not by "men."  This rule of law is a central tenet of individualism, which holds forth that other people cannot make decisions for any individual where he/she has the ability to make that decision, and that individual actions are governed by laws that are applied equally to all.

Polar Opposites

The fundamental difference between collectivism and individualism then is the use of force vs. the use of agency.  Individualism is the supremacy of the individual and their right to choose their own actions, so long as they do not harm another or another's property.  Collectivism is simply a veiled form of totalitarianism, where a desire for equality is used to trump individual rights.

It can also be said that collectivism aims to provide "freedom from worry".  This is clearly an invalid use of the word freedom, where by having choice forcibly taken away in certain matters the subjects are somehow made more free.  If collectivism removes the worry of failure, that certainly cannot be described as freedom.  In addition to the unintended consequences of such a goal, it goes against the very grain of choice, as those who wish to opt out are not allowed to do so.  When agency is destroyed the utopian goal of equality and removal of concern creates not a utopia but a nightmare and a totalitarian's playpen.

Between the two worldviews, it can be seen that collectivism is a dangerous system based upon, in effect, slavery and control and theft (redistribution).  Individualism provides true freedom and is most likely to obtain an increasing standard of living and net benefit to all participants.  While there are individual risks and responsibilities that must be shouldered, individualism provides equality of opportunity in that every individual is free to work as hard as they would like, and is free to seize opportunities as they come, but is not free to force those opportunities to come via coercion.

Truly the world views are actually between freedom and slavery.

Note: please see Liberalism by Mises for a wealth in good information on the subject, although he treats it through the term neoliberalism rather than just collectivism.  But he's really talking about the same thing.