But what we are saying here is simply that each individual choosing to interact with other people is automatically acting in a social context. This social context, which essentially is an aggregate of the individuals’ likes and dislikes, acts in a way that is “limiting” on the individual through making sure it is clear that some actions are costly whereas other actions are profitable. Insulting people, for instance, limits your future chances of making friends or trade with the people you insult as well as people who are offended by or disapprove of your insults.

Such a compromise is not, however, a compromise “to the collective.” Rather, it is compromise, choosing certain actions above others, made to maximize one’s chances of achieving whatever goals one might have. Such compromise is not for or to the collective, they are self-enforced and self-chosen restrictions in nothing but self-interest. Yes, such restrictions may mean you do not act in every way possible – but certainly no one ever acts in every way possible. And choosing what is best for you based on your own judgment is certainly not a limit of freedom.

You are wrong in the sense that one has to compromise with one’s principles. As is the case with the “restrictions” discussed above, individualist principles are very much compatible with social contexts and interaction. There is no need whatsoever to compromise with one’s rights just to have the possibility of interacting in “a collective”.

I personally believe principles are important, not only in their power to motivate, inspire and guide people in acting and interacting with others. Principles are also important because they are fundamental building blocks in what makes up the individual’s morality and philosophical convictions. Principles cannot be compromised – if they are, then they aren’t principles.

True principles don’t consist of taking sides in conflict, but essentially means making judgments and finding a consistent, non-contradictory guiding moral principle in one’s life. A principle cannot be compromised without losing the whole point of having one. Also, a principle cannot be to take a stand against something – principles don’t contradict each other. All principles, if they are true, go together. Part of the reason they do, is that they are non-contradictory – and that every individual may find his or her own guiding principles.

Contradictions occur only when principles are false, such as when being against rather than being for something, or when some individual claims to have a superior principle that all other individuals must adopt (read: collectivism).

The reason principles are non-contradictory is that they are based on the individual’s fundamental values and moral convictions. And fundamental values cannot be structured in a hierarchy where some can and should be compromised or stricken for the good of a contradictory and “better” value. If values seem to be contradictory something is wrong. If you find yourself in such a situation you should check your premises.

In any war–be it in Iraq or any other–one group of individuals–that being those in control of the state–decide on behalf of everyone when it is appropriate to go to war to “fight for our way of life,” and they commit the resources of others to that enterprise regardless of whether anyone else deems it necessary or not. (The loot, of course, winds up in the coffers of the Halliburtons, Boeings, and other “defense” contractors, and the rest of us are poorer for it, and no more safe than before the war.) This is an example of a violation of individual rights in action.

But the real world demands some compromise. We will always have to compromise to the “collective”.

I drive down an open highway, and declare that I am exercising my individual rights to move about the countryside, but I am heavily constrained by the rules of the road.

The Iraq war might not be a good example, but we do have to be prepared to fight for our way of life, even if that includes deposing dictators who would arm and sustain international terrorists.