In Further Defense of Respect For the Individual

It may seem counter-intuitive in a world where there is so much entitlement, but I believe too little is made of the individual. As always, my views on this are rooted in my belief in God. I believe that God created us with a free will. Consider free will. It is a terrifying, bewildering, exhilarating power. God has endured much questioning from Man through the Ages as to why He would endow such a hapless creature with such a power, seeing the trouble it has caused. But that power is our crowning glory. Without it, we would be indistinguishable from the rest of the biological organisms on this planet. God had His reasons, which are not to be confused with our finite "reason", for creating a biped out of dust and giving him and her such a liability. And He has profound respect for the free will He gave us. In fact, He will not override us when we make the ultimate bad decision, and reject Him.
It seems to me that if God respects the power of our choices, we should do no less.
But in so many ways, we are quick to try to save individuals from themselves. There is absolutely a place for concern, and advice and possibly intervention when an individual is on the wrong path.
But this is not, or should not be, in the wheelhouse of the state.
We live too large, having opinions about things that do not affect us, whether it's halfway across the country or halfway around the world. We earnestly discuss foreign policy, foreign aid, with most of us having no firsthand perspective of that which we speak. There are very real problems, certainly, across the globe, and it is not as if our opinions have no effect. In fact, the average American voter probably hasn't considered how much their opinion, or their apathy matters. Opinion polls drive politicians to do the things they do, and voting, although it seems like frustrated impotence at times, does have an effect. It plays a part in electing officials who will make decisions that will actually directly affect those halfway around the world, or maybe just in the next state.
But the problem is, the more removed you are from the consequences of your opinions or your votes, the easier it is to be careless. The well-intentioned Republican voter may insist that an omnipresent American military presence is best for the world, but that would in many cases involve disregarding the aforementioned respect we should have for other individuals, even if they are halfway around the world, and even if they do often behave in a manner that perplexes us. We may at times offer assistance where an obvious grievous crime such as genocide is being committed, but the exit strategy should be immediate.
Now, the principle of making decisions about situations that don't directly affect you has another side. A well-intentioned liberal may insist that our aid to foreign, especially undeveloped nations should be large and perpetual. How could generosity ever be wrong? Once again, if you disrespect an individual, in this case by insisting they are helpless, you will, in the long view do more harm than good. Teach a man to fish and all that. You need only consider the widespread view of America as "arrogant." Many conservatives sneer that foreign countries are happy to take our money, but hypocritically see our military interference in their localities as arrogant. But I would argue that it IS our aid, as much as our interference, that they view as arrogant. That doesn't mean they won't take the money, but how many people on welfare here in America have no opinion about intrusive government? Very few. Just because it's ironic, doesn't mean they don't hold the two contradictory ideas and never consider the contradiction. Here in America, many of the areas of the country that receive the most government assistance often vote in a way that could be and is interpreted as anti-government.