The Individual In Autumn

What I've Written So Far

I write about many things at 3PI Eddie Fontaigne, politics, fiction writing, ethics, but mostly individual liberty.  That's what usually gets my dander up and also what tends to tie into all the other subjects.  I might even argue that much of what life is about is being an individual defined separately from any collective, of course a good one who helps other individuals in their own life's-quests, and who try not to hinder others in this same quest.

Common Questions

Some of my fellow Christians may wonder how I fit that into my faith, and I will tell them it's quite easy in fact.  Christ didn't come to establish a relationship with that person over there's community, He came to establish a relationship with that person.

Likewise some of my fellow travelers in academic circles may wonder how I fit strong individualism with being a Christian, or even one who likes tradition in general.  Once again it's not hard at all.  Christ's church as He and the apostles speak of it is made up of individuals who's only necessary commonality is that they have a positive relationship with Him.  Many books of the Bible are radical documents in that they emphasize individuals over collectives, and those that don't share this emphasis don't contradict it.  If you don't believe me, try reading any part of the Bible that you are told emphasizes collectivist oriented things like social justice or holy nations, then read them through and in context.  You will inevitably come across something addressing individuals who will be blessed or cursed in spite of and not because of what the community they happen to be in is up to.

I'd recommend Habakkuk and the Beatitudes as a great examples of my point.  In Habakkuk God is speaking of the punishment he will bring upon the nation of Israel.  The social justice crowd of today love to point out how Israel is being punished because so many of its rich had neglected laws designed to help the poor and needy, but they of course miss the meaning of the part where God speaks of blessing those who have been obedient and merciful.  The meaning isn't obscure at all, and it is that individuals are accountable for their own individual character, not that of some collective they happen to be a part of.  Then in the Beatitudes Jesus lists one statement after another promising blessings on individuals with good character, ultimate though not necessarily contemporary blessings, but blessings for all the traits one can only rationally ascribe to individuals, not collectives.

Tradition in general is also something I easily associate with strong individualism, and that's because traditions are, when they're practical, very practical, and many of the ones seen as impractical are often later to be found as practical.  That practicality makes them things individuals can empower their own quests with, as they choose or don't choose.  The point of individualism isn't to just be different for the sake of being different.  It's to be different in whatever way seeks to maximize one's own value to others.

"Value to others?", one might ask.  Yes.  If the only thoughts you can afford is about getting food, finding shelter, and reproducing, you may as well be living the life of a single-celled organism.  Just to have the time and opportunity for individual expression requires help and cooperation from others.  The difference between an individualist and a collectivist is in where one seeks to concentrate the power and the benefits of a community.  The collectivist seeks to empower the collective while the individualist seeks to empower every individual they may come across.  Another way of saying it is in terms of tools.  For the collectivist the individual is a tool that serves the collective.  For an individualist the collective is a tool that serves the individual.  Getting back to the point, all individuals can only be empowered if we serve each other, and in serving each other, if we do it to empower individuals, each individual, so benefiting, has the best chance to benefit others.

3PI in other words.  Individualists cherish the individual liberty and dignity of other individuals, for to do otherwise would be hypocritical.  Communities made of 3PI individualists are synergistic.  Each individual is better off, having greater freedom to be themselves and make their own decisions.

Some of these issues I just discussed, I did so very generally and quickly.  Below is a list of links to more detailed discussions I've presented on various issues and questions related to the individual.

A Day My Life Changed
-- How I first became the avid proponent of individualism that I am.

The Individual's Ancient Enemies
-- The collectivists claim to be the newest greatest thing is flat wrong.  Their ideas are, at the core, ancient.

Heresy Of Social Justice
-- Last but certainly not least, I explain why the use of the term social justice and the pursuit of it is not only wrong but extremely harmful.

Comparative Analysis: A Short Esay

For the last few weeks I've been doing something I don't normally do, be current.  The reason that's unusual for me is because one of my goals with this blog is to offer analysis that is trans-historical.  As in I want my analysis to apply to more than just some particular current event, no matter how important that event may be.

It's a test of sorts for me.  If an analysis only works for a current event then it's probably flawed.  For if I can't take the same line of reasoning and easily apply it to some past or future context then I'm probably just spinning things to fit a cause.

Take the current situation about Syria and for example compare it to the lead ups to the Iraq war or the Balkans intervention by NATO, or the Vietnam War.

The United States presidents involved in each respectively were Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Johnson.  I'm speaking of the decisions to commit significant military resources in each case.

My analysis of the current Syria situation has been essentially that the United States would be wise to not get involved for the following reasons, mostly.
-- Both sides of the Syrian civil war are hostile to United States interests in the region and both have committed atrocities against civilians.  So there are no "good guys".
-- The proposed military action seems likely to be indecisive.  This can be concluded both because of a lack of clear goals and to odd assurances from the administration that the strike will be minimal.
-- The current president's integrity is virtually shot and thus both the American people and the international community are disinclined to follow him into such an action.

Now let's see how this applies to Iraq, the Balkans, and Vietnam.
-- "Good guys"? -- There were some significant groups of "good guys" in Iraq, the Balkans, and Vietnam to work with.  Whether we always did a good job of picking them out and working with them in each case could be a subject of another analysis, but none the less there were "good guys" to work with.
-- Decisive military plans? -- Military actions in Vietnam and the Balkans were poorly defined in terms of goals and thus were generally ineffective.  The only reason there seemed to be progress in the Balkans was because of political transitions in Serbia that could have just as easily have happened without us blowing up trains or embassies or any of the other applications of our military force there.  Both Vietnam and the Balkans were actions I would not have advised for good reason.  Military actions need clear achievable goals to be effective.  And even then those goals need to be things that will be effective once achieved.
-- Presidential integrity? -- Johnson, Clinton, and Bush were all able to put together significant coalitions.  In Clinton's case it was ready made in the form of NATO, but he probably could have put one together if he had to at the time.  Obama can't do that.  The only major potential ally is France who is less than totally inspired to go.

So what does this test of mine show?  Two things I think.  One is that I am being consistent with my analysis and philosophy when I oppose this action.  The second is that this action has even less going for it than did two actions I have previously ranked amongst the least well advised use of American military force, the Balkans and Vietnam.

Now that Putin has offered Obama a way out of his embarrassing corner I can only hope he takes it.  Even if the spin that will follow to try and make it look like Obama did something good here will be sickening and difficult to endure.

"Freudian Slip" About Syria?

House Speaker John Boehner is quoted by the Weekly Standard today as saying in regards to the presidents proposed military strike against Syria -- and please note these words --, 

"We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up whether it is necessary."

I emphasize that word "whether" because it is very unusual to use "whether" instead of "if" unless one is thinking about following things with something like "or not".

Boehner doesn't of course follow things up that way because it would make the United States foreign policy in the region look ridiculous.  Imagine if the quote read,

"We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up whether it is necessary or not."

That would mean to say that our allies need to know that America is more than happy to throw around its military might for little to no reason at all.  Uhm, wait a minute.  Maybe this wasn't so much a Freudian slip as it was a coded message to the United States' allies.  That would go along with something I heard former UN ambassador John Bolton say in a television interview.  He said,

"I think what we have to do now is explain to the rest of the world that basically we’re in a 1200 day period when the president is not going to be effective but that doesn't mean America can’t be reinstated into its proper place once we get a real president in Washington."

Speaker Boehner is in a tough spot because while Obama is a disaster who really shouldn't be supported in any military action short of defending American citizens and property, he has to think about the implications of anything he does or says now for future presidents and how future legislative leaders may deal with them.

He's got two choices to choose from and both are bad.  He can either openly agree with Ambassador Bolton and declare the nation leaderless for the next 1200 days or support a military action that will achieve little to no good at all.  A military action with much greater potential downsides than upsides.  He knows this military action is likely to be administered from a White House more interested in repairing a presidents broken image than it is longer term and much more important things like actually being effective and minimizing casualties.

Ah but we are talking about John Boehner here.  For him there seems to always be a third way and based on what those third ways have looked like in the past here's what I suspect may be in his mind.  He may be trying to follow in British Prime Minister David Cameron's footsteps.  That is his plan is to support or pretend to support Obama only to have the House of Representatives vote no "against his wishes".  He then will run around looking embarrassed while secretly being relieved a disaster was averted without him setting any precedent for future Speakers in their dealings with future presidents.

Perhaps I have this spot on, perhaps just close, perhaps not at all, but one thing I've got is that oddly worded statement of his. 

"America will be there and stand up whether it is necessary."

Or not?