Tocqueville and Individualism

Tocqueville Was Wrong about Individualism for its Own Sake

What is "self-interest well understood," the virtue Alexis de Tocqueville found that Americans claimed for themselves?

Tocqueville said, in "Democracy in America", that Americans had mastered the concept of “self interest well understood.” His definition was that we understood that we had to give up a small portion of our personal sovereignty to others in order to get a large portion of what we want. We understood, he said, that we had to think of everybody once in a while instead of just ourselves and when we did that, we would get MOST of what we wanted.

Giving up a small portion of our self-interest is the concept that John Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others called "common sovereignty." In the American Constitution, the American ideal was of "individual sovereignty", which the Colonialists abstracted from "common" sovereignty; it was translated back into "common sovereignty" with the phrase "general Welfare," and by the democratic republican form of government.

Individual sovereignty was radically defined by the limitations upon the powers of government concerning the powers of the States, and especially of "the People," which was not a collectivised "people," but another abstraction made of individuals.

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. in a review When all of the possible behaviors and acts of men are added up, the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, [and which] are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," give considerable sovereignty to the individual person. http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/10/free-assemblage-of-metaphysical.html

Tocqueville qualified his endorsement of "self-interest well understood", however, when he makes it clear that he did not understand this "common assumption of the day", saying the pursuit of self-interest for its own sake is simply the best means available to our leaders and educators of encouraging social associations; that it only works when supported by free political institutions, and that it may do little to underpin the virtues of courage and the and what may be characterized as the habitualization of altruistic behavior.

While his conclusions are correct, his premises as stated above didn't get him there. Individualism practiced for its own sake is not for the purpose of discouraging social associations by those who practice it; it is for purpose of encouraging only those one wishes to engage in without lending support to those one opposes. That is the right of someone who owns his own sovereignty, as we all do. To practice it for any other purpose is the practical description of "soft altruism," whereby we go along with things we do not politically approve of because it is easier than fighting it.

Choosing not to fight those cases of "soft altruism" which are most evil and that carry the biggest consequences, allow our educators--*90% left-liberal in public institutions)--and our leaders--(Democrats in the electorate outnumber Republicans 4 to 1)--to encourage and to legislate more and larger shares of collectivist policies and public practices.

"Appeasement is not consideration for the feelings of others, it is consideration for and compliance with the unjust, irrational and evil feelings of others", and "is an attempt to apologize for his intellectual concerns and to escape from the loneliness of a thinker by professing that his thinking is dedicated to some social-altruistic goal." Ayn Rand

If Tocqueville never used the word altruistic, his supporters do. "Tocqueville’s defenders of self-interest argue from its strength, and rather than urge people to deplore and transcend an inclination so powerful, they defend its legitimacy. They hope to turn self-interest against itself by maintaining that one’s own interest is, as a rule, best secured in pursuing a general good. Well understood, self-interest even requires a certain degree of sacrifice." "What Tocqueville Would Say Today"; Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop; Hoover Digest

Perhaps Tocqueville was working from the thoughts of Edmund Burke, who wrote in 1790 in "Reflections on the Revolution in France", about "An enlightened self-interest, which, when well understood, they tell us, will identify with an interest more enlarged and publick."

But the public interest is not supposed to be like Barak Obama's misleading idea of "communism," whereof he said John McCain would "be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in Kindergarten." http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/obama_im_sorry_to_see_my_oppon.php

What Obama is unwilling to tell the American public is that his teacher did not take his toys and redistribute them to the other children. The American Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution about providing for the "common defense" and promoting the "general Welfare." But in no way were they asking us to infer, in order to "promote the general Welfare," (which is politically not the same as "the common good",) that we had to accept the teacher taking our toys if we had too many, in order to prevent us from practicing individualism for its own sake.

Just because some men don't believe in practicing individualism for its own sake, does not mean the they can take it, then break it like loaves and fishes to be shared with others who do not believe it should be practiced by those from whom they took it.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

Laissez-Fairre: the Economics of Individual Sovereignty

Laissez-Fairre: the Economics of Individual Sovereignty

The political accommodation of majority opinion is called democracy. The Constitution was established as a federal democratic republic form of government. This is fundamentally different from a democracy: it is removed from the tyranny of populist majority votes that cause injustices, incurred when a simple majority of votes determine the welfare and status of the losing side.

Federal means "A union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states;" [the antonym is "nationalism," where the government is centralized]

Democratic means "Characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all;" [but it cannot mean creating economic equalization, because those from whom capital is taken to be given to others in an attempt to balance the economics scales will be politically violated; those who recieve the alms will learn it can be expected to continue]

Republic means "A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote but is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and who are responsible to them." [definitions found at http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/glossary.html#Republic]

What that definition of republic leaves out is that democratic republicanism counters the tyranny found in "democracy by simple majority." Democracy that is direct, that is not filtered through the elected representatives of republicanism, would quickly become a totalitarianism by populism; in other words, which ever side, right or wrong, moral or immoral, had the most votes would determine the course of law. We would become a nation of despots.

This direct democracy is derived from the Greek "popular government" existing in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC, notably Athens. "In this form, there were no defined human rights or legal restraints upon the actions of assembly, making it the first instance of 'illiberal democracy.' An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which although fairly free elections take place, citizens are cut off from real power due to the lack of civil liberties." Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

"Civil liberties" is a misnomer, when "unlaienable liberties" is the literal description. The phrase "civil liberties" as used in the United States has always had the hollow ring for me of describing something other than "human rights." The rest of the world does not use "civil rights." The United Nations adopted the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," in 1948. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html "Human Rights Watch" is the name of an organization dedicated to "defending human rights nationwide." http://www.hrw.org/ "European Convention on Human Rights (4 Nov 1950) and all Protocols" is obviously older than the American concept of "civil rights," as instituted in the attempts to gain for black Americans the unalienable and equal liberties not denied to white Americans.

Of course, the American phrase "civil liberties" absolutely means the same thing as "human rights," but I say it is a misnomer because it deflects the idea that all "human" rights are "individual" rights as determined by "individual sovereignty."

This concept of individual sovereignty is very often challeged by those who don't understand that it is derived from the Enlightenment idea of "common sovereignty."

John Locke and others made the case that "The government has no sovereignty of its own--it exists to serve the people." http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/summary.html

go to Laissez-faire and Individual Sovereignty cont.

Obama is Jimmy Carter Redux

condensed from Rick Richman American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_second_coming_of_jimmy_car.html

Barack Obama is taking America down a path modeled by Jimmy Carter, and threatens to be as bad a president as his trailblazer. A unlikely guide unwittingly will help make the case.

On November 3, 1976, the day after Jimmy Carter's election, the New York Times ran a profile explaining his remarkable political victory -- how a one-term governor from Georgia, with no significant record, began planning his presidential campaign in the second year of his one-and-only four-year term, and then went on to secure the nomination from more experienced rivals and defeat a sitting president:

"He believed passionately that if he could talk to enough voters about a "Government as good as the American people," he could win. . .
"Words, skillfully used, could play dual roles for him. Liberals came to conceive of him as one of their own. Conservatives responded to him sympathetically as well. Blacks in Harlem voiced their support. Whites in Mississippi got behind him. . . .
[T]he theme was always visible: a government as good as the people. It was voiced a hundred different ways, but the impact on his listeners was constant.
Americans, he said, were entitled to decent, compassionate, honest, competent government because Americans are decent, compassionate, honest and competent."

In other words: Jimmy Carter won by constantly telling Americans that he was the one they were waiting for.

Carter was certified as the One in the closing benediction at the 1976 Democratic convention, given by no less a figure than the father of Martin Luther King, Jr. Televised on all three networks (the entire visual media at the time), the benediction heralded Jimmy Carter as someone sent to redeem the country: "Surely the Lord sent Jimmy Carter to come on out and bring America back where she belongs."

Thirty-two years later, no one associates Jimmy Carter with Roosevelt or Kennedy, or with "governing." Few people believe the Lord sent him, or that he brought America back where she belonged.

What were we thinking when we elected him? The answer is: some of the same things we are thinking now."

Immortality Question Given Wrong Philosophical Answer

In Talking Philosophy - The Philosophers' Magazine Blog, (posted yesterday, October 21st, by Jeff Mason,) the question is asked about why humans search for the answer to immortality. Mason goes through the various civilization's searches, from the Egyptians to the Greeks to Christians.

But when all is said and done, he answers very little about the spiritual connection men have inside them to what is commonly called our souls. The soul is called into question and denied by scientific naturalists. It does not sound as if Mason fits that bill.

But his final answer is this: "The question of the existence or non-existence of an immortal soul is a practical metaphysical question. We cannot know the answer, but we have to take a stand. How we answer it says something about our ultimate values, our conception of the good life for human beings, the art of living well and the meaning of death."

Where Mason is wrong is that it becomes a metaphysical question only after the epistemological questions have been answered. For the majority of people this is done informally, as they question what and why the soul might be, and how and why it might be transcendental, surviving past physical death, or how it might have been "implanted" at the moment of conception.

People who go through the crisis of questioning their faith in God and the afterlife do have a serious metaphysical problem to contend with. But the problem will not be solved by answering a question of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the answer; the questions and the validations come from epistemology. Theology is epistemology applied to the spiritual side of metaphysics. Theology is supposed to answer those questions and lay a groundwork of metaphysics for the faithful and the believers.

Epistemology is the road traveled by Pilgrim in his "Progress"; metaphysics is the destination at which he arrived. Mason gets a "D" for his answer.


mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:
© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Identify Natural Law with Capitalism

Learn to Identify Natural Law and Ethics:

Begin with Capitalism

Naturalist ethics could not have devised such a convoluted law as that "fathers' rights" law in one state that makes a man claim responsibility for a pregnancy before the pregnancy is known about, let alone confirmed--if he wants any rights. [see Natural Law continued ]

But before we understand why, we must understand why Capitalism is the foundation for a natural rights philosophy, given that capital does indeed exist. Capital did not always exist. Capitalism is a fairly recent development in the economic underpinnings of man's affairs.

Under primitive bartering civilizations, property used for barter must be given the same consideration as Capital in our world. In our world, Capital is the barterable chicken, the service of shoeing a horse, the dozen eggs, or the handmade implement that would be the subject of barter. Capital is property just like a cow.

Underlying all other rights is the right to property: first, to the property of one's own being; secondly to the values that may be produced by one's own being. The property of one's own being involves and includes individual sovereignty, where sovereignty is defined as "indigenous" http://folklife.si.edu/resources/center/cultural_policy/pdf/RobAlbrofellow.pdf ; "substantive ("inherent and inalienable") [Locke] http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/naturallaw.htm ; or as "that state in which an individual would find him/herself if he/she was the only individual in existence."

That "state" is as natural as it gets. But in such a state, as a matter of fact until only a few short hundreds of years ago, capital was not even a consideration. But once its existence became a fact, became known, and its holders knew its value as intangible assets, its ownership had to be accepted as indigenous and substantive, inherent, and inalienable as the ownership of one's own being. The reason for this is because capital is the creation of the being of individual humans.

Capital as wealth is created, in the same manner that art is created, as a meal is created, as a home is created--by the mind and hands of men.

Ownership of one's own being is designated as 'individual sovereignty," and "was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.; http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm Today, people scoff at the notion, presuming what modern education teaches, lacking as it is in its original "liberal" roots: that only nations can have sovereignty. Even the sovereignty of each American State is being whittled away by national sovereignty. "Liberal" education in its original roots led Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others to consider and endorse at least the concept of "common sovereignty," derived from the "consent of the governed." It took the Americans to understand that what becomes "common" must have its roots in individualism first. No individual can contribute to what becomes "common" unless he or she first owns it in order to relinquish it up to the "common sovereignty."

Individual sovereignty is still is the common assumption today, among naturalists. Kelly Ross goes on to say, "If 'to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men,' this can only mean that something, from which people must be protected, threatens the exercise of rights to 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'" Governments instituted through the consent of the governed get their powers only from those powers the citizens are willing to give to it. They cannot give to it what they, themselves, do not posses.

"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual," writes James M. Buchanan, "must be carefully examined, particularly in terms of the implications for current discussions in Europe, Mexico, and the United States." http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-8.html

"The explicit claim is that the individual is the sovereign unit in society; his natural state is freedom from and equality with all other individuals; this is the natural order of things." Joseph J. Ellis; "American Sphinx,The Character of Thomas Jefferson"

An extremely radical but acceptable view for millions, especially for Americans, runs in the Objectivist line of thinking, as with these quotes from "Objectivism and Thomas Jefferson; 6. The Non-Initiation of Force" : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/otj60.htm

"As a corollary to an individualist society, it is necessary that a nation not have the right or power to compel actions [such as conscription], even for its own survival. Were that right allowed, a nation of people would be permitted collectively to identify duties and responsibilities that individuals owed to the common good and then could compel with force if necessary unwilling citizens. To permit that would be inconsistent with the form of individualism in which individual rights actually mean that no human authority can compel an individual to do anything other than to desist from initiating force against another individual. Therefore, the 'non-initiation of force' is a necessary part of the philosophy of individualism." [ibid]

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson;" thus:

see Natural Law: Begin with Capitalism for continuation

Join the Financial Bailout Debate

What if you could sit side by side with a Cato scholar at a debate forum and offer suggestions on topics like the financial bailout plan, health care, national security and education?
The Cato Institute is participating in a debate series hosted by a new interactive site, Google Knol. The debates on Knol are meant to offer a variety of in-depth opinions from experts, and afford visitors the opportunity to engage scholars on the ideas that are posted. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/07/join-the-financial-bailout-debate/

Gmail Goggles: Joke or brilliant self-censorship tool?

The folks at Gmail have developed a number of optional add-ons for their flagship e-mail program. Some let you improve your productivity. Others give you new ways to organize message. And now there's one designed to prevent you from sending inappropriate e-mails when you're drunk. http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/gmail-goggles-joke-or-brillian.html

If our wildest dreams became reality

"It is not just those who built the QE2 who look on the ship with a special fondness. In an odd way, it is as though the boat manages to unite the classes, even though it represents what divides them. One reason it can do this is that the cruise ship has for a long time been the ultimate symbol of luxury, but at the same time it is something that most people could aspire to enjoy as a once-in-a-lifetime experience. People started work or got married with dreams of setting sail on a cruise for their retirement or ruby wedding anniversary, and often that's just what they did." http://julianbaggini.blogspot.com/2008/10/if-our-wildest-dreams-became-reality.html

Note: I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause" CEC

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of the
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

Natural Law

Naturalist Ethics, Natural Law

by Curtis Edward Clark

The Academy's accepted general description of ethics is: "that study (also referred to as moral philosophy) or discipline which concerns itself with judgments of approval and disapproval, judgments as to the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness, virtue or vice, desirability or wisdom of actions, dispositions, ends, objects, or states of affairs."

It is my favorite description because it covers--in general--everything ethics is concerned with. The "Dictionary of Philosophy," (Runes; Ed.) goes on, in much longer detail as to what all those sub-descriptions mean, and how different philosophers have dealt with it, etc.

Ethics is a "study" or a "discipline," as it says above, but before it ever came to be studied in any academy in Ancient Greece, it was an informal idea for tens of thousands of years, as primitive men tried to live side by side with rules that had value for the tribe or community. But as a branch of philosophy, it could not be formalized until philosophy itself was discovered and formalized.

"[M]etaethics [is] a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics [,] as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts...Two issues, though, are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct." "The Internet Enclyclopedia of Philosophy"; http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm

Formalized ethics is what we find in the fields of professions such as medicine and law:

"Most professions have highly detailed and enforceable codes for their respective memberships. In some cases these are spoken of as 'professional ethics.'

"Though law often embodies ethical principals, law and ethics are far from co-extensive. Many acts that would be widely condemned as unethical are not prohibited by law -- lying or betraying the confidence of a friend, for example. And the contrary is true as well. In much that the law does it is not simply codifying ethical norms." Cornell University Law School http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/ethics
Natural Law continued including:
How Do We Learn to Identify Natural Law and Ethics?

Financial Crisis and Recession

"The severe financial crisis and resulting worldwide economic recession we have been forecasting for years are finally unleashing their fury. In fact, the reckless policy of artificial credit expansion that central banks (led by the American Federal Reserve) have permitted and orchestrated over the last fifteen years could not have ended in any other way."

Daily Article by Jesus Huerta de Soto Ludwig von Mises Institute http://mises.org/story/3138

False or Misleading in Every Particular

"Barack Obama currently has the following health-care ad in the field. [for the vid and complete article: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/10/06/false-or-misleading-in-every-particular/ It’s an effort to make Obama’s health plan appear moderate. That’s quite a trick, considering the plan might give Washington more control over the health-care sector than the Clinton health plan. So pretty much the only way they could create the appearance of moderation was to write a script that is false or misleading in every particular.
The ad begins:

"Health care reform. Two extremes. On one end, government-run health care, higher taxes. On the other, insurance companies, without rules, denying coverage. Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong.

"Those are not opposing extremes. In fact, Obama pursues government-run health care, higher taxes, and insurance companies denying coverage, all at once." Cato-at-liberty

$700 billion bailout bill apparently includes $7,500 tax credit

for buyers of certain electric cars, including Chevy Volt

"As Congress rushed to throw every conceivable bribe"sweetener" into the second version of the bailout bill in order to drum up enough votes to get it passed, apparently one of the goodies to make it in was a $7,500 tax credit for buyers of some plug-in cars, including the upcoming Chevy Volt.

But in order to qualify for even a smaller credit, the electric vehicles must have at least a 4 kWh battery, and that eliminates the Toyota Prius, which led Toyota to oppose the credit:

Technology Blog http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/10/700-billion-bailout-bill-appar.html

You Can't Violate the Law in the Name of Jesus

"In Brookville, Pennsylvania, there is a conflict between the First Apostles Doctrine Church and the municipal government because the church wants to provide shelter for the homeless but the government wants the church to abide by local zoning regulations. No one disputes the value in helping the homeless, but government officials do insist that acting in the name of Jesus isn't a sufficient justification for simply ignoring the law."

About.Com http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/10/06/you-cant-violate-the-law-in-the-name-of-jesus-2.htm

Ideas for Life

"Advertising can be philosophically annoying. I don’t just mean ads which contain obvious lies (Carlsburg — probably the best beer in the world), trivial truths (There’s only one Coca-Cola), irrelevancies (Waaassuuuuup!), or fallacious thinking (If I can lose weight, you can too). I mean adverts which wander into philosophical territory before jumping up and down. Happiness is not a cigar called Hamlet. The pharmacy Boots has finally stopped using the slogan ‘Boots — ideas for life’. Boots does not provide one with ideas for life.

"These sorts of adverts can be mildly irritating, but I lost my composure when I read Starbuck’s claim that it offers ‘100% ethically traded coffee’. Really? A bit of unscientific googling reveals a lot, but doesn’t an ethical trade require all sorts of things Starbucks probably doesn’t (maybe cannot) provide."

by James Garvey blog.talkingphilosophy.com http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=404

Note: I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause" CEC

mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of the
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®