Not All Choices Are Equal
Opponents of the freedom philosophy never run out of insipid rebuttals. The latest to have a go at it is Martin Wolf of the Financial Times.
Wolf ponders the question, “What is the role of the state,” and notes that a “strand” of classical liberalism (or libertarianism) “believes the answer is to define the role of the state so narrowly and the rights of individuals so broadly that many political choices (the income tax or universal health care, for example) would be ruled out a priori.”
Wolf here looks at choice from the perspective of the group, although only individuals choose. Thus he thinks if individuals are free, society is not free to do all that it might want to do, such as tax people’s incomes.
But the contest is not between society and individuals. So actually Wolf is lamenting that if libertarians had their way, some people could not use the State to restrict other people’s choices through the threat and use of aggressive force.
It is certainly true that libertarianism rules out some choices. But some choices are illegitimate. I can’t join Wolf in seeing a moral equivalence between wanting to keep the fruits of one’s labor and wanting to deprive others of theirs.
Wolf thinks libertarianism is “a hopeless strategy, both intellectually and politically.”
Why intellectually? “[B]ecause the values people hold are many and divergent and some of these values do not merely allow, but demand, government protection of weak, vulnerable or unfortunate people. Moreover, such values are not ‘wrong’. The reality is that people hold many, often incompatible, core values.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t quite get this. Is Wolf saying that government is the only advocate of the weak? When has government ever truly been the advocate of the weak? In any political system—including democracy—some are closer to power than others; some have a comparative advantage in manipulating the system, but it’s not the weak and vulnerable. Those in power use the weak to justify their usurpations. The weak may even be provided some level of succor—after having been exploited through mercantilism, corporatism, or one of the other alternatives to the free market. They must be pacified and rendered harmless, after all.
Wolf is certainly right that people hold incompatible values. One payoff of liberalism is that it permits peaceful coexistence among such people. When religion was a State matter, everyone had to be concerned that if his sect didn’t control the government, he would be persecuted. When no sect could gain political power, that threat disappeared and people could live peacefully even if they didn’t particularly like each other.
And why is liberalism hopeless politically? “[B]ecause democracy necessitates debate among widely divergent opinions. Trying to rule out a vast range of values from the political sphere by constitutional means will fail. Under enough pressure, the constitution itself will be changed, via amendment or reinterpretation.”
Here Wolf stands on more solid ground. If people generally see nothing wrong in taking other people’s things or otherwise depriving them of liberty, they will undoubtedly get around any constitutional prohibition. A constitution is only as good as people’s understanding of it. No constitution interprets itself. We can’t program a computer with The True Meaning and have it resolve all constitutional disagreements. People will do the interpreting, and no interpretation can put an end to the interpretative process.
I have no simple answer for how to establish liberty or prevent ideological erosion once it’s established. Through a variety of activities (cultural and educational) we’ll have to re-instill the libertarian maxims most people learn as children but fail to apply politically: Don’t hit, don’t take other people’s stuff, and don’t break your promises (contracts). Libertarianism is just the consistent application of those maxims. Maybe, as Anthony de Jasay suggests, these need to become taboos—things people just don’t do, even if they can’t recite a philosophical argument telling you why.
* * *
Until now the world of fashion has been innovative and competitive without the protection of “intellectual property” law, but some want Congress to extend copyright to fashion design. Good idea? Edward López has his doubts.
The adage “less is more” is an important guide to explicit rulemaking. Thomas Snyder and Noel Campbell find an example in an unlikely place.
We’ve seen mandated recycling of trash before. Get ready for the next step: electronic surveillance of your recycling and refuse activities. Wendy McElroy has the details.
In recent decades many nations made at least some progress in expanding economic freedom. However, the response around the world to the latest economic debacle has caused the index of economic freedom to decline. James Gwartney, Robert Lawson, and Joshua Hall interpret the results they have compiled.
Since 1980 the U.S. government has required 18-year-old males to register with the Selective Service System, although no draft has been in effect since the mid-1970s. There is a criminal penalty for not complying, but as N. Joseph Potts explains, there are other penalties as well.
Can an economy be stimulated by extending unemployment benefits? Our Keynesian culture thinks so. James Ahiakpor dissents.
Rare earth elements are becoming increasingly important in the production of high-tech products, with China being a major producer. Should the U.S. government stockpile these materials to guard against supply disruptions? Warren Gibson takes up the question.
Although inconsistent, the California courts are beginning to see that free speech is rooted in property rights and that owners should be free to set the rules. Steven Greenhut looks at recent cases.
In the columns department, Lawrence Reed expresses his admiration for Scotland’s William Wallace. Thomas Szasz reflects on the nature of psychiatry’s “bible.” Stephen Davies celebrates the Scottish Enlightenment. John Stossel sounds the alarm for entrepreneurs under attack. David Henderson ponders the proposed Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. And Ivan Pongracic, Jr., confronting the ipse dixit that wealth distribution would end the recession, responds, “It Just Ain’t So!”
The coming dollar crisis, the orgy of government spending, the drug war, and democratic tyranny are the subjects of books under review this issue.
Capital Letters challenges the argument that savings lowers GDP.
Sheldon Richman, Editor srichman@fee.org
Comment by Cry_Aboutit on 24 November 2010:
Although you don’t need my support in defense of liberty from the likes of Mr. Wolf, I would like to weigh in:
He shows his mistrust of human beings in every argument against the feasibility of libertarianism. His ammunition against liberty is anecdotal “evidence” that people are basically evil. His is yet another fear-based argument, intended to erode individual control over individual affairs.
It seems to be Mr. Wolf’s sincere fear that without a highly complex, vastly powerful, and far reaching government, that society’s weakest and most vulnerable people would be allowed to suffer from illness and hunger by their greedy, self-absorbed neighbors.
I have a higher opinion of free people.
A question I might ask Mr. Wolf is, “are you afraid that you could sink to such a despicable low that no one would willingly aid you?”
If that is your concern, put your effort toward becoming a better person rather than trying to belittle the courageous and responsible philosophy of others.
Comment by William W. Kaufmann on 24 November 2010:
The first question to resolve is what copyright laws are for. Is the purpose, properly, one to be protected by law. That is, can one define a property right in ones designs, and why?
If not, then that doesnt place the issue out of bounds to legal process. Contract law may apply. An example is a covenant among manufacturers–yes, that violates Antitrust, but we want to get rid of that of course.
Comment by Jameson Graber on 24 November 2010:
Quote:
Why intellectually? “[B]ecause the values people hold are many and divergent and some of these values do not merely allow, but demand, government protection of weak, vulnerable or unfortunate people. Moreover, such values are not ‘wrong’. The reality is that people hold many, often incompatible, core values.”
What’s so incredible about this critique is that it accuses libertarianism of being intellectually unfeasible, yet it advocates an attempt to reconcile, through the state, the “often incompatible core values” of the public. Which is more intellectually unsound? A system with a clearly defined sphere of state governance, or a system intended to satisfy contradictory desires?
I also grow tired of people’s misuse of the word “protect.” Of course it is the duty of the state to protect the weak and vulnerable. But there is a large difference between protecting an individual from injustice and giving an individual preferential treatment. The latter is an injustice in itself.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 24 November 2010:
Cry,
Greed is the center of Capitalism. You can call this “evil” if you like but I see nothing unethical in self interest, the question is how egocentric you are. Some people are generous and others are selfish. Most reside somewhere between the two extremes.
The purpose of the State is to strike a balance where we all give an equitable share to support the foundation of the society we live in. For instance it is a statistical certainty that 1 in 10 criminals will spend most of their lives in jail due to repeatedly reoffending. If we value “Life, Liberty, and Property” as offered by Locke then we need to ensure there are adequte funds to arrest, prosecute, and confine these criminals.
In a Libertarian utopia contributions to this system would be purely voluntary but the problem with this is different people have different opinions as to what they can and should contribute. Someone that doesn’t earn much might justify not giving as much as the next because his income is trivial compared to his neighbor. Someone earning a large amount might justify not contributing because he gives back so much to the community by generating so much wealth and so many jobs. As it stands large corporations are constantly finding ways to decrease their tax burden by various means such as “offshoring” their corporate offices. I doubt they would be any more philanthropic if we suddenly abolished the tax code entirely and relied entirely on their “better angels.”
Smith doesn’t assume evil. He assumes self interest. That’s why Capitalism works and I don’t think pure Libertarianism can.
Comment by Deonet on 24 November 2010:
Wow, this Wolf guy never really bothered to read the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and the Federalist Papers that defined and clarified what our founders meant and intended when they wrote the documents that base our country’s principles. Politicians have done everything to undermine the basics of our freedoms. The power to tax is the power to destroy. High enough tax on homes, no one but the elite can afford them. Tax a man’s earnings, he is reduced to the status of slave/peasant.
If one takes all of our nation’s founding principles and freedoms and boils them down to one core thing, it is this: A man may own whatever he wants and do whatever he wants so long as, in his owning and using and doing, he does no harm to another man or another’s property. Income taxes and property taxes were not part of this nation until the very communist Roosevelt and his equally commie Supreme Court pulled the ponzi scheme New Deal (aka Raw Deal) over on the people along with the Fed Reserve. Inflation was almost non-existent before then. Read about the Great Depression, it makes clear that inflation is not a supply-and-demand issue but a matter of a government printing more paper money than it has commodity to back it. Prior to the New Deal, social security, wealth redistribution through taxation and welfare programs, and such government invasions of the family, people took care of their elderly and disabled family members; Churches through voluntary donations aided the poor. Even today, with our own country struggling, our nation as a people raised millions to aid Haiti and other areas struck by natural disaster. This blows Wolf’s claim out of the water.
Yes, there are many of us now that need help because the high taxes and inflation here, coupled with bad treaties, have sent our jobs overseas and left us without good jobs for a long time. However, there are far too many people who are capable of working and instead get welfare, engage in child bearing to enslave men and financially persecute them, and outright refuse to learn a craft, trade, or basic skills to work. Divorce and current child support laws encourage the destruction of families and the criminalization of fatherhood, often making a father who has done nothing wrong pay for an ex-wife to take his child and continue to engage in adultery, whoring, and destruction of his bond with his child – or encourages unwed women to get knocked up so that they can bleed the man dry for doing nothing more than engaging in recreational sex with her and, although she has full rights to the decisions that involve her sex drives and product of her womb, making him pay for her decisions. He who refuses to work shall not and should not eat. Even the prophets worked so as to be a burden to none while they ministered. He who is willing to work but cannot find meaningful work or employment deserves all the help we can give. The welfare state has created a lazy, untalented populace that feels they have a right to the fruits of others labor and the encouragement of unwed births to further tax society. Perfect example of this is my hardworking sister asking for medical assistance only to be denied and told that if she were to get pregnant then she could get help. All she wanted was temporary medical help so that she could get medicine or surgery to fix some chronic health problems that interfered with her job performance and ability to work full time. Helping those in need is all well and good, but you also have to teach a man to fish instead of just giving him a fish. Although China is very oppressive, they do have one thing right: anyone who is disabled is taught some skill or trade within their abilities to enable them to earn a living. If we went back to apprenticeships for many trades, skills, and occupations, we would end the experience-job dilemma, save a lot on “college” expenses, and have a talented work force. Our nation would save billions by ending the war on drugs and putting even a quarter of that money to rehab programs. Never have known a violent pot head.
These are just examples, but very pertinent ones on how the government has created this financial depression, court backlogging, social ills, and all of the problems that we as a nation now face.
Comment by Jason on 24 November 2010:
Great article. It’s nice to hear a voice of reason blast through the confused mainstream rhetoric.
Comment by Dennis on 25 November 2010:
To James Madison; Hey Jim, Ayn Rand believed that taxes should be voluntary. If our country truly was founded on Locke’s principle of property right protection, then the government should not take our property by force every April 15th. Voluntary taxes would also allow the citizenry to better control the actions of our leaders.
Comment by GOAT on 2 December 2010:
Is self-interest the same as greed? Is wanting to live a greedy notion? By living I will use many resources that could otherwise have went to other people. If we took everything in the world and split it up as evenly as possible, there would eventually be someone left out. Just because you dont like that something is, doesnt make it not so.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 2 December 2010:
Dennis,
Oliver Wendel Holmes said that “Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society.” Compulsory taxation ensures that I don’t have to carry around a bunch of deadbeats that don’t see any reason to pay their share of Fire, Police, Prisons, Armed Services, and other necessities. If you and I earn the same amount of money we should contribute equally to these services.
This is not to say that I supported the absurdly large and grossly bloated leech we call government these days because I’m carrying around a different group of deadbeats but I think there has to be a happy medium. Reality as well as sanity reside somewhere between the two extremes rather than being exclusive to either one. As Madison said, “If Men were angels then no government would be necessary.” Were not so it is.
Privatizing certain services such as Law doesn’t work for me because allowing corporations to supply law means they can determine the availability of the product. If Big Tobacco owned the courts then Judge Judy would be brought to you by Winston, Joe Camel would be a Saturday morning cartoon, and the surgeon’s general would be endorsing the therapeutic effects of cigarettes instead of warning us about lung cancer and addiction. I’d rather have a flawed Democratic-Republic than a perfect corporatocracy or aristocracy. . .
How about opting out? That doesn’t work either.
Let’s say you opt out of police protection and someone breaks into your home, kills you, and takes possession. Who pays to investigate the murder, prosecute the criminal, and incarcerate him? You didn’t pay into the system so you aren’t protected by it so as far as I can tell your body gets dumped into the Tiber and the murdering thief has a new home.
The same is true for fire. If you live in a rural area and opt out then we can roast marshmallows as you home burns but if you live in an urban or suburban area we can’t let your place burn down without putting the entire complex or block in danger.
The Jury System is a perfect example of what you get when you rely on Man’s better angles to prevail. While it is advertised as compulsory only a complete simpleton can’t invent a way to get dismissed. The results are grossly ignorant juries that don’t know the difference between DNA and blood typing like the ones that let OJ go. Every time something like that happens people start screaming that the jury system is broken and they’re right. What they don’t seem to grasp is the cause as well as the solution can be found in the mirror. The percentage of people that happily serve is fractional. I seriously doubt essential services would serve any better under volunteerism.
The problem with Rothbard’s vision of a Libertarian utopia, Rand’s vision of an Objectivist utopia, Marx’s vision of a Socialist/Communist utopia and most other absolutist utopian panaceas is they assume that people will not act the way people have ever since we came down from the trees. We might act that way – eventually – but that day is not today nor is it likely to be tomorrow nor anywhere in the near future.
What Holmes understands that Rand doesn’t is that civilization is a veneer.
Life, Liberty, and Property are nice but the moment my burger is the only thing standing between starvation and someone’s kid I better be prepared to defend my meal or lose it.
My deepest apologies to Locke but the only “natural law” is survival. Everything we call “civilization” is a function of our desire to help ourselves and each other survive if not thrive. That’s why the culture in the US is more efficient and richer than everyone else. We have rules that allow us to work better together than they do.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 2 December 2010:
Goat,
Greed as an economic term is different than greed as a ethical term.
[There is a post above this one to Dennis that is being held for reasons that defy understanding.]