The dangerous mistake libertarians make regarding individualism and altruism and accepting the old in the new (from the archive

 I had been thinking about how conservatism needs to be added to poetry, art and music when we speak of “making things new” over time, the old included with the new, when I watched an interview with Glenn Greenwald, the gay reporter and promoter of the NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden. It occurred to me that there is a connection here with the philosophical (and now scientific) mistake libertarians make regarding individualism and altruism.

E. O. Wilson the great innovator in sociobiology, has recently affirmed group-selection as the primary unit of selection. This does not mean that kin-selection and individual selection are not important, but our basic survival affirms group-selection first, which is embedded in human nature.

What is missing or deemphasized by individualism is the biological foundation of altruism at the base of social behavior and at the foundation of morality itself. Some libertarians even admit the natural pull of group morality but then tend to see this as something innovative people need to fight against. They are in good company, even Nietzsche made this mistake.

That way of thinking is too easily applied to anti-social hedonism, which easily walks through the open door of individualism, where anti-social deviations and even criminal behavior justify themselves by alluding to the sacredness of individualism.

But conservatism also needs to find better ways of making things new. I am not talking about progressivism, I'm talking about having a way within the system for innovators and whistle-blowers to make the old new. Otherwise we lose creativity and we stagnate, and stagnation is not conservative. But innovators and whistle-blowers also need to acknowledge the vital importance of altruism and group morality, even above individual morality.

Personally, I empathize with the problems of innovators, I have been developing a new religious philosophy, which includes the old in the new, and I am an outsider. But I am a patriotic and conservative outsider refusing to affirm anti-social or radical revolution. I think it is vital to be able to tell the difference between social and antisocial innovations, which is of course not always easy. Social psychology, psychometrics, has been developing ways, tests, etc. (see Cattell) to help us do this.