Individualism

In matters of politics and social morality, I consider myself a "purified individualist". Now, by individualist, I don't mean long bangs and skinny jeans and music with unpredictable tempo changes and disorienting time signatures. I don't mean intentionally acting in ways that other people find distasteful. I don't mean crossdressing for the sake of insulting someone's sense of gender-appropriateness. Though some of you might think of me when you hear of things like that, that's not what I mean when I say my political ideology is Individualism.

By "Individualism", I mean that radical idea that you don't own other people, that you have no right to do anything to them that they don't want done, take anything from them that they don't want to give, or threaten to do any of those things, so long as they're not intruding into someone else's matters. Think of it this way: Every man is his own king, with absolute sovereignty over his own life (and every woman is her own queen, etc.). Sure, it means that if a guy wants to wear a dress just so he could insult other peoples' sense of gender-appropriateness, then you have to let him do it (unless of course, he's violating someone's property rights while he's at it). But that's all that it means. It doesn't mean that you have to act so different that other people say "omg, you're such an individual."

In his essay on Henry David Thoreau, Randall Conrad wrote "Despite his deep-rooted individualism, Thoreau was readily moved to activism against injustice." Randall's use of the word "individualism" doesn't match the way I use it. Randall uses it as if it means isolationism. Now there is a type of foreign policy called "isolationism", which people like me are accused of advocating, but isolationism isn't what's implied by individualism. Isolationism means you have to keep to yourself, and have minimal interaction with others (or stay in your own country, and have minimal interaction with foreigners); Individualism means you have no right to initiate force against another. According to Individualism, you have every right to intervene to stop injustice. You just don't have the right to force other people to help you do it. You could encourage others to help you, but threatening force against nonparticipants isn't the correct way to do it.

Sure, fight your wars of liberation. But

1. Don't kill civilians (that's murder);
2. Don't force other people to pay for it (that's robbery); and
3. Don't force other people to fight your wars for you (that's slavery).

So when you tell me that so-n-so's an individualist like me, you better not be talking about his predisposition to disagree with people, or about some weird diet he's trying (unless it's out of consideration for human or animal rights).

On a less serious note, my second nephew "arrived" yesterday. It wasn't as if he wasn't already here, though. When my sister visited last month it was kinda hard to ignore the fact that there was a baby inside her. And since it was inside her, where else could it have been but right here? Oh well. Since little Jordan was born yesterday, people will celebrate the beginning of his life on August 25th. I, however, will celebrate the beginning of my life in the month that it really began - November.

When I say I espouse "purified individualism", I mean that I believe individual rights don't depend on how drastically you can affect the world around you. They don't depend on what you've contributed, how strong you are, how smart you are, how many people you know, or any of that. They don't depend on your physical or mental capacities or state of development. If you have rights as an individual, then your rights don't depend on how others value you. They don't depend on your race, mother tongue, species, or age. You have them whether you're an adult human, a fetus, or an animal... I constantly strive to purge from my ethical framework all forms of anti-individualism, from utilitarianism to is-ought-ism. That's why I say "purified individualism".