With a growing number of Americans saying they have a positive view of socialism, it’s a good time not only to explain the efficacy of capitalism (see my September 8 article No, Capitalism Doesn’t “Work”), but individualism as well. Leftists insist that individualism is a selfish philosophy devoid of compassion. But is it? To address this claim, let’s start by examining the foundations of individualism.
On a macro scale, it’s clear that the universe thrives on individuality. There are no two galaxies alike; no two solar systems alike; no two planets alike; no two suns alike. There are, in fact, no two objects anywhere in the universe that are precisely the same. The undeniable nature of the universe is diversity. Here on earth, the same can be said of vegetation, grains of sand, snowflakes, and all other matter.
The more complex the matter, the more diversity that is built into it, which is why human beings represent the most complex matter on earth. No two human beings—not even identical twins—are precisely the same in every respect.
In addition, each individual has unique abilities and needs that, while they may be similar to those of other people, are not exactly the same as the abilities and needs of anyone else. This self-evident fact is what makes life so interesting. It would be a rather dull world if everyone were exactly the same.
Which brings us back to the sovereignty of the individual, a concept that grows out of the universal principle of individuality. This principle states that all matter has its own peculiarities that distinguish it from all other matter of the same genre.
No two things, no two people, no two events are precisely the same. No action, transaction, or set of circumstances has ever corresponded precisely to any other action, transaction, or set of circumstances. Infinite diversity is self-evident. It reigns throughout both nature and the universe, and mocks all of mankind’s attempts to implement laws and regulations aimed at making things and people uniform, which is why collectivism always fails.
Every attempt to get human beings to subordinate their personal interests to that of the collective is futile. Governments based on the belief that conformity is a desirable way of life for their citizens are doomed to frustration because of the principle of individuality. People will always push back against government attempts to repress the human instinct of self-interest.
Contrary to what professional virtue signalers may believe, self-interest is neither good nor bad; it is simple a reality of human nature. By itself, it does not harm anyone. Only individuals can engage in good or bad behavior, i.e., in ways that are helpful to others or ways that violate the rights of others.
Because a human being is endowed with consciousness, no other person or institution has a right to make decisions for him. And since everyone has a natural right to sovereignty over his own life, the only form of government that is legitimate is a government that recognizes the sovereignty of the individual.
On the most fundamental level of individuality, objects bound together contrary to their nature will seek to rectify themselves by breaking the bonds that confine them, while those that come together as a result of their natural affinities remain content. The latter is the only path to a civil and harmonious society.
Unfortunately, statists, whether out of ignorance or naïveté, tend to see the individualist as a callous person who believes he can trample on the rights of others in order to achieve his ends. The true individualist, however, recognizes that a person’s sovereignty does not give him a license to do anything he pleases.
The reason for this is that it is not just a single individual who is sovereign. All men and women are sovereign entities, and it is this concurrence of sovereignty that naturally limits the sovereignty of every individual. In other words, the individual has sovereignty only over his own life, but has no right to interfere in the sovereignty of any other person’s life.
Where does sovereignty end and encroachment begin? A good way to look at it is that every individual is the rightful sovereign over his own conduct in all things, in so far as the consequences of his conduct affect only him; i.e., the sovereignty of the individual can be exercised only to the extent that it affects his own life.
Thus, the “pursuit of happiness” has limitations. Obviously, pursuing the life of a serial killer because it makes you happy is out of bounds. The rule is straightforward: Whoever has to bear the cost of the consequences of any action should have the deciding power in every applicable case. I cannot arbitrarily decide to take your property from you, because you would be the one to bear the consequences of my action.
In summation, the individualist believes that all people would be better off in the long run if they were allowed to control their own destinies. More important, he believes that the right of each individual to do as he pleases with his own life, subject to his actions not impinging on the same rights in others, ensconces him on the moral high ground.
It therefore logically follows that any attempt to thwart a person’s legitimate desires, ambitions, or achievements, whether he is average or exceptional, is nothing short of tyranny and is sure to be met with resistance, either inwardly (mental) or outwardly (physical). Mutual dependence is the root of despotism, while individualization of interests is the root of liberty. There is no rational opposing viewpoint on the matter.
Posted on September 28, 2026 by Robert Ringer. Robert Ringer offers timeless wisdom through his unique insights – writings that combine philosophy, reality, and action.
