TGIF: Warm Individualism or Cold Collectivism?

Newly inaugurated New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani promises to "replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism."

Funny that he chose those words.

In Europe, where collectivist anti-fossil-fuels "green" policies have been enacted in the name of combating a conjured-up climate emergency, many people get dangerously cold in the winter. So far, this hasn't happened on a large scale in America, where the climate collectivists have not been as adept in imposing their lethal program as their European counterparts. Freer markets keep people warmer in winter.

Zero-sum thinking, which is at the heart of socialism, also has a knack for creating a frigid attitude toward one's fellow man. When you believe that one person's gain is another's, perhaps your loss, you don't view your successful neighbor with warmth. The victims of Stalin's collectivist famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, some of whom were driven to cannibalism to survive, probably did not regard their neighbors or even their family members benevolently. Envy, suspicion, and hostility were characteristic of other places where ostensibly well-meaning rulers condemned selfishness and imposed various forms of collectivism. The death toll beggars belief. Some remain in denial about it. We can be certain that those catastrophes did not befall those tens of millions of innocent victims because they were deprived of a chance to vote on which clueless bureaucrats would administer society's central plan, as Mamdani and his "democratic" socialist followers suggest.

On the other hand, individualism in ethics and politics fosters benevolence—warmth—among individuals, who, mindful of their own rights and struggles to achieve values, respect the rights and struggles of others. Solidarity among individualists is no more a contradiction than the solidarity of members of a jazz band. 

Note that Mamdani uses the adjective rugged. Why? It is part of the ages-old smear campaign against the "selfish" pursuit of happiness. Jefferson's Locke-inspired inclusion of that phrase in the Declaration of Independence did not, unfortunately, admit egoism back into respectability. (It had some respectability in ancient Greece.)

Capitalism's detractors deploy the adjective rugged to suggest a system of myopic and short-sighted persons "greedily" stepping on and over one another in a mad free-for-all grab for material wealth. But aside from a relative few, that's not what typically happens when people are free. They quickly observe the gains from trade, the division of labor, and other market-based social cooperation, such as partnerships and corporations. (Ludwig von Mises nearly titled Human Action, his magnum opus, Social Cooperation.)

The benefits of free exchange to mutual advantage—win-win—were too obvious to ignore. The unprecedented and enduring increase in per-capita wealth that began around 1800 in the West was blindingly clear to all who were not determined to pretend it was not occurring. But what Deirdre McCloskey calls "the Great Enrichment" had another payoff besides hitherto-unknown widespread affluence: the fostering of benevolence. The gains from trade had to foster a goodwill that went beyond "mere" justice. Adam Smith famously pointed out that in the marketplace, one best serves one's own interests by attending to the interests of others. Such attention inevitably fosters warm acquaintanceships, friendships, and much more. (On the relationship between egoism and goodwill, see David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence.)

Capitalism's detractors hate that feature of the marketplace. In effect, they say, "That doesn't count as benevolence because it's done out of self-regard!" How silly. How childish. What could be more worthwhile than a social arrangement in which the interests of diverse individuals—each with his or her own dreams,  aspirations, and values— fundamentally align? It's an arrangement in which, unlike in the animal kingdom, the arena of competition is not consumption, but production. Consequently, the limits of nature's scarcity have been progressively loosened to a point where most of the eight billion people alive today live better than the one billion lived in 1800. (The lagging remainder continues to be victimized by collectivism. Liberalism has yet to come to town.)

You have some studying to do, Mr. Mayor. Too bad you didn't do it before embarking on your political career. Lives would have been spared.

TGIF: Individuals, Not America, First

Let's hear no more about America First! It's a fraud, a cover for collectivist nationalism, and a distraction from what matters. (It also looks like camouflage for Trump Family First, but let's take it at face value for now.)

On foreign policy, America First does not exclusively describe the supposed noninterventionist side of the public debate. The openly interventionist side supports meddling because, in its view, that's in "America's interest." That view is wrong and needs to be refuted, as it has been often. But that does not mean the interventionists don't believe it. Doubt their sincerity if you wish. I can't read their minds. The point is this is not a debate between those who want to promote the "national interest" and those who want to promote something else. Rather, it's a debate over what constitutes that interest and whether unilateralism or multilateralism best promotes it.

That's one problem with America First. The deeper problem is the belligerent nationalism of the movement led, but not founded by, Donald Trump. This flows from its anti-individualism. The nation is the irreducible unit, and conflict must happen. See how Trump picks fights with Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and others with whom we have no reason for conflict. Look at his incoherent, destructive trade policies. For as long as anyone can remember, Trump's shtick has been that America has been "ripped off" and that only he can change this. What's he talking about? Since when is offering desirable goods at affordable prices a rip-off? But seeing trade as it really is would deprive Trump of his cherished trademark grievance politics. Narcissistic demagogues thrive on grievances. They don't gain votes by promising to stop the U.S. government's global bullying of others.

America is an abstraction, which means different things to different people. In one sense, it's a country but not a single organism. It's an association of individuals who have different interests built on their fundamental interest in peace and freedom. Government tampering with freedom always favors some over others. One person's subsidy is another person's burden. Which one represents the real America? Steel tariffs help steel producers (in the short term) but harm steel users, who far outnumber the producers. This is an old story. Does it have to be pointed out?

So, what is America First? It's putty in the hands of a demagogue.

"American interests" are interests as seen by the people who run the government, that is, America's rulers. They are a filter, an interpretation by interested parties. This affords abundant opportunities to pursue narrow and even personal agendas. Rulers need not have any common interest with regular people. They need votes, however, so rulers will strike the required poses, especially in election season.

America First is about power and devotion to the ruler, without whom we cannot prosper. You know the song and dance. When John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," he was properly rebuked by Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other advocates of individual liberty. Rand called Kennedy's program of self-sacrifice "the Fascist New Frontier." They said that Americans should ask neither question. Nationalism is anti-individualism and antithetical to the ideas that motivated many people at the American founding. Trump doesn't openly ask for self-sacrifice, but it's subtly built into his agenda. He requires self-sacrifice while promising to make us rich. Fat chance.

Where is the individual in a vision of national greatness? The individual is a tool, a servant, and even a hostage—but little more. The everyday lives of regular people are expendable because, it is said, something bigger matters more. Greatness is not really for them.

Nationalist intellectuals—MAGA and otherwise—like to say that America is more than a marketplace. No one denies it, but people live a good part of their lives in the market, and its openness or closeness makes a big difference in their lives. As for the other parts of life, what makes the nationalists so sure that people cannot take care of themselves through voluntary association? Community is a good, but it should be a freely chosen community. People need meaning, but for it to be real, they need to make their own meaning. The last place to find it is in the words of a demagogue who believes his word creates truth.

When nationalists say America is more than a market, they mean the nation is more than a free association of individuals cooperating to pursue their own interests. We should reject that view. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not a collectivist slogan. It's impeccably individualist. Jefferson didn't write "life, liberty, and the pursuit of American greatness." A contemporary of Jefferson's, Abraham Bishop, understood:

A nation which makes greatness its polestar can never be free; beneath national greatness sink individual greatness, honor, wealth and freedom. But though history, experience and reasoning confirm these ideas; yet all-powerful delusion has been able to make the people of every nation lend a helping hand in putting on their own fetters and rivetting their own chains, and in this service delusion always employs men too great to speak the truth, and yet too powerful to be doubted. Their statements are believed—their projects adopted—their ends answered and the deluded subjects of all this artifice are left to passive obedience through life, and to entail a condition of unqualified non-resistance to a ruined posterity.

Here was a prophet.

Which Came First: The Individual or the Group?

"It is illusory to believe that it is possible to visualize collective wholes. They are never visible; their cognition is always the outcome of the understanding of the meaning which acting men attribute to their acts. We can see a crowd, i.e., a multitude of people. Whether this crowd is a mere gathering or a mass (in the sense in which this term is used in contemporary psychology) or an organized body or any other kind of social entity is a question which can only be answered by understanding the meaning which they themselves attach to their presence. And this meaning is always the meaning of individuals. Not our senses, but understanding, a mental process, makes us recognize social entities.

"Those who want to start the study of human action from the collective units encounter an insurmountable obstacle in the fact that an individual at the same time can belong and—with the exception of the most primitive tribesmen—really belongs to various collective entities. The problems raised by the multiplicity of coexisting social units and their mutual antagonisms can be solved only by methodological individualism."

—Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

Whose Plan?

"The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is autonomous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.

"Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. Planning means: Let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion."

—Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

TGIF: Who Cares about Inequality?

What accounts for the preoccupation with income and wealth inequality? We hear about it every day. Isn't our absolute living standard what matters and whether it is improving or deteriorating? I'll bet that's what regular people care about. However, the professional grievance mongers see things differently, They want you to resent those who are richer.

To start with the basics, we are not talking about inequality. We're talking about income and wealth differences. Substitution of the term inequality is an appeal to emotion, a cashing in on other senses of the word. "You oppose equality? Don't you believe that 'all men are created equal'?" That's demagoguery not argument.

In a market-oriented economy, most income is not distributed. There's no distribution to describe as equal or unequal, fair or unfair. (What the government does is another story.) As Ludwig von Mises, wrote 102 years ago in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, "Under Capitalism incomes emerge as a result of market transactions which are indissolubly linked up with production." That's not distribution or allocation.

Mises continued:

We do not first produce things and afterwards distribute them. When products are supplied for use and consumption, incomes for the greater part have already been determined, since they arise during the process of production and are indeed derived from it. Workers, landowners, and capitalists and a large number of the entrepreneurs contributing to production have already received their share before the product is ready for consumption.

"[T]he concept of distribution is only figurative," Mises added. What people call "the income distribution" is not the outcome of a grand allocation plan. It's a snapshot of a dynamic, decentralized series of exchanges and is always subject to change.

People transact, trade, only when they expect to gain. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother. That's true for both parties to a transaction. It's win-win. Among the things people trade are labor services for money and vice versa. That people have to work so they can eat is not the fault of employers, who also have bosses to satisfy; they're called consumers. That's the nature of reality. But in a free and competitive market economy, few people are dependent on only one buyer or one seller. They are free to choose.

If no distribution occurs in a market economy, then no redistribution is possible. When the government taxes our incomes and gives the money to others—be they low-income people or military contractors—that's plain old distribution. And it's illegitimate.

Taxation and other forms of political manipulation are objectionable even if large-scale wealth and income differences do not result. So that cannot be the primary objection. Political manipulation is objectionable because it aggresses against nonaggressors and disrupts the process that best serves consumers. It would be odd to say, "I see inequality, so I wonder what government manipulation has brought that about." It would be reasonable to say instead, "I see government manipulation, so I wonder if, on top of all the other bad consequences, it also has disrupted the wealth-creation process."

Economic differences among individuals and groups are to be expected among free people and ought not to arouse suspicions of illegitimacy. To expect economic equality as the default is to commit the fallacy Thomas Sowell has exposed concerning all sorts of disparities among groups. Uniformity is found nowhere in the world.

Everyone knows that people's contributions to productive activities vary widely, with a relatively few people at the top and bottom and most in the middle. No mystery here. Individuals differ in intelligence, age, ability, disposition, upbringing, energy, alertness, patience, ambition, education, work habits, culture, risk tolerance, entrepreneurship, and much more. No one should be surprised that their contributions to wealth creation also differ vastly or that they change over time. Thus vast differences in income and wealth are to be expected. I couldn't have done what Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Serge Brin, or Jeff Bezos, did—and, appropriately, my income reflects that.

Despite the seeming paradox, the huge economic differences that can result from innovation benefit everyone. Much would be lost without that possibility. Incentives matter. Moreover, the innovators' gains are minuscule compared to the total gains to consumers. A system designed to prevent or stamp out those rewards to innovation would impoverish us all. It would also put us on what F. A. Hayek called "the road to serfdom."

It should also be noted that the price system, of which income levels are a part, signals to producers what consumers want most. It's our way of telling producers where to put their efforts and scarce resources.

What indicates progress or regress in society is not the latest dubious measure of a gap between rich and nonrich, but how easily people of determination can climb the income ladder. If the government stays out of the way, the obstacles are minimized. Gaps don't matter. Think of an elevator that can expand like an accordion: the floor can rise even if the distance to the ceiling increases.

Most people don't envy wealthy innovators. They admire them. But anti-freedom politicians, intellectuals, and activists think you should resent anyone who is considerably wealthier. They're running a scam designed to obtain power. We need to call them out.

If you like gaps, check out the shrinking consumption gap, the product of the growing availability of resources worldwide thanks to the spread of economic liberalization and the liberation of human ingenuity and entrepreneurship.

 

Nation, Race, and Individual

"Nation and race do not coincide; there is no nation of pure blood. All peoples have arisen from a mixture of races....

"[T]he concept of race, in the sense in which the advocates of race policy use it, is new, even considerably newer than that of nation. It was introduced into politics in deliberate opposition to the concept of nation. The individualistic idea of the national community was to be displaced by the collectivist idea of the racial community."

--Ludwig von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy, 1919

TGIF: What Is Self-Determination?

People go on quite a bit about self-determination these days. Some decry the denial of self-determination to "the Palestinians." Others insist that only "the Jewish people" can have the right to self-determination between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Israel passed a law declaring that principle in 2018.

Unfortunately, I see too little thought behind the term self-determination. What is it? What self are we talking about? What is determination?

This and the related issue of nationalism are big topics with an unsurprisingly big literature. I will resist talking about nations and nationalism. Karl Deutsch got it right: "A Nation ... is a group of persons united by a common error [fiction might have been the better word] about their ancestry and a common dislike of their neighbors." I also appreciate Ernest Gellner's insight: "Nationalism begets nations." It's not the other way around. Moreover, individuals, often with power agendas, beget nationalism. Finally, nationalism begets more nationalism because disliked neighbors may feel the need to respond.

Here, I just want to help clarify the terms. If I do my job, I am confident I will offend everyone on some thorny controversies.

Let's start with self. I know what that usually means. Persons are selves. (Persons don't have selves.) Everyone knows what it means to be a self and to be self-conscious The self-evident needs no elaboration.

Determination in one sense refers to the process and outcome of human action. We determined what would happen by doing what we did. Or we tried to. A person can determine an outcome for himself (I determined I would get a haircut today) or for someone else (I determined that you would get a haircut today). We'd want to call only the first example of self-determination. We could also call it self-ownership, a felicitous phrase.

What distresses me as an ethical and methodological individualist -- a libertarian -- is that I don't see the term being used this way. The priority is the group, the nation, the people, and the like. Where are the persons?

A group has no self; it comprises many selves -- as many as it has members. What makes it a group can be a range of common interests or traits and continuing relations; they might have customs, mores, expectations, roles, rules, and more. But none of that keeps the group from being a collection of individuals. When a group decides, we mean that the members decide. The group does not literally decide.

When we say a group is dispossessed of its land or subjected to genocidal aggression, the crimes are against individuals. Individuals should not be reduced to mere members, representatives, or symbols. This is not to minimize genocide. The point is to keep the spotlight where it belongs: on individuals, who can live or die and without whom no group exists. If a group is important, it's because it is important to the individuals who comprise it. They may regard their association as crucial to the lives they wish to live. But they are still individuals. They decide (unless the state or someone else interferes). They value. They are the group.

If individuals, however many, peacefully, freely, and regularly associate, establishing a culture, customs, and rules of governance, we can say as a matter of convenience that the group exercises self-determination. If they are invaded and then drive the invaders away, we can say the group has restored its self-determination. But we must be careful: a group tyrannized by one of "its own" or by a democratic majority is no more self-determined than a group tyrannized by an outsider or a majority of outsiders. What counts are individuals, their values, and the nature of their associations. 

Democracy is not self-determination!

So the principle of self-determination cannot be directly applied to nations or peoples, such as "the Jewish people," "the Palestinian people," etc. -- only to persons. Woodrow Wilson is best associated with the phrase national self-determination though he did not use it in his Fourteen Points speech during World War I. He didn't help things. Strictly speaking, there is no right of national self-determination. (And remember, nation is a political, not a metaphysical, concept.) Only persons -- not states, nations, or "peoples" as such -- have the right to exist.

The need to re-individualize self-determination seems relevant to current controversies. Putting individuals first may produce overlooked approaches to peaceful resolutions.

Methodological individualism seems unassailable -- what is there besides persons, their property, and their relationships? Coercive government interference sows problems. Equally unassailable is ethical individualism. Who would oppose societies of thoroughly free and voluntary associations, starting with respect for individuals and their property? Speak up or forever hold your peace.

Washington, We Have Problem

Centralized power has a problem: the individual. Every person is a potential disrupter of The Plan, and disruption must be forbidden. Otherwise, why have a central plan? This applies regardless of whether the planning is economy-wide or for particular sectors, such as medical services. (See F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.)

Looking for a Good Cause?

The problem for (not with) the younger generations is that all the good social causes have been taken and substantially addressed. (Of course, nothing can be perfect.) But hold on: one good cause is left: political-economic individualism. Looking for a good cause to enlist in? There you go.

TGIF: Cooperation versus Bigotry

We who value individualism, freedom, and social cooperation as essential to flourishing should be distressed by the hostile bigotry that has lately reared its ugly head, to some uncertain extent, on the streets and campuses of America and abroad. This is not new. In America we've seen it intermittently in both directions on racial issues just in this century. It seems related to an intolerant, zero-nuance, take-no-prisoners, and glib attitude among many contenders over racial, religious, and ethnic controversies.

Now it is showing itself in ugly group chants and more personal communication calling for violence against Jews and Arabs, and perhaps even direct harassment and assault.  A couple of people have died. Anti-Semitism and anti-Arabism should be off-limits. Regardless of the target, the unrestrained hostility is frightening on many counts, not least of which is its ominous implications for spontaneous social /market cooperation..

I couldn't possibly know whether these clashes are common or just fringe opportunism -- let's hope the latter. In the heat of a controversy it is possible to misread innocent events and words. The principle of charitable interpretation ought to apply unless solid evidence to the contrary revokes it. We should also be aware that government officials and the news media, for obvious reasons, might be inclined to exaggerate. 

The point is that much could be at stake if impressions are not exaggerated -- including the trust and cooperation that characterize market-oriented societies. Social strife can have severe consequences. Even public demonstrations can create rippling animosity.

I am not suggesting, of course, that limits on free speech and the press would be in order in the name of social cooperation. That would make no sense. For one thing, hate-speech prohibitions and the like would bolster state power with vague statutes: governments have been major disrupters of cooperation, market and otherwise, throughout history. Contrary to what we teach our children, words can hurt, but it's not the kind of hurt that justifies retaliatory force. Threatened and initiated force, though, is another story.

Similarly, restrictions on immigration and the internet, along with enhanced government monitoring and data collection, would be ludicrously ironic since those are the means of interfering with cooperation.

The right and wrong of foreign conflicts, and U.S. government complicity in them, is separate from my point. Strong convictions and feelings are entirely understandable and proper. But when become collectivist bigotry, civil peace can be put at risk. That should worry anyone who grasps the relationship among social cooperation, markets, and general well-being.

Champions of individualism reject the divisive collectivism displayed in ethnic, racial, and religious hostility. Such feeling flows from the tribalism that is a vestige of a primitive, pre-individualist distant past. A person's natal or otherwise unchosen "membership" in a group says nothing about his or her character, moral principles, or position on controversies. The right to be free of coercion is an individual-based, not group-based principle. Persons can think for themselves. That's individualism, both ethical and methodological. We abandon it at great risk.

As the economist Ludwig von Mises explained in Human Action, which he considered calling "Social Cooperation," civilization began to dawn when the earliest perceptive people realized that strangers could represent not existential threats but potential gains from trade. There lay the road to mutual self-interest and prosperity. It was long ago, but some people haven't yet learned. Samuel Johnson was onto something when he said, "There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money."

I'll give Mises the final word on the link between free cooperation and prosperity, and by implication the danger from overwrought polarization (from Human Action, chapter 24, "Harmony and Conflicts of Interest", section 3, "The Harmony of the "Rightly Understood" Interests):

[N]ature does not generate peace and good will.... What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. It removes the natural conflict of interests. For where there is division of labor, there is no longer question of the distribution of a supply not capable of enlargement. Thanks to the higher productivity of labor performed under the division of tasks, the supply of goods multiplies. A pre-eminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions. Catallactic competition is substituted for biological competition. It makes for harmony of the interests of all members of society. The very condition from which the irreconcilable conflicts of biological competition arise--viz., the fact that all people by and large strive after the same things--is transformed into a factor making for harmony of interests. Because many people or even all people want bread, clothes, shoes, and cars, large-scale production of these goods becomes feasible and reduces the costs of production to such an extent that they are accessible at low prices. The fact that my fellow man wants to acquire shoes as I do, does not make it harder for me to get shoes, but easier.

Let's not have our mutual interest get lost in the heat of controversy.

Atomistic Individualism for the Win!

I'd say defenders of the automobile versus mass transit are looking pretty good these days.

Individualist Collectivism

Is the free market an individualist or collectivist social arrangement? Don’t answer too quickly. It’s a trick question.

My latest TGIF is "Individualist Collectivism." Read it here.

Scott Horton and I Talk about "Individualist Collectivism"

Here's my latest interview with Scott Horton.

Zora Neale Hurston

She didn't get much wrong. From Wikipedia:

John McWhorter has called Hurston "America's favorite black conservative." ^[16] She was a Republican who was generally sympathetic to the Old Right and a fan of Booker T. Washington's self-help politics. She disagreed with the philosophies (including Communism and the New Deal) supported by many of her colleagues in the Harlem Renaissance, such as Langston Hughes, who was in the 1930s a supporter of the Soviet Union and praised it in several of his poems. Despite much common ground with the Old Right in domestic and foreign policy, Hurston was not a social conservative. Her writings show skepticism toward traditional religion and affinity for feminist individualism. In this respect, her views were similar to two libertarian novelists who were her contemporaries, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson.^[17]

In 1952, Hurston supported the presidential campaign of Senator Robert A. Taft. Like Taft, Hurston was against Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies. She also shared his opposition to Roosevelt's and Truman's interventionist foreign policy. In the original draft of her autobiography, Dust Tracks on a Road, Hurston compared the United States government to a "fence" in stolen goods and to a Mafia-like protection racket. Hurston thought it ironic that the same “people who claim that it is a noble thing to die for freedom and democracy ... wax frothy if anyone points out the inconsistency of their morals. ... We, too, consider machine gun bullets good laxatives for heathens who get constipated with toxic ideas about a country of their own.” Roosevelt "can call names across an ocean" for his four freedoms, but he did not have “the courage to speak even softly at home.”^{[clarification needed]} When Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, she called him “the Butcher of Asia.”^[17]

Hurston opposed the Supreme Court ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education case of 1954. She felt that if separate schools were truly equal (and she believed that they were rapidly becoming so) educating black students in physical proximity to white students would not result in better education. In addition, she worried about the demise of black schools and black teachers as a way to pass on cultural tradition to future generations of African-Americans. She voiced this opposition in a letter, "Court Order Can't Make the Races Mix", that was published in the Orlando Sentinel in August 1955. Hurston had not reversed her long-time opposition to segregation. Rather, she feared that the Court's ruling could become a precedent for an all-powerful federal government to undermine individual liberty on a broad range of issues in the future

(HT: David Beito [pdf])

TGIF: Are We Really All Healthcare Collectivists Now?

“We have to do something about health care.”

The scariest word in that sentence is not something. It’s we.

TGIF is here.