Civil Individualism is a political philosophy that believes sovereignty lies with individuals. Institutions are created by individuals to achieve mutual benefits and protect freedoms, but also threaten harm. The philosophy advocates for systems of checks and balances on all institutions to constrain flaws and prevent abuses of power. It recognizes both strengths and weaknesses of individuals and institutions, and seeks to maximize freedom through consensual oversight rather than ideological preferences for certain institutions.

1. Civil Individualism A Modern Political Philosophy of Checks and Balances 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 1

2. Civil Individualism: A Definition Civil Individualism is a political philosophy which holds first that sovereignty is rooted in each equal individual. Second, that, as individuals, we must collectively create institutionsin order to secure our freedoms, and to achieve other mutual benefits that we can not achieve alone. Lastly, that all of our institutions threaten to harm individuals, and mustbe governed by systems of checks & balances. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 2

4. Military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guards, Militias, Mercenaries.

5. Corporate: Corporations, Companies, LLC’s, Partnerships.

6. Religious: Churches, Denominations, Mosques, Temples, Cults.

7. Charitable: Charities, Foundations, Endowments, NGO’s

8. Educational: Colleges, Universities, Schools, Fraternities, Sororities, Institutes, Think Tanks.

9. Medical: Hospitals, Clinics, Professional Associations, Research Foundations.

10. Artistic: Museums, Orchestras, Troupes, Studios, Networks, Television & Radio Stations.

11. Athletic: Teams, Leagues, Associations, Committees, Boosters, Tournaments, Tours.

12. Legal: Courts, Law Firms, Professional Associations, Arbitration Societies.

13. Labor: Unions, Guilds, Trade Associations.

14. Other: Police & Fire Companies, Chambers of Commerce, Relief Organizations, Country Clubs, Organized Crime, Street Gangs.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 3

15. Core Tenets Individuals are sovereign. Institutions exist to amplify individual efforts. Individuals are imperfect. Institutions magnify individual imperfections. Institutions have imperfections of their own. Institutional flaws harm individuals. We design and implement Checks & Balances to protect ourselves from institutional dangers. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 4

16. Sovereignty & Its Implications Individual sovereignty means that we are all implicitly free to do as we will, provided that we do not interfere with others’ sovereignty. Individual sovereignty also implies that all institutions are (or were originally) the voluntary creations of individual participants As the creation of individuals, all institutional authority is implicitly (or explicitly) derived from the consent of individual participants. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 5

18. For example, governmental, military, and legal institutions allow us to band together to protect ourselves from each other.

19. Our institutions, no matter how long they have existed or how much they are respected, are simply our tools.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 6

20. Limits on Institutions We have an absolute right to change/abolish specific institutions when, as our tools, they no longer meet our needs well. There is no moral justification for institutions pursuing goals of their own which are independent of their voluntary participants. We have an obligation to ensure that our institutions do not develop, pursue and/or expand their own agendas. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 7

22. In their many successes, our institutions inspire pride in ourselves and our fellows, and reflect the best of our individual efforts.

23. Without our institutions, and their successes, our lives would be much poorer, and we ourselves, more isolated and vulnerable.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 8

25. Left unchecked, the abuses of our institutions have been amongst our most shameful, from the initial legality of slavery and the internment camps of WWII, through the Enron & WorldCom frauds, to the pedophile priest scandal.

26. When we fail to constrain the behavior of our institutions, we put ourselves at great risk.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 9

27. Government Institutions Accomplishments Abuses Allied defeat of the Nazi’s Eradication of Polio Interstate Highway System Cuban Missile Crisis NASA Apollo Program 60’s Civil Rights Legislation Fall of Communism Operation Desert Storm 9/11 Bi-Partisan Response Internment of the Japanese McCarthy-ism & HUAC Military-Industrial Complex The Bay of Pigs Viet Nam - My Lai Hoover’s FBI “Secret Files” Watergate Iran-gate Whitewater 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 10

28. Corporate Institutions Accomplishments Abuses Microsoft, Apple & the PC Boeing, USAir & Air Travel AT&T and Communications Cisco, Cable & The Internet The US Standard of Living Deere & Farm Productivity Disney & Entertainment Fidelity & the Mutual Fund Visa and the Credit Card Savings & Loan Crisis Enron & WorldCom Love Canal Pollution Mortgage Crisis AIG & Lehman Failures HP Spying Scandal BCCI Scandal Tobacco Industry Cover-up Halliburton Over-charges 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 11

29. Religious Institutions Accomplishments Abuses Mother Teresa’s Work The Sistine Chapel Vatican Artwork Handel’s Messiah Catholic Charities Jewish Charities Gandhi's Non-Violence Catholic Universities Need Islamic Example The Inquisition Priest Pedophilia Cover-Up Vatican Bank Jimmy Swaggert Scandal Jim Bakker Scandal Oral Roberts’ Finances Jim Jones & Jonestown Koresh & Branch Davidians Heaven’s Gate 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 12

30. Charitable Institutions Accomplishments Abuses United Way Habitat for Humanity Feed the Children American Red Cross Salvation Army Shriners’ Hospitals Boy Scouts & Girl Scouts Metropolitan Museum Smithsonian Institution Aramony & United Way Abramoff & Foundation Santorum & Fundraising Red Cross & 9/11 Fraud Nature Conservancy Fraud FNMA Charity Lobbying Bishop Estate Scandal ACORN Need Another Example 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 13

31. Institutional Authority In a very real sense, all of those employed by our institutions are our servants and/or our agents. They have no inherent rights to dictate to us, or to govern our behavior. When we delegate authority to our institutions it is for specific explicit purposes, for example - to protect us from each other. Delegated authority must never be allowed to be extended to other purposes. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 14

32. Magnifying Personal Flaws Institutions concentrate power, which can then be abused in the service of individual members of the institutional hierarchy. The effects of any personal flaw can be magnified by the application of institutional power and authority. The most typical personal flaws amplified by our institutions are greed, excessive ambition, incompetence and arrogance. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 15

34. The most important institutional flaws, in terms of the danger they pose to individuals, are:

35. Obedience to Authority: Taken to an extreme, individuals obey even highly suspect instructions.

36. Institutional Paranoia: Institutions often use ‘us vs. them’ thinking to elevate competitors and/or outsiders to the status of enemies.

37. Lack of Accountability: Institutional decision-making processes mask personal accountability, making abuses and excessive risk-taking “no one’s fault”.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 16

38. Obedience to Authority Originally studied and articulated through the famous ‘Milgram experiments’ at Yale University in the 1960’s. Participants in institutional settings suppress their own judgment in favor of compliance with the instructions that they receive. Demonstration of how normal moral individuals can, at the behest of institutional authority, participate in great wrongdoing. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 17

39. Institutional Paranoia Institutions compete. Competition fosters “Us vs. Them” thinking. Excessive “Us vs. Them” thinking can lead to paranoia & the demonization of “enemies”. Examples: Liberal vs. Conservative hate-mongers. Religious wars. Corporate espionage. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 18

40. Lack of Accountability Many of our institutional endeavors involve dozens, if not hundreds, of people. When so many people are involved in a particular error or wrong-doing, it promotes the evasion of responsibility. For example: “I was only following orders” – Nazi defense “The auditors signed off on it” – Enron defense “I was following instructions” – auditors’ defense 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 19

41. The Dangers of Governments All of our institutions can both magnify our personal flaws, and add flaws of their own. Governmental institutions are particularly dangerous, for at least three reasons: Government institutions are often our largest. Government institutions are among our oldest. We delegate relatively more of our personal sovereignty to our governments, and some states claim sovereignty of their own right at gunpoint. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 20

42. The Dangers of Corporations Next to governments, corporate institutions are usually the next most influential in the lives of the majority of Americans. Corporations do not have quite the legal, size, or longevity advantages of governments. They do have their own: Corporations are usually relatively wealthy. Corporations usually have ready legal resources. Corporations influence governments greatly. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 21

44. This “bi-polar” framework often hinders us from identifying universal patterns & tends to restrict our solutions to only those 2 institutional types.

45. American political dialogue has become an often bitter struggle between the opposing political parties and their ideological deification and demonization of particular institutions.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 22

47. Republicans generally argue that our problems stem from governmental institutions, but usually ignore problems caused by corporate institutions.

48. Libertarians more consistently argue against governmental abuses, but remain relatively silent on the problems posed by corporate institutions and flawed free market mechanisms and beliefs.

49. Independents frequently recognize the problems of the major parties themselves, but often cannot effectively organize around a consistent platform.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 23

51. The political parties are nearly completely blind to the problems of the institutions that they draw their support from.

52. The two major parties argue that “their” institutions are the only (or the preferred) solutions to the problems posed by the institutions that they oppose.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 24

53. The Decline of American Politics Our political debates have become an institutional struggle for supremacy. Dialogue has been replaced by incendiary invective issued by ideological fanatics. Some of the public has enlisted in the “war”. The rest of the public has become either disaffected or fearful, or both. Bitterness and frustration are increasing. Our problems can seem too large to solve. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 25

54. Finding a Way Out Our problems do not stem from one type of institution, or another. Our solutions do not lie in preferring one type of institution over the others. Our solution starts with recognizing that all institutions are inherently flawed, and focusing instead on how to implement a more effective system of checks and balances to constrain their excesses and abuses. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 26

56. Civil Individualism does not cater to any particular institution, or type of institution.

57. Civil Individualism recognizes the strengths & weaknesses of both individuals & institutions.

58. Civil Individualism preserves maximum individual freedom to use our strengths

59. Civil Individualism allows for a minimum of consensual and consciously-created checks and balances needed to constrain our weaknesses.1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 27

60. Focusing on Checks & Balances America’s Founding Fathers, and our Constitution, consciously embraced the concept of checks and balances to prevent governmental abuses. Civil Individualism seeks to extend the concept to all types of institutions. Civil Individualism also aims to formalize and expand the study and implementation of specific types of checks and balances. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 28

62. Advocacy: Ombudsmen, Oversight Boards, Unions, Independent Directors.

63. Transiency: Term Limits, “Sunset” Laws, Limited Charters, Re-Call Provisions.

64. Honesty: “Whistleblower” Laws, Independent Certification, Truth-in-Advertising.

65. Incentives: Recognition, Bonuses, Milestone Payments.

66. Consequences: Punishments, Exclusion, Suspensions, Contract Nullifications, Punitive Damages, Public Censure.

67. Transparency: “Open Books” Management, Required Disclosures, Freedom of Information Act, Free Press.

68. Separation of Powers: Veto’s, Confirmations, maker/checker.

69. Competition: Multiple providers, low barriers to entry, limited information asymmetry.

70. Accountability: Reducing limitations on liability, sign-off’s, audit trails, public disclosures.

71. Impartiality: Use of third-party auditors, overseers, and arbitrators.

72. Oversight: Ombudsmen, Regulators, Civilian Review Boards, Independent Directors1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 29

73. Checks & Balances ≠ Regulations The phrase “Checks & Balances” is not new-speak for inefficient bureaucratic regulations. Checks & Balances are instead well-considered alignments of incentives and disincentives with desired outcomes. For example, neither term limits on politicians, nor time-limited corporate charters are typical regulations, yet both can curb excessive accumulations of power. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 30

74. More Creative Checks & Balances On Governments On Corporations Implementing proportional representation. Outlawing deficit spending. Implementing line-item vetoes. Reversing the definition of corporations as legal “persons” with all rights. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 31

75. Civil Individualism & Democrats Shared Beliefs Areas of disagreement The Federal Government is not inherently evil. Regulations can be useful as checks and balances. The government should not regulate marriage. The government should support equal opportunity. Free Speech is a right. Church & State Separation. Governments are not more moral than corporations. Corporations are not more harmful than governments. Regulations are not always the best check or balance. Privatization is not inherently bad. Health care is not a “right”. Social Security is broken. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 32

76. Civil Individualism & Republicans Shared Beliefs Areas of disagreement The Federal Government is inefficient & uncontrolled. A strong effective military is a Federal responsibility. Government expansions are often not good choices. Privatization options can be the best alternatives. American citizens have the right to bear arms. De-regulation is not always or inherently effective. Wasteful military spending must be eliminated. Corporate malfeasance is widespread & dangerous. The government can not dictate/enforce morality. Registering gun ownership is a reasonable check. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 33

77. Civil Individualism & Libertarians Shared Beliefs Areas of disagreement Individuals are sovereign. Government must answer to the individuals it serves. Government’s best use is to protect us from each other. The Federal government has extended itself into areas it has no role in. No laws against “victim-less” consensual activities. The State is not evil. Practical effectiveness trumps intellectual purity. Free markets can act as irrationally and/or illegally as their participants. Market participants require checks and balances. Gun registration is a reasonable check. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 34

78. Civil Individualism in Context The graphic on the right depicts Civil Individualism relative to the major American political parties on a spectrum of individual dependence on governmental and other societal institutions. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 35

79. Civil Individualism’s Advantages Civil Individualism is a balanced philosophy, concerned with protecting us from each other, and from all of our institutions. Civil Individualism is a practical philosophy, cooperating with all, and beholden to no institution, interest group, or political party. Civil Individualism is an informed philosophy, recognizing the inherent weaknesses of both individuals & the institutions we create. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 36

80. Implementing Civil Individualism CI is a pragmatic philosophy, committed to improving things from where they are now. CI embraces an “overlay” implementation strategy, reforming wherever possible and replacing where reform would be ineffective. CI recognizes the need for gradual and incremental change, provided that it is also prioritized, constant and unremitting. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 37

81. Moving Forward Philosophies must become either widely-embraced, or selectively implemented, to begin to become effectively influential. Civil Individualism currently seeks to enlist volunteer supporters to refine and spread an understanding of the philosophy. Our immediate near term goals are the formation of a 501(c)3 charitable foundation and the creation of an Internet presence. 1/29/2010 ©2009 Michael J. Thebado 38