Maybe it’s time the individuals saved ourselves from the individualists.
Or more precisely, from those who speak in the name of all individualists; as though there could only be one model of individualism; a vulgar-Randian one.
I would like to think of myself as an individualist. I believe that throwing individuals under the bus in the name of grand, noble principles is an atrocity.
But I don’t believe that has to mean egotism.
You can be an individual without being one huge asshole.
So let’s talk about welfare. It may sometimes be an “indignity” to receive state welfare. But couldn’t something similar be said about handouts from a charity?
And particularly ones founded on religious, political or other premises with which not everyone agrees? (Hint-hint).
And supporting a social safety net, in itself, doesn’t mean that you think there is such a thing as the “inalienable rights and objective interests of Society-in-General.”
I mean, I’m as opposed to The Greater Good and The Universal Interest as anyone. But maybe the fundamentalist individualists have more in common with just such collectivist “high-minded idealism” than they are willing to acknowledge; even to themselves.
Yes: you don’t have to believe that individual rights and interests should be traded off against an abstract “Society” (a sneaky weasel-word for “Everyone-and-No-One”), to actually acknowledge that the interests of individuals are justifiably served by welfare.
It’s not that welfare is inherently unproblematic. All policies are by definition problematic.
But that’s precisely why trade-offs are made, and (I hope!) enforced according to the rule of law. An absolutist opposition to welfare, or even a tokenistic “I suppose we can for now, but we’ll make it as little as possible for the time being…”
Well, I’m not convinced these positions are so compatible with the notion of ethically serious trade-offs. Trade-offs between the interests of welfare recipients and the interests of taxpayers.
So it’s interesting that when it comes to welfare, it is the hardcore individualists that are “high-minded idealists,” as much the Soviets.
Sure, in the abstract, you can say that every act of welfare provision is an infringement on economic liberty.
But that’s precisely the point.
In the abstract.
Believe it or not, not one of us live in the abstract. And probably very few us would like to. Not even poets. Not even mystics. Not even musicians. Not one of us.
So, if any infringement on liberty whatsoever is to be taken as “bad” and hence “verboten,” then that is an ethic for deities up on a cloud somewhere, and not for people.
I mean, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we live in a material world, with material constraints. (Yeah, I think some of you do sometimes mention this. Well, quite a lot, actually).
Indeed, it’s all fine to say that high taxation is problematic. But if high taxation is problematic, then presumably, all taxation whatsoever is problematic.
But you’re not going to tell me all taxes should be banned, because they infringe economic liberty, are you?
Well, OK. If you are a hardcore Rothbardite fundamentalist, then fine. Whatever.
But as for all the sensible people out there: if any infringement of liberty whatsoever is Verboten, I don’t think that is a remotely coherent or plausible notion in a world with deeply entrenched conflicts of interest.