A lot was covered in today’s class, so I’ll try to hit on as many points as I can.

We discussed the opposing visions of American from Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton envisioned the U.S. as a growing industrial republic, where workers earned a wage and populated urban centers. Meanwhile Jefferson envisioned the U.S. as an agricultural republic, dominated by independent yeomen farmers. On almost all things I agree with Jefferson, from trade, to central power, to banking. But on this, while I certainly appreciate his grand vision and even sympathize with his motivations, I think he was too hostile to the burgeoning modern economy. Jefferson imagined that small farmers, as self-sufficient land owners, would be best able to resist a tyrannical state. I think he undervalued what the wage earner is capable of. And of course he possessed the bias against “wage slavery,” common to aristocrats. And I absolutely disagree with his centrally planned divisions of western territory. Property lines should be decided by the first arrivals, that best adhere to the local terrain and the needs of the land. But he was still correct in wanting people to populate the land and sell it for cheap (even free), unlike Hamilton who wanted to make it expensive to raise tax money.

From there Professor O’Malley put forth a proposition: “The more individual you are, the less free you are.” There’s a lot to dissect there. He went on to say that technology is hurting the nation in favor of the community and the local, that diversity is consciously choosing stuff you don’t like. Individualism is the destruction of the nation.

Overall, I think I agree with his sentiment, although I’d use different terms and I come at it from a different vantage point. I do agree that radical individualism does mean the destruction of not just the nation, but the society around the individual. Identity is historically group-driven. I identify with X, I’m a member of Y, I’m a part of Z. But when the individual, ripped of all context is able to radically alter themselves put only their interests first, you have the breakdown of social order. Social conservatives would associate this new individualism with the loss of the family unit, dissolution of traditional sexual norms, the acceptance of transgenderism, the denial of race as a concept, etc.

In a previous blog post I described the existence of the historic American nation. I stand by that, broadly speaking. But I think it’s more accurate, certainly in this day and age, to describe the United States as an amalgam of nations. There’s similarity between the West Coast, New England, Deep South, and Heartland, sure, but there’s also a world of difference. As someone who respects cultural diversity between different peoples and areas, and someone who politically favors massive decentralization, I’m fully in favor of the U.S. dissolving in multiple, separate nations. I think a mutual divorce is best for everyone.

Technology, specifically the ability for a person to use a personal device to access the internet and communicate with the world, has certainly increased individualism. What’s interesting is O’Malley claims it’s been to the detriment of the nation and large things, and a boon to the local and small things. Social conservatives make the complete opposite case. I think they’re both right in a way, just talking past each other. Social conservatives place a heavy emphasis on the community–family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc. This is very place-based. Community for conservatives is a rooted spot; a people must have a land. The ability of individuals to talk to people around the world, not the people near to them, destroys familiar ties and withers a sense of community. Whereas O’Malley says that the ability for individuals to seek other people with similar interests builds community. You no longer have to be near someone; you can seek out the like-minded, and build new communities from that. It improves the local, while making the nation, referring I believe to the physical people around you, obsolete. I think O’Malley predicts that this coming together of similar people will eventually lead to physical communities, not just online, but I’m not entirely sure.

Finally, on tackling O’Malley’s Law, I think he’s drawing on a point that has long been accepted in conservative circles. On the right it’s normal to view society in layers, with the state on top, and the individual on the bottom. In between are what’s viewed as societal organizations that group and protect individuals; these include clubs, the church, family, private associations, etc. As those middling items deteriorate or shrink, soon it just becomes the individual under the state. As what was previously called “the local” goes extinct, state power increases at the individual’s expense. The thought process boils down to radical individualism —> increased state power. So I think O’Malley stumbled on something more “traditional” than he thinks.

Finally, let me just say that I rarely use the term “freedom.” I think it’s easily abused, and its easy to mix freedom from and freedom to. I think “liberty,” for my purposes, is more suited. It’s more difficult to twist, and is interpreted by most people to refer to negative rights, not positive rights.