Making One
Government: Restricter or Promoter of Liberty?
Most often I hear arguments against government focusing on how government hobbles individual choices, like choices about how to do business or what to do with one's justly earned property. This is a focus on negative liberties--things we are forbidden to do by laws and institutions. Too seldom do I hear about the positive liberties enabled by good government. I invite you to consider this, with me. Should our ideal goal be less government, or should it be better government? Should we be fighting hardest to prevent the taking of liberty, or should we be fighting to lift as many people up as we can? Which focus will do the most to make a better world, to build Zion?
Here are a couple of links explaining what negative and positive liberty are:
This first one is the easier read, and shorter, even if I don't agree with it all that much.
This second one is much harder, and possibly confusing. What it refers to as "political liberalism" includes many beliefs held both on the right and the left in American politics, and particularly held by Right-Libertarians. It is a focus on individual freedom and individual rights. Now on to some of my thoughts on the value of negative and positive liberties.
Property
I agree that property is real. People really do have and use things according to their desires. Ownership, however, is a social construct sustained by law and only maintained by force, trust, or isolation. Without government, ownership beyond family or tribal bonds of trust is impossible, unless you use force to prevent theft by other groups, or you live where no one can take it because you never come in contact with strangers. It is our social constructs embodied in government that set and enforce the rules of ownership, giving individuals the power to manage their property according to their own wills. Government enables any right to property in a large society of interconnected strangers. Before the democratic rule of law, most people did not have rights to property, and often didn't even have rights to their own lives. In fact, this state continued for many even after our constitution was accepted. If force is not to determine property rights, just law must be the judge. The goal should be good and just regulation and enforcement of property rights, not the absence of government and its accompanying laws. No one should be a slave, and history shows us that government is needed to ensure rights of owning even ourselves against the greed of powerful men.
Free Markets Are Innovative? Not even close without government.
I read a very enjoyable book called The Rational Optimist. It is an engaging exploration of data supported reasons to be optimistic about the future of humanity. The author is a great proponent of free markets, entrepreneurs, and inventors, and not a big fan of government mandates. But the author seemed to have a disconnect. He frequently pointed out how government benefits us, allowing for trust beyond the family or tribe, for example, then downplayed the role of government in favor of his narrative of the value of entrepreneurs, private enterprise, and free markets. A striking example of his bias was claiming that most important scientific and technological advances came from private individuals and companies, not government supported endeavors or research.
One of the examples he gave of an independent, plucky entrepreneur who made a great advance was the man who made the sea clock. The author didn't do his research very well. Sea Clocks: The Story of Longitude is a history of the making of the sea clock. It turns out the plucky entrepreneur who made the sea clock spent most of the time developing his clock while supported almost exclusively by government grants.
The rational optimist must have also ignored that Louis Pasteur did most of his important work establishing the germ theory of disease, developing methods for creating vaccines, figuring out how to pasteurize drinks so they could be produced en masse without making people sick, and saving the French silk industry, while employed by universities and on government funded projects.
He also overlooked that most of the background research behind essentially all economically important technological advances in the US (and I would guess the world) since World War II (and arguably back farther) was and is publicly funded--and that doesn't count all the inventors and entrepreneurs who have benefited from publicly funded education.
He overlooked that the CDC has done much more for the health of humanity and its work force per dollar spent than the private healthcare industry in the US.
This focus on entrepreneurs as representative of the success of free markets (downplaying the role of business in creating government regulations that interfere with free markets) and privately funded inventors as the backbone of technological advance (downplaying all of the publicly funded and enabled work that supported the advances) is a shortcoming of most Libertarian thought I have read.
I've heard responses like, "But private enterprise could do it better." The problem is, private enterprise didn't do these things. Government funded research has provided the majority of new drugs in recent years. Pharmaceutical companies have done important work with clinical trials and development for widespread use, but they identified only a minority of the molecules. We don't get to rewrite history simply to support our ideological positions. Basic scientific research, most of which is and has been government funded, makes the world a better place to live.
If you are willing to look into yet one more book, I would point you to Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?. This is a short, approachable introduction to the philosophy of justice and how it has evolved in U.S. history. When it reaches the 20th century, it works its way through Libertarian thought, and one can see how Libertarian ethics have entered into both left-leaning arguments about individual rights to our bodies and personal identity and into right-leaning arguments about individual economic rights. Libertarian ethics are, frankly, very appealing and come to many powerful conclusions. Then he continues on to a picture that incorporates respect for individuals with a broader, moral respect for community and the individual duty to be engaged in creating just communities, not just seeking personal justice. His conclusions are logical, but they also feel true to my internal moral code. But I didn't know where he was headed until the end. I thought he made Libertarian ethics sound quite good, yet feared he would stop there, because something didn't quite feel settled.
I've heard responses like, "But private enterprise could do it better." The problem is, private enterprise didn't do these things. Government funded research has provided the majority of new drugs in recent years. Pharmaceutical companies have done important work with clinical trials and development for widespread use, but they identified only a minority of the molecules. We don't get to rewrite history simply to support our ideological positions. Basic scientific research, most of which is and has been government funded, makes the world a better place to live.
Global Interdependence
Moving from science and technology back to ownership. What inherent right does anyone have to own anything? The typical argument is that we deserve what we work for and earn, and have a right to that. But how does anyone earn anything? Most fundamentally aren't our very lives gifts from parents, the earth, or God? And if you worked hard for what you have, how did you first acquire the skills and materials used to do your work? Were you given no help from family? From publicly funded teachers? From public infrastructure? From employers that paid you a fair, or even generous, wage? Do you not benefit from all of the government funded research alluded to before? And the list of interconnections can go on and on. What is your just responsibility to these people?If you are willing to look into yet one more book, I would point you to Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?. This is a short, approachable introduction to the philosophy of justice and how it has evolved in U.S. history. When it reaches the 20th century, it works its way through Libertarian thought, and one can see how Libertarian ethics have entered into both left-leaning arguments about individual rights to our bodies and personal identity and into right-leaning arguments about individual economic rights. Libertarian ethics are, frankly, very appealing and come to many powerful conclusions. Then he continues on to a picture that incorporates respect for individuals with a broader, moral respect for community and the individual duty to be engaged in creating just communities, not just seeking personal justice. His conclusions are logical, but they also feel true to my internal moral code. But I didn't know where he was headed until the end. I thought he made Libertarian ethics sound quite good, yet feared he would stop there, because something didn't quite feel settled.
Better, Adaptive Government
I would love to see bureaucratic waste and bad regulations go the way of the dodo. I would hate to lose the rights enabled by government--the ability to trust strangers, the right to justice for all, the protection of our shared air and water, and many other things that keep us healthy and happy, however imperfectly--simply to be freed from government rules. I want more just government. That may mean less government--it would take a lot less government to run a universal basic income program than to run our array of current social services--or it may mean more--we will need new agreements and agencies to work out how humans will manage things as we colonize Mars, or the oceans. So no, I don't want less government interference in my life. I want better government interference in my life.
I want government that adapts to a changing world rather than propping up failing ways of doing things. I want government that will stop supporting destructive ways of doing things and start supporting sustainable ways of doing things so that my great-great grandchildren can live free of the fear that there will be an energy collapse. I would love more distributed governmental power. Just as moving from kings to legislatures increased justice, I expect further dispersal of power would promote even greater justice, but only if there are laws that assure we are lifting up the weak--not leaving them to fend for themselves in a negative liberty world that denies them no rights but provides them no resources with which to lift one another. I hope you will think about what you really want from government, what will truly lift people up, and not only what you fear will push you down. I hope you will get involved to make it better.
I want government that adapts to a changing world rather than propping up failing ways of doing things. I want government that will stop supporting destructive ways of doing things and start supporting sustainable ways of doing things so that my great-great grandchildren can live free of the fear that there will be an energy collapse. I would love more distributed governmental power. Just as moving from kings to legislatures increased justice, I expect further dispersal of power would promote even greater justice, but only if there are laws that assure we are lifting up the weak--not leaving them to fend for themselves in a negative liberty world that denies them no rights but provides them no resources with which to lift one another. I hope you will think about what you really want from government, what will truly lift people up, and not only what you fear will push you down. I hope you will get involved to make it better.
The main problem that I see with governments today is that they are monopolies. If what you want is a monopoly, without the drawbacks of a monopoly, then I think what you want isn’t possible. If you are willing to consider alternatives, then I have some ideas.
ReplyDeleteI’m not against government, per se, but I am against governments having monopoly power. I’m a voluntaryist. I explain more what that is here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-libertarian-voluntaryism/answer/Jake-Jacobsen-1
“Ownership, however, is a social construct sustained by law and only maintained by force, trust, or isolation.”
Ownership is the ultimate right to control property. In order to actually use property, someone has to claim that right, otherwise we’d all starve if we didn’t claim ownership of food to eat.
One idea is that whoever has the most power owns everyone and everything else. This is the natural order. If an animal wants food it simply claims ownership and takes it. The strongest animal gets it. The opposing idea is that people should own themselves. With this, the strongest people could claim ownership. They could enslave everyone else, but instead they choose not to. They choose to respect the agency of others. Monarchy and democracy take the first approach, while voluntaryism takes the second.
“Before the democratic rule of law, most people did not have rights to property, and often didn't even have rights to their own lives.”
People don’t necessarily have rights to their own lives under democratic rule either. Democracy is the idea that everyone owns everyone else. But in practice, it means that whoever has the most power, either because they are in the majority or because they have the most political connections, owns people with less political power. This was especially apparent with chattel slavery, but also true now that we have free-range slavery. The democratically powerful often grant certain rights to those they own, such as a right to life or to a fair trial, but ultimately they can take those rights away with a vote.
“No one should be a slave, and history shows us that government is needed to ensure rights of owning even ourselves against the greed of powerful men.”
On the contrary, I see that history shows that governments taxed abolitionists against their will in order to send slaves back to their owners.
“Without government, ownership beyond family or tribal bonds of trust is impossible, unless you use force to prevent theft by other groups, or you live where no one can take it because you never come in contact with strangers.”
Governments prevent theft by using force just like any alternative means does. Private defense organizations can provide that force as well and private legal systems can also maintain order. Non-monopoly governments can do that as well. The problem is, monopoly governments violate a person’s property claiming that they are doing so in order to protect their property, and that doesn’t make sense. What a monopoly government is actually doing is making a claims of ownership over people and their property. Instead of letting individuals decide which threats are most important to protect against and decide how important each threat is to that person, the government takes away the decision.
It’s always tempting to look at the outcomes. If the government would just violate agency, then it could provide defense. If the government would just violate agency, then it could provide education and welfare and everyone would benefit. The government could make everyone do good things like giving to the poor. All we have to do is justify the means by the ends. I think this is why consequentialism is so popular. It sounds really nice to have a world where there is no inequality because everyone is forced to be charitable.
I think that consequentialism is a fundamentally arrogant position. It is basically saying that one’s own preferences should trump the preferences of others. It’s an attempt to elevate one’s self over others.
I think there is a lot that could be done better by distributed power, and I think this is what you view as "private" and not monopoly government. I would love to see many more distributed power structures put in place, and I think most Libertarians would find common cause with me in such efforts.
DeleteI read through the Quora post. I will make a few notes. Libertarian ideals, apparently including the voluntaryism you describe, are strongly based on philosophical liberalism which places individual rights as the (or an) ultimate good. It appears that the libertarian voluntaryism you describe also focuses on negative liberty--freedom from coercion.
While many libertarian thinkers and proponents assert that ensuring freedom from coercion will result in the society of freedom and abundance that both they and I desire, I do not think it is as strong a moral foundation, or as effective a policy, as associations based on Communitarianism. I recommend again the book _Justice_.
Last, I would note that Voluntaryism will result in de facto governments with de facto coercion on people, because groups united in common cause will always be more effective and successful than individuals, and people will be presented with the choice of joining or going extinct. In effect, claiming any resource for personal use is an act of violence that prevents others from having that same choice. There is no way around force, violence, or coercion at this level. This leads me to believe that Voluntaryism is never truly a free, individual choice, but always a choice constrained by community. Freedom from coercion is impossible, so I desire to enable happy choices for as many as possible more than I desire preventing the removal of selfish choices.
It is clear that taxes and regulations are often tools of repression, but it is also clear that Democracy is nowhere close to the same class of government as Monarchy. That the rich and powerful can abuse governmental power for selfish gain is not something that could be avoided by voluntaryism. As soon as some group voluntarily associated and accumulated power as a result, you would have an equivalent situation. Voluntary association has natural (and sometimes very severe) limits to its scope in any resource limited system.
The more complex a system is, the more voluntary associations will be required for sustainable functioning of the system, and the more regulations (natural, private, or governmental) will be required to maintain healthy associations. So doing something like eliminating public education will provide greater choice to a portion of the population, but in a large number of cases will further limit effective choices for poor and rural communities, decrease the overall education level of our workforce, and generate/perpetuate greater ignorance and poverty, and limit agency as a result. I would love carefully examined, distributed approaches to problems like education, instead of top down, centralized approaches, but implementing such approaches in ways that are better for society than our current approach is difficult on many levels beyond just that of seeking power over others. Every association limits agency in involuntary ways, and in recognizing this I have chosen to prefer a focus on how we can enable and uplift rather than how we can avoid imposing limits on others.
“I think there is a lot that could be done better by distributed power, and I think this is what you view as ‘private’ and not monopoly government.”
DeleteJust a clarification, while private governments would be possible, I don’t say private because they could be public in the sense that any one is welcome to join, but they would be non-monopolistic in the sense that alternative governments would be permitted.
“I do not think it is as strong a moral foundation, or as effective a policy, as associations based on Communitarianism.”
As far as morals goes, it always comes down to whether people own themselves or are they owned by others. I don’t think there’s one way to logically prove that either way is true, which is why I think it’s an eternal struggle. That being said, communitarianism can be compatible with voluntaryism if people aren’t forced to be part of the community.
“Last, I would note that Voluntaryism will result in de facto governments with de facto coercion on people…”
I think it would result in actual governments, not de facto governments, but as far as coercion goes, I don’t think I agree with you. We are always constrained by reality. I would like to fly without a machine, but I don’t think it’s useful to say that I’m being coerced by gravity, thus taking away my positive liberty to fly.
Here’s another example: If an employer wants to pay an employee a wage below a minimum wage, the government directly coerces the employer and employee by threatening violence if they have that association. However, if there was no minimum wage law, but other employers offered to pay a higher price and thus give the employee alternatives, there would be a de facto minimum wage. In both cases, the employer’s positive liberty is restricted, but only in the first case is his negative liberty restricted, so the cases are not morally equivalent.
Another example: Let’s say there is a child in Africa, starving to death. You have the means to feed that child. Should you be imprisoned for murder, or otherwise treated as any other murderer? After all, by your reasoning, it seems, you de facto killed that child. You withheld property for your personal use that resulted in limiting the child's positive liberty.
“So doing something like eliminating public education will provide greater choice to a portion of the population, but in a large number of cases will further limit effective choices for poor and rural communities, decrease the overall education level of our workforce, and generate/perpetuate greater ignorance and poverty, and limit agency as a result.”
I should have been more clear. I was using agency to mean moral agency. Violating someone’s moral agency may lead to an increase in total number of choices all people have, but it doesn’t increase moral agency, it only limits it.
I think your understanding of negative and positive liberty is incomplete.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure there is a difference between moral agency and any other kind. Every choice has moral implications, and limiting a person's choices limits their moral agency. I do believe we are responsible for our use of resources and the effect that has on others--even starving kids in other countries. Even unborn future generations that will encounter problems resulting from our "ownership" and use of "our own" property. I believe we are responsible for externalities created by our choices, not only the immediate consequences of our choices. I don't equate that with the moral responsibility held by the rulers of abusive countries, and I don't equate consequences we can't know or predict with ones we can, but I have made efforts for my entire adult life to reduce my impact on the world and help others.
In your specific case of enforcing minimum wage vs. allowing market forces to determine minimum wage, it seems you have either not understood or ignored the reality that markets are a product of community agreements and rules that we have negotiated over time and called government. Markets only function in an environment of justice, and you appear to have adopted the conclusion than Right Libertarian and Voluntarist ideas are capable of supplying that justice without coercion of any kind. I do think we could get closer to justice than our current system by wisely approaching certain Right Libertarian and Voluntarist ideas, but that in other ways we would fail. There are reasons why we evolved to coerce one another to act in socially positive ways. We can and should move beyond this evolutionary state, but we ignore it (as philosophical liberalism does to a significant degree) at our peril.
I hope you can find the time to look into more of Michael J. Sandel's work. It is quite carefully reasoned and engaging to read or listen to. It isn't anti-Libertarian so much as suggesting that Libertarian ethics provide an incomplete approach to justice, government, etc. It is pro-Communitarian, and you may find the ideas more compelling than the Wikipedia articles on the subject.
“Every choice has moral implications, and limiting a person's choices limits their moral agency.”
DeleteSo are you saying then, that it’s okay to do things that people normally think of as immoral, such as steal, so long as it leads to more people having more choices? For example, a person can live with one kidney. Most people have two kidneys. Some people are dying because their kidneys are failing. Kidney transplants are possible. Therefore, is it moral to forcibly take a kidney from a healthy person with two kidneys in order for the dying person to live, since because both will live, there will be an increase in total choices? My moral system clearly says no. It’s hard for me to articulate this, but I don’t think you can get to more moral agency by violating moral agency. I don’t think it works that way. What does your moral system say? Should people be forced to give up their kidneys?
“I do believe we are responsible for our use of resources and the effect that has on others--even starving kids in other countries.”
I do too. I view voluntaryist ethics as the starting point of ethics, not the end. The point I was trying to make is that I think there is a moral difference between a person using violence, such as killing someone, and not taking an action that may result in someones death because an action wasn’t taken. I use the word coercion only in the first case, but it seems to me that you are using it in both cases.
“…it seems you have either not understood or ignored the reality that markets are a product of community agreements and rules that we have negotiated over time and called government.”
I think agreements and rules are vitally important for markets to function, but I don’t think it’s morally right or necessary for some people to have a monopoly on rule making in order for there to be agreements and rules. Are you familiar with the libertarian differentiation between law and legislation? Here’s an introductory discussion of it: http://tomwoods.com/ep-557-the-states-corruption-of-private-law-or-we-dont-need-no-legislature/ Unlike anarchs-capitalists, I think legislation can be more convenient than law sometimes, with the caveat that if a government has a monopoly on legislation then it will naturally lead to abuse.
I will look into Michael J. Sandel's work. I’m always interested in reasoned arguments. The main reasons I talk to people online is have a broader exposure to ideas I hadn’t thought of investigating so I can challenge my beliefs in light of those new ideas.
By the way, did the second half of my original comment come through? It never appeared. I’m interested in your response to that, especially since I think you overlooked ownership from gifts in your post, and I think that’s an important part of the story.
I am a moral contextualist. I believe that the best moral choice in any given situation depends on that situation. I also believe that ownership is a convenient and effective illusion that is a secondary right and virtue, and that stewardship is a primary virtue. Rights are a constant negotiation within communities with some more universally accepted and justified than others. You ask if theft is ok, with the expected answer of "of course not." But since I don't believe in ownership as a moral right, but instead stewardship, then I view any external resource use that is unsustainable as a form of theft and necessarily some degree of moral failing. Using my kidneys is sustainable. Mining is not. Taking kidneys from people is not currently sustainable, and probably never will be, but we would need to reconsider should it become sustainable (including all of its costs, not just costs with a price tag). Good farming practice is sustainable. Poor farming practice is not. If ownership is used to promote unsustainable (and consequently harmful) practices, then I believe it is an immoral imposition on agency. So I don't distinguish the source of ownership as having moral weight (gift or not, since it is all a gift of God or nature). Stewardship is the moral right that I recognize, and ownership constructs sometimes facilitate stewardship.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that monopoly leads to abuse, whether public or private. The more broadly and equally power is distributed the less abuse can grow. I find that in practice, democratic, liberal (philosophically) governments are useful checks on the power of private associations like corporations, and that effective legislation to limit unelected monopolies is worth the pains of some level of government abuses. I love Libertarian policy suggestions that reduce the role of government in supporting corporate abuses, and despise the policies that cede de facto monopolies to unelected bodies in the name of "free markets" and "liberty" but in practice support neither. There are probably many things we could agree upon, but my fundamental disbelief in property as an inherent good will inevitably lead to a number of different conclusions as well. I am less worried about an elected and changing monopoly, and least somewhat responsive to democratic forces, than about unelected monopolies. I like neither, but as long as the latter exist, I will support governments that limit them and do my best to reduce the abuses through civic activity.
I stayed up pretty late last night watching some of Michael Sandel’s presentations. He is an engaging speaker, so I can see why he’s popular. Your post and this response in particular make much more sense within that context. The more I listened to Sandel, the more I think I’m fundamentally opposed to his position. I think it flies in the face of reason, but it’s too much to be hashed out here. Nevertheless, thank you very much for exposing me to this new viewpoint. I never took ideas of property for granted, but it’s good to have another angle to attack the idea. I think you’re right that we would probably agree on many things, but also have many different conclusions. Thank you again for giving me some new ideas to think about.
Delete