The debate on wrestless

kaa's blog entry last week was an interesting one. More so because it's led to a nice meaty debate about the issues I care most about in the world. (Yes, I'm officially pathetic.) Read the comments for that entry to get the context for this post.

Now, as I see it, there are 3 questions that need answering.

1. Are individual value systems subjective and so have the potential to go contrary to each others' interests?
Value systems are subjective within themselves (I put integrity at the top of my list, you may put hard work at the top of yours), but there's a controlling factor here: there are good value systems and bad value systems. I commented on kaa's blog that values which make one's life better are good values, and those which make one's life worse are bad values, and the rest of the values are 'subjective' and don't matter. Now we can't go about taking the concept of a 'better life' very literally and say that robbing a bank is ok. Because that's a very myopic view of things, isn't it? Robbing a bank will land you in jail. More importantly, if it was considered alright to rob banks, you wouldn't have anything protecting your right to property at all, and someone else could just as easily re-rob that money from you, right?
So basically, your individual interests lie in sponsoring a rational legal system, so that your own rights are protected. Subscribing to the value of protecting individual rights makes your life better.
And in this scenario, it's hard to imagine conflicts of interest arising. Ayn Rand has an excellent essay on this in The Virtue of Selfishness. When rational self interest is a value that's shared by two people, there's really no possibility of a conflict of interest. Even if there's, say, a job opening that we're both eyeing, since you and I both know that a wish to have something does not translate into a right to have it, there's no conflict. May the better woman win. :)

2. Are society's values to be given precedence over individual values?
In the first place, society is not the basic unit of a nation, the individual is. Therefore, there are no societal rights or values that's independent from individual rights or values. Individuals with shared values come together to form a community or a nation. This nation then needs a legal system to protect the rights of its citizens.
So if a bank robber is sent to prison, we aren't 'taking away' the prisoner's 'right' to rob banks and still be free. We're protecting the right to property of every single individual by punishing those who trespass on these rights. I quote: "if society thinks that a group of peple (judiciary) can give him the death penalty ..again the subjective issue of 'the wish of a grp of people is greater than of a single?'..." The issue simply does not arise. It's not the wishes of anyone that we consider here. It's the issue of rights, and that's not subjective.

3. Does rampant individualism lead us into tiger-ish-ness? (I quote: "if individualism was more prevelant like in tigers in the jungle...we would not have "progressed" so far.")
The difference, of course, is that tigers are simply individualistic, whereas human beings are capable of rational individualism. To be sure, there have been philosophers who have advocated this view of 'happiness and freedom above all', but that's hedonism. Clearly irrational, because it leads to the destruction of the best and the survival of the most brutal.
Rational individualism, on the other hand, leaves people free to furthur their own interests, feel secure that their right to do so is protected by the legal system they sponsor, and not be burdened by responsibilities that are not their own (any form of welfare is hardly consistent with rational individualism). Which leads to a heck of a lot of progress.