Advocates of liberty are often wrongly characterized as ‘rugged individualists.’ I often hear our position referred to as ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ or an ‘on-your-own’ society.
I think this straw man exists for a couple of reasons.
First, it’s an expedient portrait to paint of political opponents when you don’t wish voters to think too deeply about the issues. It turns out that Don’t vote for the mean guys is a compelling campaign message.
Second, and possibly more common, is that a great many people confound government and society as one in the same. They see society expressed through government, rather than government as having a specific and limited role to play in society, like the role a janitor or security guard has in cleaning and protecting a building.
To these folks “we”, government and society are interchangeable ideas. Whatever “we” think “we” should do, should be done through government.
In my The Government Subsidy Fallacy post from January, 2012, I reference a David Henderson Econlog blog post that referenced this quote from 1800s French economist, Frederic Bastiat:
When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves.
This applies to all government activity. If you oppose a government program intended to help the poor, you are accused by the people who confound government and society for not wanting to help the poor at all.
And, if you prefer liberty to big government, then that can only mean that you are a rugged individualist — you believe only the fittest should survive and everyone should carry their own weight.
But, you don’t need to be a rugged individualist to respect that the next guy deserves a chance to decide what is right for him without you sticking your nose in, just as you expect the same respect from him (“golden rule of liberty”). You earn your freedom by letting others have theirs’.
That may be individualism, but it is not rugged individualism. And definitely not ‘survival of the fittest’ or ‘on your own’ society.
Individuals are important. Individuals are the building block of society. Without them, there is no society. It’s as simple as that. I think this is something that most people in our country believe intuitively. That’s not an -ism. I don’t think we would take the effort to educate people or attempt to help others through government or otherwise if we didn’t believe individuals were important.
Respecting the liberty of others doesn’t mean that you want an ‘on-your-own’ society. Quite the contrary. It means that you recognize that the greater good is better served from the voluntary actions of individuals than through involuntary, even if well-intended, actions of government.
Voluntary actions work so well for the greater good that not only do the unfit survive, but they don’t even really exist. In a free society with lots of specialization, nearly everyone can usually find something with which they are fit.
But for those who confound government and society, they have trouble seeing the benefits that result from voluntary actions be it trading, charity or otherwise. Why?
Even as they personally benefit from so many things provided by profit-seeking trading including basics like indoor plumbing, bountiful food, shelter, climate control and amenities like fashion handbags, smartphones and a camera in just about everything, these people scoff at the idea that businesses do good by seeking profit for their owners. They view profit-seeking as a drain on society.
They don’t see that they are the very people who have rewarded the owners with profit. They also don’t understand why they rewarded the owners — because they too gained value (or profited) from the product. Even though they participate and benefit from this activity 24/7, it is such a part of their daily lives, it is invisible to them.
These people also discount the notion that charitable activities can ever be generous enough to meet all the needs of the poor or they have strange ideas about why they do not prefer private charity. I recall one conversation where I mentioned how well churches carry out charity. The person agreed, but said she didn’t want people in need to have to get a pitch on religion just to get help. There was so much wrong with that, I didn’t know where to begin.
So, with trade, charity and other voluntary actions discredited as a reliable and viable way to achieve the greater good, that leaves government. If they see one person who wasn’t served well by private actions (usually these are the people who are asked to stand at State of the Union addresses), that’s all the convincing they need for government intervention. Rarely do they ask, can I do something to help solve this problem? It’s far easier to support government doing it and then assume the moral high-ground for that. In fact, that requires no action beyond flapping lips.
So, as a supporter of liberty, when someone tries to pin you with the ‘on-your-own’, rugged individualist tag, don’t let them off so easy. Explain that one of the things that attracts you liberty is that it does a far better job of serving the greater good than government and why you think that. It may not lead to an immediate change in thinking, but it could plant a seed that could blossom later.