Freedom is inherently linked to property and independence. Man became independent when he owned something, he became independent on the Chief of the tribe, on the elders, the group etc. When he became independent, he became free. When he became free, he became more efficient; he started to work harder on his own property without considering it a limitation of freedom. Property became the simulator of freedom and progression.
The relation between freedom and order (see 9) has been debatable throughout the history of mankind. An old liberal saying goes: free people are subject only to the laws that they gave themselves. This is said very nobly, but the old saying forgets the traditional rules included in the dogma. Did the free people give these rules to themselves long ago and created a dogma, or the current free people do not acknowledge the dogmas of their ancestors and the traditional order as a whole and change the rules in chaos for every case separately? Are free people that wise or not? Yes, even free people can choose wisdom or stupidity.
To freedom, property is as important as order. We can say, that an order, which leaves the most freedom, allows acquiring property and guarantees property, is the most productive one. Freedom is usually used especially for free creativity. At the same time the order allows freedom, because it protects lower communities and individuals against criminality and gives rules for the activities of man, so that his activities are productive.
Individualism is individual freedom practically reflected into the relationships with the surroundings. It is enforced especially by independence of a person on their surroundings, on other people and on the society. Individualism is based on a conflict: it needs the society (so that it takes care of services and safety for individuals), but at the same time it does not accept society; an individualist needs society and uses it, but does not work on it, does not identify themselves with society and actually does not care about it at all. It is an expression of another phase of disjunction from principles but mostly from the society. Individualism as described here does not always have to be the result of an unsuccessful socialization of an individual, nor it is about disciples of other worlds (see 79) having a “mixed” identity. It is a certain type of socialization under the influence of disjunction campaigns that lower the identity with the community and introduce a type of thinking, which does not count on the necessity to support the community in which they live. The result of this is usually refusing certain types of relationships that create dependence and responsibility for the community: friendships, social life and unconditional altruism. Individualism is based especially on the idea of eternalized freedom, even borderline wilfulness. Originally, the family as an organized structure was more important and was considered a more valuable unit than an individual. Feminism by automatic empowerment of women considers an individual more valuable and puts his interests above the interests of the communities, especially those of families. The family becomes unimportant (see 56), in better cases it is taken for granted, in worse cases it becomes even redundant. There is a search for a different model that would substitute this dual set, but evidently nothing works permanently without a counterpart and diminishing the differences can create no stable mechanism. Feminism does not directly refuse family and children. Even though the essence of feminism has a core of justice and amazes with its conformity, it becomes a discontinuous thought, when it supressed as a reduced theme to higher place in life and more valuable, more general theme of the family, children and the future is pushed away (see further).
Let us notice that the human rights are increasing, but the obligations of an individual towards the society do not grow respectively. Therefore it is not obvious who is going to fulfil the reciprocal obligations. Raising children to individual behaviour in the spirit of “rights of the child” also does not contain reciprocal responsibility towards the society. The child knows its rights, but does not know that it has to keep rules and obey authorities (which is necessary for loyalty to the law). The society lacks the interest to have responsible citizens in the future; general awareness of what constitutes such upbringing is diminished. A typical example is a constitution, which contains a whole list of human rights, usually with some economical impact on the state. What if the state does not have this money? Human rights usually cannot be criticized; they only lack the general awareness of the impact on the society, just like any modernist project, they are individualistic, they are the product of the age of disjunction, the age when the society becomes unimportant and you do not talk about the future.
In modernity, usually only targeted interests of certain groups are promoted. If individualism worked on the base of natural principals and traditional order, it would be a civilization pattern with a certain perspective. Today, regarding extreme forms of freedom, it becomes a phenomenon, which leads to chaos. It is also caused by the fact, that non-individualists, usually conservative people having families, are in fact in disadvantage and the groups, which have a lot lesser meaning for the society, win over the advantageous positions. It is given by discrimination of the family, because it is family, that does not have any means, even though it works on the future of the society, while groups unimportant for the society and unhampered by families succeed. It is no accident that homosexuals are getting so much attention (their parades are often organized even by embassies of prominent countries). They represent a group, which has enough money and impact, apparently because it does not have to deal with families and spend its time and money on them.
Only remaining instincts, mostly in women, lead to overcoming the setbacks and to some kind of “exertion of will” for family. Another generation of women is less willing to put up with the problems connected to this discrimination (see 7), so hard to understand in an individualistic society, because human thinking is unnatural. Typical individualistic saying, illustrating personal responsibility, goes: “you made your own bed, you did not have to have children” and it is completely within the meaning of disjunction lacking general thinking. When having a family used to be commonplace, there were no other models. With increasing number of childless and unmarried couples the number of ways to avoid problems (with employment and employers) increases too. Individualists do not understand this issue: the pensions are derived from professional success; their rate is usually in indirect proportion to the number of children one has. But usually children of those with low pension rates pay for the generous pensions of those who avoided their natural obligations.
Here we need to point out that foolish human rights lacking general thinking can be enjoyed only on the base of selfish fatalism. Individualism is an idea for one generation only. It is possible to create a very free society, with high human rights, unbound from all debts and simultaneously with high economic standard on the base of decadent well-being. However such a society will function with the last, or one-but-last generation of European ethnicities at best. Then there would be aggressive ethnicities bringing a civilization similar to those of the middle ages, where a woman not only cannot be a manager, but even becomes a slave.
The whole environment of modernity, which allows unique responsibilities, allows also the crisis of trust. That means, that people are gradually less and less willing to take on responsibility for other people’s property, which they received to care for, or the responsibility for public means. Individualistic upbringing without solidarity, the loss of human bonds demonstrates, that people consider behaviour like tunnelling, fraud etc. acceptable (at least for themselves). Open world and the possibility of escape support that. Home exploitation, unenforceability of responsibility in an open world, ideas of reified freedom – all this guarantees, that any efforts to maintain some ethics in this environment will never be possible. Direction towards chaos and decomposing of the order has been seen for a long time. Communist chiefs took off old shoes of revolutionaries long ago and started to make advantage out of their positions, state companies in socially-market economies of the Western Europe started to lose profits and gradually became the “milking cows” for their employees and managers until Margaret Thatcher privatized them. Banks “drain” their depositors, to whom they should serve as to creditors and treat their property miserably, making risky credits etc. It can also be expressed as in the work of M. Potůček and col. (see 58): “Freedom became the aim. People are not able to accept voluntary bindings that would connect them to each other.”
But this is not freedom anymore; it is a certain type of disjunction manifested by irresponsibility. Individualism is not selfishness, it is a social idea directing the behaviour of people, in which society and its interests and its future are unimportant. People can otherwise be very altruistic and they can treat each other very well. We can even say that the sensitivity towards individuals and sympathy increased. Unfortunately the whole environment of an individualistic society looks only after the individual, their interests are a priority, social affairs are not important, communities decompose and individuals cannot be asked to take responsibilities for common things (starting a family, self-sacrifice for others, political engagement, mutual defence etc.). They are therefore mostly the rules of the society that are led by the philosophy of market to service individuals and even neglect common interests and not requiring the obligations of an individual towards the society. In this position individualism is damaging. An individualist is alone, he knows that he is mortal and he is afraid to leave, because he himself is the purpose. Society and people belonging to it however can exist in their culture and offspring and live eternally in its image.