What Individualism Is Not • Frank Chodorov

a reply to: Bluesma

Then there is nothing incompatible in your worldview with minarchy near as I can tell.

I sympathize with much of what you say though, I always cringe in the middle of a sentence that contains the word "materialism" so please forgive my prickly retort.

The material needs being better provided in a free market should allow for greater efforts to be devoted to philosophical and artistic endeavors. It just so happens that those two things as taught in institutionalized educational facilities are fraught with popular socialist dogma, real or imagined.

a reply to: greencmp

I am aware that my position is somewhere in the middle, and my proposition, of separating culture (as socially held and enforced values and ethics) from economic systems is a tricky idea to contemplate. Whenever you are in gray areas on a topic, it will tend to provoke those of extremes on each side, as they assume "if you aren't with me completely, then you must be with my opponents completely", so I don't feel your reactions to be unexpected or abnormal.
I appreciate your willingness to explore further and consider different possibilities with me. Thank you!

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: greencmp

I am aware that my position is somewhere in the middle, and my proposition, of separating culture (as socially held and enforced values and ethics) from economic systems is a tricky idea to contemplate. Whenever you are in gray areas on a topic, it will tend to provoke those of extremes on each side, as they assume "if you aren't with me completely, then you must be with my opponents completely", so I don't feel your reactions to be unexpected or abnormal.
I appreciate your willingness to explore further and consider different possibilities with me. Thank you!

I wouldn't call that definition incompatible with laissez faire either.

I think that you just do what many of us forget to do which is to take the time to declare that as beneficiaries of such a free and open economic system with no bureaucratized social oversight, we will have our original voluntary and fraternal social responsibilities thrust back upon us whether we are ready for them or not.

A economic system gives totally different results in practice depending upon the collective culture it is practiced within.

The classroom experiment in socialism which is often used as an illustration of it's failings, (where the teacher gives the same grade to everyone) would have drastically different results in a culture that is socially based. Performing it in a group of individualist-valued people is no accurate prediction of what that system will produce elsewhere.

The Obamacare thing is NOT anything like universal healthcare programs in other countries (where that works). On the other hand, those kinds of systems would not function efficiently in the US due to the difference in cultural values.

Any sort of welfare or aid doesn't work the same, because of the individualist focus. Teach a person that all they owe to the society they live in is to consume, to buy things....and after that, their own individual happiness is all that they need to be guided by, and listening to any one elses judgement upon their choices is undesired and makes them a "herd member" (derogatory).
Then ask why they might choose to live off welfare, using it to buy an iPhone and big screen tv, while they live in a hovel and neglect their children??

They are doing what is expected of them for their society- consuming!
They are seeking their personal happiness!
They are totally disregarding the opinions and regard of those around them that find this unacceptable!

They are, in fact, perfect citizens, according to the individualist value system.

In a different society, they would get a lot of pressure from those around to work, and to discipline themselves and their children (no qualms about invading their freedom of will).
They would be taking that seriously, because they have been ingrained to see social bonds in the community as essential to their life.
They would actually feel that having work is personally needed by them in order to feel a "part" of their community, and to interact with others during the day. (a need)
They would be suspicious of products and advertising and spend more time talking with others in person to get information, than watching tv.

a reply to: Bluesma

Again, I think we are talking across one another.

I thought that you were saying that you agreed with me that economics is its own thing separate from culture and law. As such it is not affected by culture or law. In an open and free economic environment, everybody (who works) is better off than in any other system. Perhaps that working part is where we are getting caught up, there are plenty of very effective private mechanisms for welfare and social assistance, the state is not necessary and does a very bad job at it. So bad that it tends to do more harm than good for everyone involved from the recipient to the anonymous mark.

Personal voluntary charity, funded directly by individuals is the obvious choice between the two.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: greencmp

I am aware that my position is somewhere in the middle, and my proposition, of separating culture (as socially held and enforced values and ethics) from economic systems is a tricky idea to contemplate. Whenever you are in gray areas on a topic, it will tend to provoke those of extremes on each side, as they assume "if you aren't with me completely, then you must be with my opponents completely", so I don't feel your reactions to be unexpected or abnormal.
I appreciate your willingness to explore further and consider different possibilities with me. Thank you!

According Cultural Historian Jaques Barzun, the word "culture" gets hijacked a lot by the literati. In Bazun's interpretation, culture is everything that is not the natural environment. \ Everything man made is culture, including the economy.

The economy is the supplier of all freedom because it gives people the necessities of life. To me, any discussion about morals, rights or politics must first address economics, kind of like you have to eat your veggies before desert.

Economics is the first thing we all have to agree on.

originally posted by: Bluesma
A economic system gives totally different results in practice depending upon the collective culture it is practiced within.

That would be true if there were no laws of economics. Do you think there are no laws of economics? Some economists think that there are only guidelines, like everything is stock investing.

All human decisions are economic decisions as taken from the root of the word "economics". Ec derived from Greek oikos for home, and nomos for custom or law. Deciding to have fun instead of work is an economic decision.

Conventional university economics treats all information as empirical. But since economic results come from an almost infinite list of causes, very many of them arbitrary and governmental, such information is of unknown value.

Austrian economics focuses on the individual and the market price and anything else the individual will choose as his next act. Individuals will choose that which they believe will get them what they want. Sometimes that is purchase, other times labor for compensation, other times aventure or pleasure or rest is chosen.

The classroom experiment in socialism which is often used as an illustration of it's failings, (where the teacher gives the same grade to everyone) would have drastically different results in a culture that is socially based. Performing it in a group of individualist-valued people is no accurate prediction of what that system will produce elsewhere.

A grade is also a datum about the world. In any system, giving equal grades is lying about reality. A system that acts normally when fed known lies is not a good system.

The Obamacare thing is NOT anything like universal healthcare programs in other countries (where that works). On the other hand, those kinds of systems would not function efficiently in the US due to the difference in cultural values.

Any sort of welfare or aid doesn't work the same, because of the individualist focus. Teach a person that all they owe to the society

Nothing is owed to society. Society is the net result of the behavior of its members. If the members are good then society will be good, same for bad or in between.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

As Mises would describe it, praxeology includes economics in the deductive study of human action which rests on the principal that humans perform actions to achieve goals.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Semicollegiate

As Mises would describe it, praxeology includes economics in the deductive study of human action which rests on the principal that humans perform actions to achieve goals.

I listen to audio books which are great for survey and review but hard for going over important parts.

I gather from listening to Human Action that praxeology is the study of overt voluntary behavior. Time out of your life spent doing something. Praxeology is similar to the distinction of observable behavior made in Behaviorism in psychology.
In humans, thinking can be a behavior, and some other human activities are hard to observe but would still be chosen activities and therefore within the scope of praxeology.

I think von Mises proved, or maybe it is a self evident axiom,

that a person always chooses the action that he believes will give him the most satisfaction, or relieve the greatest irritation.

That might be the first law of Austrian Economics, certainly in the top ten.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

So 'culture' is not the correct word for collectively held morals and ethics that are held by the members of the society, and upheld and enforced purely through non-legitimate (non official) means of reward and punishment. Like "eating veggies before dessert."

So what is it? I'll use whatever word is accurate for that.

That does change what happens in the system. Like I said, in this capitalist system in the country I am, there is evidence of that.

I will repeat the example I used earlier (I guess I wrote too much for anyone to want to read! )
Both mutual and insurance companies are allowed to exist here,
There is a need for coverage of some sort, just as in the US.
Yet, such a large majority chooses mutuals instead of insurance companies, the insurance companies cannot survive long.

The need is the same, yet the collective morals and ethics held by the people (not enforced by the laws) change the outcome.

A grade is also a datum about the world. In any system, giving equal grades is lying about reality. A system that acts normally when fed known lies is not a good system.

Okkaaay... what do you mean by a "good" system?

I don't personally believe in a universal static bad and good, even when it comes to systems. Whether it is bad or good to you, my point was that depending upon the values and morals held by the members of the groups, there can be a different outcome in that experiment.
A group of people whose primary motivation is getting approval and recognition by the teacher will have a different outcome then a group whose primary motivation is getting approval and recognition of their peers.
A sense of Belonging being one of the base human drives and needs, different cultures direct that towards different symbols. That changes how they act within the system.

Nothing is owed to society. Society is the net result of the behavior of its members. If the members are good then society will be good, same for bad or in between.

I am afraid we are running into the same problem- this good and bad determination? Since those are relative terms, I need you to refer to the ethical system those fall under. "Being a good member" means different things to different cultures.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So 'culture' is not the correct word for collectively held morals and ethics that are held by the members of the society, and upheld and enforced purely through non-legitimate (non official) means of reward and punishment. Like "eating veggies before dessert."

So what is it? I'll use whatever word is accurate for that.

the correct word is ethos

ethos noun ˈēˌthäs sometimes ˈeˌ- or -thōs

plural -es

1

: character, sentiment, or moral nature:

a : the guiding beliefs, standards, or ideals that characterize or pervade a group, a community, a people, or an ideology : the spirit that motivates the ideas, customs, or practices of a people, an epoch, or a region










b : the complex of fundamental values that underlies, permeates, or actuates major patterns of thought and behavior in any particular culture, society, or institution

also : such a complex permeating a literary or scientific work or an intellectual discipline

unabridged.merriam-webster.com...

I didn't mean to quibble. It struck me as profound that culture is everything man made, and almost our whole lives are lived inside of Man's creation. It is very hard for a first time thinker to separate nature from culture nowadays.

That does change what happens in the system. Like I said, in this capitalist system in the country I am, there is evidence of that.

Capitalism is socialist terminology. It implies that all production is from huge institutionalized oligarchs. I used to try to write with that in mind but I got lazy about it. Capitalism, to the individualist, means only private ownership of one's own body and land and possessions, where ownership means control to do anything that hurts no one else.

I will repeat the example I used earlier (I guess I wrote too much for anyone to want to read! )
Both mutual and insurance companies are allowed to exist here,
There is a need for coverage of some sort, just as in the US.
Yet, such a large majority chooses mutuals instead of insurance companies, the insurance companies cannot survive long.

The need is the same, yet the collective morals and ethics held by the people (not enforced by the laws) change the outcome.

The only opinion I would have about mutuals vs insurance companies is whether one gets subsidies from the government or not. Mutuals are like credit unions or something?

A grade is also a datum about the world. In any system, giving equal grades is lying about reality. A system that acts normally when fed known lies is not a good system.

Okkaaay... what do you mean by a "good" system?

My definition of good is what will work best long term, mostly. Humans process information to make choices. Lies make for bad information and consequently a higher percentage of unsuccessful choices.

I didn't mean universally good, I meant comparatively better. My mistake.

I don't personally believe in a universal static bad and good,

I agree with that, context is very important.

even when it comes to systems. Whether it is bad or good to you, my point was that depending upon the values and morals held by the members of the groups, there can be a different outcome in that experiment.
A group of people whose primary motivation is getting approval and recognition by the teacher will have a different outcome then a group whose primary motivation is getting approval and recognition of their peers.
A sense of Belonging being one of the base human drives and needs, different cultures direct that towards different symbols. That changes how they act within the system.

Yes, people will do what they believe will get them what they want. The system they grow up in will determine some of what they believe.

Nothing is owed to society. Society is the net result of the behavior of its members. If the members are good then society will be good, same for bad or in between.

I am afraid we are running into the same problem- this good and bad determination? Since those are relative terms, I need you to refer to the ethical system those fall under. "Being a good member" means different things to different cultures.

This time you can define good however you want to, as long as you define bad as its opposite. Society is not a concrete noun. Society doesn't do anything. Society is the net result of the actions of all of its members. Nothing is owed to society, society just is.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So 'culture' is not the correct word for collectively held morals and ethics that are held by the members of the society, and upheld and enforced purely through non-legitimate (non official) means of reward and punishment. Like "eating veggies before dessert."

So what is it? I'll use whatever word is accurate for that.

That does change what happens in the system. Like I said, in this capitalist system in the country I am, there is evidence of that.

I will repeat the example I used earlier (I guess I wrote too much for anyone to want to read! )
Both mutual and insurance companies are allowed to exist here,
There is a need for coverage of some sort, just as in the US.
Yet, such a large majority chooses mutuals instead of insurance companies, the insurance companies cannot survive long.

The need is the same, yet the collective morals and ethics held by the people (not enforced by the laws) change the outcome.

A grade is also a datum about the world. In any system, giving equal grades is lying about reality. A system that acts normally when fed known lies is not a good system.

Okkaaay... what do you mean by a "good" system?

I don't personally believe in a universal static bad and good, even when it comes to systems. Whether it is bad or good to you, my point was that depending upon the values and morals held by the members of the groups, there can be a different outcome in that experiment.
A group of people whose primary motivation is getting approval and recognition by the teacher will have a different outcome then a group whose primary motivation is getting approval and recognition of their peers.
A sense of Belonging being one of the base human drives and needs, different cultures direct that towards different symbols. That changes how they act within the system.

Nothing is owed to society. Society is the net result of the behavior of its members. If the members are good then society will be good, same for bad or in between.

I am afraid we are running into the same problem- this good and bad determination? Since those are relative terms, I need you to refer to the ethical system those fall under. "Being a good member" means different things to different cultures.

Mutual companies, trade unions, etc. actually represent a substantially realized form of syndicalism, another form of socialism.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
the correct word is ethos

Ok, I'll use that word.

It is very hard for a first time thinker to separate nature from culture nowadays.

I am not sure whether I should be offended here? Are you calling me a "first time thinker?"
Whatever, we'll push that aside....

The only opinion I would have about mutuals vs insurance companies is whether one gets subsidies from the government or not. Mutuals are like credit unions or something?

A mutual is non-profit coverage (life, health, damage or loss of possessions…)
It fits more within the socialist notions of social ownership and less within the Capitalist notion of investment of money in order to make a profit.
Another example is the existence of both government owned medical facilities and privately owned ones. Yet, the state hospitals are more often chosen by individuals.

My definition of good is what will work best long term, mostly. Humans process information to make choices. Lies make for bad information and consequently a higher percentage of unsuccessful choices.

Thanks for clarifying. I tend to be sceptical that any system can be effective forever, or that "lies" can be avoided when humans go to any extreme of an ideology.

Yes, people will do what they believe will get them what they want. The system they grow up in will determine some of what they believe.

“What they want” is consciously defined according to the ethos of the society they live in,
Yet subconsciously there are other “wants” that may or may not be acknowledged in that ethos. The economic system will serve those consciously acknowledged wants, and not the unacknowledged (socially unacceptable)ones.

Nothing is owed to society, society just is.

We can observe that even amongst social animals, there is a structure or code of behaviors which are acceptable or not. Transgressing these codes leads to various forms of punishment, sanctions, even rejection from the group.

These codes are expected of members in exchange for the benefit of protection of the herd, as well as food, territorial and mating rights.

Amongst different species, these codes differ. It is the same with human groupings. We usually refer to them as social duties or responsibilities.

The way I see it, humans all have the natural drive for individual expression, as well as social drives. Darwin ran into this problem of altruistic behaviors in animals, which seemed to oppose his natural selection theory, so came up with group selection.

The Iterated Prisoners dilemma shows us clearly how reciprocal altruism is beneficial both for individuals as well as groupings of them- even when compared to the benefit of totally selfish competivity.

Instinctually and perhaps subconsciously, we know this or feel it, and end up having our social animal instincts, and our drives towards sense of belonging come out, but in uncontrolled ways we do not acknowledge.

The problem with Ayn Rands type of Individualism (which rejects totally concepts such as altruism as having any value whatsoever) is that it is too short sighted- it didn’t include that factor- that such acts also benefit the individual.

The opposite problem arises in Communism- it rejects individualism “en bloc”, when even individualism, to an extent, shows to be beneficial for the whole.

So in extreme Individualist ethos, you get the taboo effect- of (unacceptable) social drives being enacted in hidden, or occult ways. (Crony capitalism anyone?)

And in the extreme Collectivist ethos, you get (unacceptable) individualist drives being enacted in hidden or occult ways (the individuals privately profitting off the masses, getting a free ride).

My proposition is that we need to revisit our current ethos, in a realistic way, before even considering making big changes in our economic system.
Swinging from one extreme to the other doesn’t seem realistic to me.
But whatever. It’s just my opinion.

originally posted by: greencmp

Mutual companies, trade unions, etc. actually represent a substantially realized form of syndicalism, another form of socialism.

Yeah, I tried to clarify that- it was essentially my point.
Given total free will to choose between a capitalist type service and a socialist type service, an individual will have their choice influenced by their ethos- and that could mean choosing the socialist one, not because they were forced or coerced in any legal way.

An example is when I came to France, and became pregnant. When asked whether I wanted to go to the public hospital or a private one, I didn't hesitate- Private, of course!

After that, I found out that the public hospital was much better in quality and services, and that they had much better equipment. They had a neonatal intensive care unit- the private one did not.

The only difference between me and the women around me that chose differently was my conditioned and learned ethos.
"Privately owned is ALWAYS better and morally correct to support. " Give individuals power, not groups. To be part of a group or herd is bad."

a reply to: greencmp

No, you’re right, we don’t totally agree, but we might share some points in common.
I agree that the “ethos” is separate from the economic system, but feel that they influence each other. They are not “irrelevant” to each other.

If you have voluntary charity, but a mass that is conditioned to believe that it is unacceptable to receive help from others, unacceptable to help others, that altruism is damaging to the society and the individual, and only individual wants need be considered or acted upon by the individual….. then the charity is useless.

There is a limit to the beneficial effects of Individualist ethics, which can be balanced by a margin of collectivist ethics amongst the people, making such freedom work.

I don’t much buy the explanation that government is bad at handling social security (in the wider term, security for anyone in a weakened position, not just age) simply because I have observed governments can be good at it in cultures where that is valued.
You can’t expect something to be de-valued and turn out quality.
Even if you liken a nation to an individual entity- if I hate doing something I will most likely do it very badly.
We hate doing that and do it resentfully, and very badly as a result.
(which is why I don’t include an opinion that the US should invest in more of that, it is incompatable with their collectively held ethics and bound to fail, even if it can be successful in other cultures)

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: greencmp

Mutual companies, trade unions, etc. actually represent a substantially realized form of syndicalism, another form of socialism.

Yeah, I tried to clarify that- it was essentially my point.
Given total free will to choose between a capitalist type service and a socialist type service, an individual will have their choice influenced by their ethos- and that could mean choosing the socialist one, not because they were forced or coerced in any legal way.

An example is when I came to France, and became pregnant. When asked whether I wanted to go to the public hospital or a private one, I didn't hesitate- Private, of course!

After that, I found out that the public hospital was much better in quality and services, and that they had much better equipment. They had a neonatal intensive care unit- the private one did not.

The only difference between me and the women around me that chose differently was my conditioned and learned ethos.
"Privately owned is ALWAYS better and morally correct to support. " Give individuals power, not groups. To be part of a group or herd is bad."

So, these socialized corporations suffer from the same shortcomings as nationalization, they cannot compete in a free market because of the extra baggage of their political concerns which are necessarily not economic concerns.

If they still exist and people choose them it is because they have no better options available to them (the market is not free and open). It also possible that a company can be privately subsidized so as to appear to be operational when they are in fact charitable organizations (not bad necessarily but, it confuses the distinction between public and private in these discussions).

Not all that much time has passed since the stranglehold of economic interventionism was first established and the western world had lots of productive output to commandeer. You can live on the spoils of past success for only so long until the piggy bank stops refilling itself with the magical plenty of seasons long gone.

We are fast approaching that moment.

originally posted by: greencmp



So, these socialized corporations suffer from the same shortcomings as nationalization, they cannot compete in a free market because of the extra baggage of their political concerns which are necessarily not economic concerns.

If they still exist and people choose them it is because they have no better options available to them (the market is not free and open). It also possible that a company can be privately subsidized so as to appear to be operational when they are in fact charitable organizations (not bad necessarily but, it confuses the distinction between public and private in these discussions).

I admit to being a bit confused on what you mean.

Mutuals are chosen partly because they are cheaper- no profit makes it possible to charge less. Would that not be considered an economical concern?

The hospitals that are private (not charitable, they are privately owned, on the stock market, and work for profit) have less quality for the same price as the public or government owned hospitals... there is an option.
The private ones would need to attract more patients to feed their needs for equipment PLUS profit.
With the government owned ones only needing to feed their costs (not profit) the same number of patients and income raises their quality of services and facilities.

I am aware I am using very basic terminology and probably missing some huge concepts now- I am tired, been up since five AM. That doesn't mean I am "new to thinking"- only lacking in some education in some areas, and having more direct experience than theory.

a reply to: Bluesma

If you don't allow true competition and subsidize one group preferring them over another, you get monopolies or effective monopolies which is what you are describing.

No new blood enters that market for that subsidized product or service.

The only real motivator for advancement in any industry is competition.

All subsidies represent malinvestment, otherwise they would be called investments.

In syndicalism, the subsidy is generated within the syndicate (like tithes in a sense) rather than from taxes to the state.

Private gangs of thugs or the state must ultimately be involved since maintaining monopoly control requires the use of force. They may appear to be ordinary office staff but, make no mistake, they represent force.

If there were no "profit" there would be no "product". Only communism and 100% state owned socialisms have the capability to circumvent the "profit" motive (and really they can't, try as they might) which is simply the desire to achieve an end as a consequence of one's actions.

I am pushing you on the terminology because I think it would be unhelpful of me to allow you walk away thinking that you lived in a capitalist economy.

a reply to: greencmp

We both know there is no existing "pure" Capitalist economy existing today. The Social Market Economyis currently considered a form of Capitalism.

I will use quotes of others if it will be more clear-

But the separation of the rich from the rest in some countries isn’t basically a failure of either capitalism or free markets. At bottom, it is a sign of inadequate social solidarity. The more direct causes, from politicians and regulators’ complacency to society’s general indifference regarding corporate pay, are more social than economic problems. The solutions – new rules, taxes, and behavior – will have little to do with the functioning of the core capitalist system.

Similarly, the financial disorder may look like a crisis of capitalism, but its causes and cures are political and moral. Financial markets have failed because politicians tried to give citizens more wealth than they have earned, bankers forgot the common good, governments refused to live within their means and investors’ greed was celebrated rather than restrained. No solution limited to the technical operations of the financial system can work for long, unless it is a reflection of changed political and moral attitudes.

blogs.reuters.com... onomy/

There are different ways of making money and, paradoxically, the Social Market model indicates that the best and most efficient way to make the most money in the long run is to have money making as the means and the goods and services produced an end. It is to put value before price. In contrast, by making money-making the overriding, indeed exclusive end, with goods and services (commodities) as the means, the Liberal Market engages in short-term wealth creation at the expense of the long-term erosion of the social, cultural and moral values that sustain economic activity. This erosion occurs when public authorities abdicate their supervisory function, and when social and cultural values are overpowered by money and wealth

www.academia.edu...

For any capitalist society to function smoothly, there must be certain social factors which are free of the profit motive, or at least of the quest for maximum profits. When monetary gain becomes uppermost in the minds of civil servants,soldiers, judges, priests, artists or scientists, the result is social dislocation and a
5real threat to any form of economic organisation. The highest values, the noblest human assets - honour, joy, affection, mutual respect - must not be given a price tag; to do so is to undermine the foundations of the social grouping. There is always a more or less durable framework of pre-existing moral values within which a capitalist economy operates, values which may be quite alien to capitalism itself. But as the economy expands, its very success threatens this framework; capitalist values replace all others in the public esteem, and the preference for comfort and material well-being begins to erode the traditional institutions and mental patterns which are the basis of the social order. In a word,capitalism corrupts and corrodes. It uses up society's vital life-blood, yet is unable to replenish it

French economist Francois Perroux "Le Capitalisme", in the 'Que sais-je?'

These reflect what I have been trying to say.

a reply to: Bluesma

I just don't think that the problem is any particular person, plan or method when it comes to government interference in any economy.

The mere possibility of political economic direction is enough to drive away the good and attract the bad.