Good government and individualism

One of the central purposes of this column is to promote unabashed individualism, because, by successfully promoting individualism, all else–free markets, private property rights and good, limited government–inevitably follows. Unlike most poll-driven politicians, a good thinker must always begin with a set of philosophical fundamentals– that is, with a set of basic principles and convictions–from which all policies should then follow.

The foundation for any decent, credible and worthwhile government should begin with the following basic assumptions: Individuals are valuable. They are each valuable for their own sake, and, as such, “they are endowed . . . with certain unalienable Rights, [and] that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . .,” to quote Thomas Jefferson in America’s famous Declaration of Independence.

America, historically the greatest country on earth, was founded upon this tradition of individualism as much as liberty and inalienable rights. In fact, they all go hand in hand; they are all conceptually related: You can’t have one without the other, its logical corollary.

Starting from this philosophical base, it is easy to see the policy implications. All policy questions should essentially be framed as follows: Does this piece of legislation, or does this executive order, improperly infringe upon the natural rights of the individual on whose behalf all government is justified?

If the answer is yes, if the proposal infringes upon the principles clearly outlined in the original U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, then the policy prescription should be rejected right away. The individual–his natural rights–should never be sacrificed. That’s what good government is all about.

Unfortunately, so many people are siezed by the collectivist ethos and the dubious ethics of altruism that individual rights often cannot be properly upheld. Ultimately, for example, the hero, the heroic person–Superman, Jesus, you name it–gains his heroics in relation to others, to the group, by serving.

“The soldier,” said General Douglas MacArthur, “is required to perform the highest act of religious training–sacrifice.” That’s self-sacrifice. That’s the draft, which went on for ten years after the General died in 1964.

This is troubling for the individualist. By living his own ordinary, regular, private life, he is nothing and undistinguished. But the moment “the war tocsin sounds,” the moment he rushes headlong into battle and offers his life for others (Yugoslavia and Somalia, for example), he becomes somebody, his whole existence is automatically elevated to a higher plane. There is something entirely perverse about the whole situation.

My question is: Why can’t we, as individuals, matter for our own sakes, independently, just for being a person in relation to himself? Why must our lives depend so much on other people–on this group/sacrifice religion? Why can’t we get past all of this and have truly good government, with free individuals bound by no perverse collectivist code? Let’s get back to fundamentals.

Strictly a personal view. Charles Reyes Jr. is a regular columnist of Saipan Tribune. Mr. Reyes may be reached at charlesraves@hotmail.com