Capitalism and Individualism

[Barney]

I read this recently which opened my eyes to a feature of this debate which we haven't yet discussed.

Compared with the majority of cultures globally, Western culture is hyper-individualistic. A Western person is a "self-fashioning, self-interested individual," the author of his or her own life with both the capacity and also the responsibility to exercise his or her individual agency.

In communal cultures, people share a collective identity. Marshall Sahlins describes this as a "mutuality of being," an "intersubjective solidarity." Marilyn Strathern writes of the traditional Melanesian people: "They contain a generalized society within. Indeed, persons are frequently constructed as the plural and composite site of the relationships that produced them. The singular person can be imagined as a social microcosm." Becker describes Melanesian culture before Western contact: "The traditional Melanesian's self-awareness was as a set of relationships. Experience was diffused among persons, not considered specific to the individual."

As Julian Pitt-Rivers puts it, "The majority of the world's population do not share the individualism of the modern West and have no need to explain what appears to them evident: the self is not the individual self alone, but includes, according to circumstances, those with whom the self is conceived as solidary."

I remember some of the lines in Atlas Shrugged where Ayn Rand is targeting that sense of kinship responsibility. Both Rearden and Dagny are approached by siblings or parents and appealed to on that basis: "I'm your brother/mother. Won't you have mercy on me?" Rand frames this as a pathetic and desperate last-resort on the part of the relative, who has abused Rearden/Dagny until this point. Fair enough.

I think if we were to question the basis for individualism, we might find it to be a presupposition of capitalism that seems obvious to us Westerners (after all, we live and breathe this culture) but which might be problematic from another standpoint. For communally-minded people, we all have responsibility for each other. This does not mean that everyone ought to become "communists" (the name shows how this simply takes that principle to an unhealthy extreme), but it might mean that we should not construct society in such an individualistic way. Perhaps we do have responsibility for each other after all, and perhaps the government is a good vehicle for fulfilling that.

[Ondrej]

Perhaps we do have responsibility for each other after all, and perhaps the government is a good vehicle for fulfilling that.

I am interested to see where you go with this and why government instead of a collective private endeavor.

[Barney]

There are some things a collective private endeavour hasn't the power to do. Things that pertain to the tragedy of the commons, for example. Or things that need to be banned because they would indirectly entail harming others, but the reasons are complex and not everyone agrees to them.

Let's pick an example. Suppose someone gets a chronic debilitating illness, like M.E., that makes them unable to work. In a libertarian government, they would have to rely on family and friends to support them, or the goodwill of some charity. But what if they're single, their parents have died, their sibling is a jerk who refuses to help, and their friends are poor with their own financial burdens already? What if they were foolish and didn't take out insurance? Or worse, what if they did take out insurance, but the fine print was so complicated and confusing that they were misled into believing it covered their case, when in fact it didn't? We can't assume the insurance companies want the best for their customers.

Every Western (Christian) nation has provided a solution to this, which has led none of them into the dark evils of North Korea. It is a solution based on the premise that taxation is not theft, and that we are all responsible for each other even when we don't want to admit it. It is a solution that involves curtailing people's freedom to spend money however they want, without affecting them too negatively. It is a solution that balances individual freedom with collective responsibility, in such a way that both remain intact, if not as dominant as they might be.

[Ondrej]

There are some things a collective private endeavour hasn't the power to do.

I think you mean "incentive". I don't see why private endeavors should have some limitation not also faced by the government.

Things that pertain to the tragedy of the commons, for example.

The tragedy of the commons occurs when there are no property rights.

Let's pick an example. Suppose someone gets a chronic debilitating illness, like M.E., that makes them unable to work. In a libertarian government, they would have to rely on family and friends to support them, or the goodwill of some charity. But what if they're single, their parents have died, their sibling is a jerk who refuses to help, and their friends are poor with their own financial burdens already? What if they were foolish and didn't take out insurance? Or worse, what if they did take out insurance, but the fine print was so complicated and confusing that they were misled into believing it covered their case, when in fact it didn't? We can't assume the insurance companies want the best for their customers.

Yes, life is a dangerous place and plenty of unfortunate things happen. A libertarian government could have all the compassion in the world but would be prevented from violating private property rights to attain its ends. Its hands would be tied. It would fall to the people to decide how to address such problems. In all likelihood the church would step in to fill this role as is has through the ages through voluntary contributions of time and resources and money. This would give people a reason to "plug in" to their local church, be a part of the community, serve others in whatever ways they could, and, what is more, find a source of real meaning in service to their community. None of this would be coerced and if people saw that their contributions were not impacting the problems purported to be addressed they would begin asking questions about the integrity or effectiveness of the church's programs. Smooth political rhetoric and favorable media coverage would do little. People would simply stop giving there and give elsewhere, or volunteer to help improve things. Poorly run attempts would dry up. Better ways of doing things would be shared. Competent organizers would be promoted and train others. None of this sounds far fetched. It sounds like traditional America.

It is a solution that balances individual freedom with collective responsibility

No, this solution removes freedom and responsibility. There is no collective responsibility, there is only individual responsibility and responsibility comes from the ability to act. It is the pattern of behavior of acting in accord with your own conscience. If I take from you to give to someone else, you are not being responsible. You did not act nor was it your conscience that drove the action. I am not being responsible because although I am acting on some held desire, I am not actually paying the price for that action.

We could also put these ideas to the test and look at America's "war on poverty" and see how that has faired, the "war on drugs", or the "no child left behind" policy. California has a terrible homeless problems, addiction problems, power problems, water problems etc etc because of "compassionate" policies and government programs that do not require the involvement of the communities of people. We spend our energy advocating for bills to be passed rather than working on solutions. Government is worse than nothing for these problems.