Introduction

I am posting a blog article that I wrote several years ago (January 2009 to be exact) from a different blog site that I had set up at the time. That site no longer exists. Over the years, I have stated more than once that my political leanings align with libertarianism. I rarely discuss politics on this site, and I never support a political candidate on this webpage. The reason for that stance is not to come across as neutral or apolitical. I am not neutral, and I for sure embrace a political philosophy. That philosophy is neither progressive nor neoconservative. Given the rise of saber rattling neoconservatism and the hazardous emergence of the warmth of collectivism, I wanted to restate my libertarian principles here. In the midst of cleaning out my files, I came across this article I had written in 2009. I see no reason not to restate it here. One of my favorite libertarian (Classical Liberal) writers is Frank Chodorov. His thought underpins this article

Chodorov the Individualist

Frank Chodorov explicated the idea of individualism as passionately and rationally as anyone I have read to date. And I believe that the individualist spirit that contributed to what was once the freest country in the world is waning, and has been for sometime. At 60-years old, I come to this conclusion late in life. And I wish I could have learned the lessons about living much earlier in life. All the data, experiences, people, and facts existed for me to learn solid lessons about life. But like so many others, I passed them by, paid them no mind, and even in a period of my life, demeaned what they stood for. Well, I hope the old adage, it’s never too late to learn, is in fact an accurate assessment. I know difficult times are ahead for me because I didn’t learn the lessons early in life that I should have, lessons I want to explore in this essay. I am going to have to change a lot of old patterns, much wrong thinking, and sloppy ways of living. and I hope that those of you who happen upon this webpage and are reading this blog are willing to journey with me, bearing with me as I seek to carve out ideas where much greater minds than mine have already tread. If I use as a compass the thoughts and ideas of von Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, or Chodorov, hopefully that will keep me from going too awry.

As Chodorov so insightfully claimed, the road to collectivism is an easy path for most to follow, and today its siren song loudly wails. I established this website [humanaction.us at the time; today my thoughts have not changed but rather deepened regarding Classical Liberal principles] to espouse principles of individualism, a much maligned notion in today’s postmodern thinking [note the conflation of individualism with what is thrown around as rugged individualism]. I wish I could claim that I have always lived in line with the values I wish to propagate through Analysis of Power [the subtitle of the webpage I published at the time], however, I have not. Only in recent years have I come across the writings of F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and more recently, Frank Chocorov. I have dedicated my website and E-Journal to Chodorov [today, what undergirds what I delineate on this page are my Christian spiritual beliefs]. His writings resonated with me in a way that is both inspiring and challenging. I am far from the destination that Chodorov designates as the individual. Yet I hope to reach that destination and live there. Both the URL and the title of my E-Journal reflect my beliefs in Austrian economics and individualism.

Frank Chodorov was the consummate individualist. In this inaugural issue, I want to highlight some of the themes that Chodorov developed more fully in his writings. So I inaugurate Analysis of Power with an apropos essay that outlines what is to be an individualist. Several themes stand out in Chodorov’s writings. I survey them below; any misstatements of Chodorov’s ideas are solely due to my ignorance.

The Right to Live

With everything under the sun today pronounced by the public-at-large as a right, I hate throwing around the concept of rights. But properly understood, it is a powerful, and more importantly, a truthful concept. There is nothing more basic to the individual than the right to live. For whatever reason, apparently the spirit to live has been poured into each one us. (Today I would more strongly point to the Imago Dei as that reason, and the only reason). If there are those among us who do not want to live, then we conclude rather quickly that something is drastically wrong with them. But the right to live is nothing more than an abstraction if we just stop at the phrase, the right to live. What does such a right actually entail? First of all, it is important to recognize that the right pertains to each individual. It is axiomatic, a given. It is not a right that belongs to me but not to you. It is not a right that belongs to some but not to others. It is not a right that belongs to the collective but not to specific individuals. Such a statement on a collectivist level would be meaningless. As an abstraction, however, a dangerous extension is inherent in the notion of the right to live. The right is not carte blanche. So we need to understand what is inherent in the right to live.

Liberty from Government

We talk about many forms of freedom today. You hear politicians wax eloquently about freedom, oppression, injustice, and social justice. However, when we listen closely to what they mean, we get a clearer understanding of what they are trying to sell. We hear such phrases as freedom from poverty, freedom from illness, or freedom from economic injustice. The sales pitch from demagogues who spew forth these phrases is that government is in place to provide all of us with these espoused freedoms (particularly if we vote for those spewing forth these platitudes). However, I have come to believe that such freedoms have little to do with what our Founders meant by liberty, a term that I prefer to freedom because the latter has been tainted by collectivist rhetoric. (I would add both neoconservative and progressive rhetoric). Our Founders, with all their flaws, and because they understood human flaws, established a Republic in which liberty was understood to mean, not freedom of government to make our lives for us, but but freedom from government, power, the State, (to guard against) that at its whim it would intrude upon our lives. It provides a framework within which people can pursue and carve out their lives as they see fit, so long as what they see fit to do does not prevent others from pursuing and carving out their lives.

The place of government in people’s lives is an issue that distinguishes individualists from collectivists. From an individualist perspective government is to provide a minimal rule of law that enforces contracts, protects private property among its citizens, and, on the level of the State, defends the borders from invasion. A corollary to collectivism, radical egalitarianism, has gripped the mind of the United States, and now many people look to government to educate them, provide them with health care, and to redistribute income in the name of social justice. We hear promises of politicians to make our lives better, to bring about a better society, to usher in better times, and to make us all equal. How many times have we heard the rhetoric and then come to understand that, for the most part, we have to be the ones who make our lives better? (This is not a denial of our social embeddedness and our need of working in conjunction with others.) I believe an important question regarding all these promises hinges on the notion of hubris: How can one person or one group of people actually know what is better for everyone else? For the individualist, not only is such knowledge impossible, but also it takes a sizable hubris-filled ego for someone to believe that he or she possesses such knowledge. If people believe such things about themselves and the knowledge they possess, then why shouldn’t they want power?

As a radical (I might drop this adjective today because of its conflation among people with so-called rugged individualism.) individualist, I believe that government not only lacks the ability to make people’s lives better, but also, even it could by some stretch of the imagination fulfill such a mandate, it lacks both the Constitutionality and moral authority to do so. Once someone provides a life for someone else, the provider has taken from the providee all sense of dignity that constitutes a free human being – unless the provider is an all-powerful being.

Limited Government

Liberty from government logically dictates what the Founders meant by the idea of limited government. Individualism is opposed to collectivism in all its forms. The only legitimate collective activities are those in which individuals freely choose to involve themselves. For an individualist, government in any form is coercion. Hence, an individualist tends to view government with suspicion and believes it should be severely restrained in all its activities, carrying out its minimal roles of protecting life and private proper, enforcing contracts, and protecting against fraud, all minimal activities that contribute to people’s ability to carry on commerce and trade. Beyond these activities, government begins to encroach on individual liberty. From the Classical Liberal perspective, government is granted limited power to protect citizens and to establish a framework whereby they carry out the pursuit of carving out a life for themselves. Government provides no guarantee that individuals will find such pursuits successful. It cannot guarantee that individuals will not encounter hardships and fail at their endeavors. It cannot guarantee that people can have the kind of lives they desire. Government, at its whim, cannot provide a life for an individual. To carry out such guarantees, government would have to use the very rewards of people’s labor it is called upon to protect. The Welfare State (and I would add the Warfare State) represents a prime example of such coercion, where property is taken (confiscated) to provide secure retirement, medical benefits, education, and a host of other so-called rights. Government – power – the State – possesses nothing by which to make such guarantees. Government, to make such guarantees, must take (confiscate) from those who produce. Consequently, such guarantees are fraudulent from the start.

Laissez-Faire Economics

Liberty from government and severely restricted or restrained government obviously dictates that government remove itself and stay out of everyday human affairs, particularly the free exchange of ideas, goods, and service. If an individual is to reap from his efforts and secure some type of living, then he should not turn to government to direct his steps in the endeavors he chooses to pursue. If he does, he forfeits the fruit of his labor to the power that so directs him. People choose their affairs, act in accordance with their desires, and do business and commerce with one another to obtain their desired ends. Their business plans, their business decisions, and what they acquire through their efforts are not submitted to the State for approval. The only say that the State has over such efforts regards fraudulent activities and the protection of property accrued through mutually beneficial commerce. Those who carve out their existence in this life do not owe government for such a privilege. Nor do they owe the collective in the name of some fabrication called the common good. Entrepreneurs by their very activities of producing, providing services, creating jobs, contributing to people’s standard of living impact the community for the good. That they carry out such activities for profit motive does not detract from the fact their work impacts society for the good. And they owe no one an apology for their profit motive.

In today’s climate taxes are viewed as the price that businesses must pay for their success and wealth. Never mind that such wealth and profit create jobs and a higher standard of living for people. Never mind that entrepreneurial capitalism has created a standard of living heretofore unknown throughout history for an enormous population of people. Those who complain about high taxes are labeled selfish, not caring about society, and not wanting to contribute their fair share to the community. The collectivist mentality (I would also label this the Statist mentality) is seen at its fullest in empowering the State to intrude upon business activities in the name of the common good.

The individualist says to the State, hands off. The State is to keep its parasitic hands off what people have produced for their own welfare. The State is to stay out of the way of entrepreneurs who best can decide to carry out their affairs, even when those decisions may not work out the way entrepreneurs desire. And when and if those decisions do turn sour, the one who is an entrepreneur to his core does not cry and whine to government for a bailout. When times are lean, tough, and difficult, the individualist shouts as loud as when times or bountiful and fat – Laissez Faire!

Personal Liberty and Responsibility

If I may choose a phrase from the existentialist’s handbook, an individualist defends personal liberty and responsibility. As free individuals, we can choose to carve out our lives as we see fit. There is a fine distinction, however, inherent in the right to carve out a life versus the right to a life I think I should have. The distinction turns upon the difference between opportunity and results. No other person can guarantee me that I will achieve in life what I want to achieve. In a free society, a rule of law allows me the right to give it a shot. But it does not promise me that the results I want will be forthcoming.

We live today in a culture populated by people bathed in a sense of entitlement and work life by playing the victim card. We blame everyone and everything for our plight, for not having the kind of life that we want. This mindset in turn sets us up for silver-tongued orators who guarantee us that they have the promise hand-in-hand. We vote for presidents like we are searching for a messiah. We expect to hear and see all the sweet and honey-filled promised morsels we hope to find in life. If we don’t have all the money we want, then we blame those who do have the amount of money we would like to have. Somehow or another they took it from us. It is inconvenient to get sick, but it is unfair to have to pay for getting well. And so we hear and are drawn like Odysseus to the sweet siren call of nationalized health care. People want an education, but it is unfair to have to pay for it. Nirvana in learning is straight ahead in subsidized education. A nice comfortable retirement is a dream, but it is unfair to have worked all one’s life and not have it, whether one had the foresight and fortitude to save for it or not. So now we will increase that magnanimous blessing called Social Security. What a deal! (Of course, our omniscient and omnipotent orators who know what we need and have the power to bring it all about for us are not retiring on Social Security. Do I smell demagoguery here?)

Private Property

If we have the right to live and the liberty and responsibility to make choices and try to bring about the life we want for ourselves, then we must have an avenue to accrue something from what we produce. Whether this accrual be pay, goods, property, or all three, what we have accrued is ours because we have worked for it. (Actually all three are private property – privately owned through personal effort.) Such accrual is the product of our labor; thereby, it is our private property. If I have the right to live, then I work, and my production is the means by which I carve out my living, preparing a life for myself. Although I do not believe that I have a right to a job (a confusion of today’s entitlement mindset), or the right to a particular results (a confusion of today’s radical egalitarianism), I work for what I earn or produce. And I can accrue the production of my labor and create property for myself. The very basis of my freedom – my right to live – is my private property. If it is confiscated from me, then the thief has robbed me, not only of my private property, but also of my right to live. The Founders of this country understood property in these terms, and were particularly leery of the government becoming a thief. Hence, they warned the populist about the power (dangers) of taxation. Since 1913, the government holds first rights to our property, carried out by a procedure called the income tax. From the viewpoint of an individualist, the income tax, as well as all taxes, is seen as confiscation. Income tax is legalized thievery, power – the State – stepping in to claim a part of one’s labor for its purposes. And one had best tow the line and fork it over. There are many forms today by which private property is constantly under assault by the State: eminent domain, inheritance taxes, professional licenses, property licenses such as car tags and inspection stickers. All these devices are legalized ways by which the State has step-by-step encroached upon citizens’ private property. To the degree that we lose control of our private property, we begin to lose the grip on our individual liberty.

Noninterventionist

Isolationism in foreign affairs is a term that carries negative connotations today. However, I proudly accept the label. Other libertarians prefer the term noninterventionist, but to me they mean virtually the same thing as long as one understands that these terms refer to government activities. Isolationism does not mean that individuals cannot freely choose to carry on commerce and do business around the globe, or Mars if they find someone there and can get the goods to and from them. Such activities emerge from inalienable rights that go into the pursuit of living. Isolationist or noninterventionist strategies refer, instead, to becoming entangled in the political controversies and conflicts of other nations. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned us of such meddlesome activities. Yet in the 20th Century and into this one, America has found itself engaged in conflict after conflict around the globe, spending billions of taxpayer dollars in the process (as well as the countless loss of life). Our military is ensconced all over the globe from the Middle East to Germany. Our military is positioned as a standing army for some countries, such as South Korea. It is one thing to make friends and develop respect for other countries and cultures on the basis of mutual exchange and commerce; it is another thing altogether for a government to become the policemen of the world. If our allies relish the kind of liberty we possess, then somewhere along the line, they need to stand up and be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take such liberties from them. A Biblical Proverb speaks poignantly to misguided interventionism:

Like one who takes a dog by the ears,/Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him. (1)

We need to rethink our understanding of national defense and not emotionally load galavanting around the globe with notions of patriotism. The true patriot does not allow the State to willy-nilly define defense or our national interests in a way that places brave men and women in harm’s way based on political expediency, nation building, and government power-broker deals that tend to always produce more international problems than they ever solve. We have witnessed these events over and over again in the billions of dollars we spend defending countries that refuse to defend themselves, and the more billions of dollars of so-called foreign aid that have disappeared into no-telling whose pockets – power begetting power.

Entrepreneurial Spirit: Personal Wisdom

If people are to carve out a life for themselves, then it behooves them to develop the kind of skills they need to get the job done. The problem with collectivism and the types of reformers it produces is that such crusaders become too meddlesome in other people’s affairs. I am drawn to the idea that the best way to any general reform is for one to embrace self-development (2). What skills do you need to establish the kind of life that you want? If you desire to achieve a certain lifestyle, then what do you need to develop in yourself so as to achieve what you desire? More to the point, what values do you hold? Are you living in alignment with those values? If not, what do you need to change? Do you truly value what you say you do?

Entrepreneurs are people who pursue a fulfilling life by putting their ideas to work. They know what they want in life, they know what they value about living, and they know what they need to obtain from life what they desire. They are honest with themselves about what skills they possess and which ones they do not possess. When it comes to what they lack, they find ways to fill in the gaps and develop their needed skill set so they can produce and benefit from their labor. They don’t play at being successful. They work at it with everything they have in them. If they do not do these things, then they are not successful, and they probably are not meant to be entrepreneurs.

Being an entrepreneur is something to which I aspire. However, I am not sure I have what it takes to become the kind of person I have described here. Many of us want to play the entrepreneurship game, but we do not want to do what it takes to succeed the way entrepreneurs succeed. We want the results that come to good entrepreneurs. But we do not want the process or effort that goes into making a good entrepreneur and producing the kind of results we desire. The process is hard, difficult, fraught with setbacks, disappointments, and sometimes failures so that one has to pick up and begin again. And above all, it takes vision that many people may not have and risks that others do not want to take. To aspire to entrepreneurship means asking difficult questions as to whether or not one has what it takes to be an entrepreneur.

Today achievement is something that is belittled, demeaned, and viewed as an idea that is elitist. Radical egalitarianism has won the day. Entrepreneurs are punished for their successes by the tax code and the attitude the culture at large has toward them. They achieve because they are exploitive cries the collectivist. They achieve and continue to achieve because they are privileged rages the egalitarian.

Only when individuals come to understand that they are responsible for their lives and must develop the skills they need to live, will they truly become individuals. Otherwise, we fall into the mediocre thinking that dreams and pursuits are not worthwhile. Or worse, we walk with our hands out, our palms up, our dignity emaciated to receive a life that someone else promises us. One may not be an entrepreneur, but that doesn’t mean that one cannot be an individual and claim his or her place in life. We may work for entrepreneurs, benefit from them in a myriad of ways, and find our place in life in a way that suits who we are, what skills we possess, and what desires we have. In the end, we have one thing to do: live (3). We need to choose how best to live for ourselves. To do otherwise is to forfeit who we are and what we are all about as individuals.

Conclusion

On a personal note, I penned this blog article in January of 2009. For years I struggled as I turned my back on my faith as a Christian. Close to the time I wrote this article, God had begun working on me to get me back on track with my faith and what it truly means to have faith in the atoning work of Christ and to have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Although I would change very little about this article if I were to write it now, I want to highlight a couple o f things, one pertaining to the concept of individualism, and second pertaining to my faith in Christ.

As I alluded to in the article, the notion of individualism has been much maligned, more so today than when I wrote this article in 2009. So I want to say a quick word about what individualism is not. First, the notion of individualism as put forth by those such as Chodorov, libertarians in general, and Classical Liberals, in no form or fashion claims that an individual is totally independent of others, not socially embedded or connected, or does not rely on the social fabric and interconnection with others. There is no such reality as pulling oneself up by one’s boot straps by which one is totally isolated from and independent from others. Embracing the philosophy of individualism does not mean that one does not ask for help from others when such help is needed. Nor does it mean that one does not offer help where help is needed. Individualism means that one is responsible for ones own choices and actions as well as for ones self-development. Self-development is never done in total isolation. Whatever rugged individualism happens to mean by those who throw around such caricatures, it has nothing to do with the Classical Liberal understanding of the sanctity of ones individual life. Such caricatures are nothing more than gaslighting and conflation, creating a false dichotomy seeking to provide an argument against nothing that the concept of individualism ever claimed in the first place. Those who have spewed forth such claims have been taken to task by individualists themselves.

Regarding my faith in Christ, if I were to write this article today, I would focus more on the providence of God in our lives and the spiritual gifts with which He blesses us. Psalm 139 speaks to how God intimately knows us and that He has made us who we are. A large part of discovering our skills involves coming to know how He made us and resting in that understanding. Additionally, life is played out by increasing our wisdom, as well as the pursuit of wisdom through diligence, which many of the Psalms address pointedly. In seeking to become diligent, we must also rest in the truth of God’s providence (Psalm 46:10). We must, by God’s grace, be honest about who we are as we gain in wisdom of how He made and gifted us. Since the time I authored this article in 2009 until now, I’ve come to realize that I do not, in fact, have what it takes to be an entrepreneur. That is not who God made me to be. When we realize such truths about ourselves, we can either kick at the goads against them, or by God’s grace embrace them, seeking to live as God would have us live. I am truly thankful for the gifted individuals by and through whom God has blessed the world. If you possess the skills of an entrepreneur, then I hope you follow your calling out with every ounce of energy you possess. Above all, I hope and pray that you will be called by God to believe in Christ as your Savior.

References

(1) “Proverbs 26:17.” In the Holy Bible NASB, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

(2) Chodorov, F. (1980). “The Articulate Individualist.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 317-322). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press. (Originally published in Analysis, August 1946).

(3) Chodorov, F. (1980). “Henry David Thoreau.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 309-316). (Originally published in Analysis, November 1945 & February 1949).

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/ February 14. 2026

ANALYSIS/Analysis of Power