Who can gainsay the principles of personal freedom, civil rights, and even personal property – in the abstract? The problem is that the real world is never “abstract,” and it imposes on us – like it or not – a vast array of constraints and imperatives that libertarian freedom-lovers can only deny at their peril.
The problem with the freedom mantra is that it ignores the basic biological problem of survival and reproduction, which entails an array of some 14 domains of “basic needs” – inescapable requisites that are prior to freedom. Freedom is not for the most part an end in itself; it’s instrumental to and serves (or should serve) what I call our “prime directive.”
Moreover, in a complex society, our very lives (and certainly our freedom) depend on many others. We are intensely interdependent with respect to the satisfaction of our basic needs. We are almost all of us participants in a “collective survival enterprise” based on reciprocity, mutualism and an implicit mutual obligation for altruistic aid in relation to what I refer to as “no fault needs.” In fact, we are all involved in a tacit social contract, which means (among other things) that others have legitimate claims to limits on our freedom. That’s the reality in every complex society!
Only if/when our ongoing basic needs are met can we enjoy personal freedom. Indeed, as the philosopher John Locke suggested (and our Founding Fathers followed suit), the right to life is prior to liberty, and prior to property (not to mention happiness). Most of us, moreover, act accordingly. How many people facing a catastrophic medical expense, for instance, would opt to sacrifice their lives before having to sell their house? And how many people who are currently unemployed would gladly trade their “freedom” for a secure job. Indeed, freedom from poverty, and hunger, and freezing weather, and physical danger, and many other challenges, often requires severe limits on our personal freedom. We make those tradeoffs every day.
Of course, libertarians are (mostly) concerned with political freedom. Their focus is on the “shackles” of an “oppressive” government, and especially such hot-button issues as taxes, regulations, and civil liberties. But libertarians don’t hold the franchise on these concerns. Very few of us want more taxes, regulations or constraints on our liberties. For many of us, these burdens represent the price we must pay for an array of collective benefits, from national defense to public goods like roads and schools, and protection against the “harm” that markets can do. (Governments too can become destructive or corrupt, but this does not negate the underlying principle of collective self-governance in the public interest.)
Do we really want “freedom” for the actions of usurious lenders, or toxic sub-prime mortgage brokers, or mega-farms that grow fresh vegetables laced with e-coli bacteria, or hard drug pushers, or the makers of unsafe automobiles, or industrial polluters who poison our fresh water supplies? Liberty so frequently leads to license, and in practice inflicts so much “harm,” that some radical libertarians come across as terminally naïve about the many ruthless egoists and opportunists out there who will gleefully exploit any “freedom” – any loophole they can find. Naïve libertarians have a deficient view of the dark side of human nature, and of our fundamental (biologically based) variability as human beings.
True wisdom begins with a balanced understanding of the biological imperatives, our extreme dependency on the efforts and goodwill of others, and the absolute necessity of being fair toward others – which inevitably constrains our freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's not a lot here that I disagree with in terms of the need for collective association in meeting our basic needs. Most libertarians that I know readily acknowledge that personal liberty is not limitless and that we need to collectively protect ourselves, collectively, from murderers, thieves, and frauds. Most of us even even accept the premiss that we have individual and collective obligations to assist others in need. But here's the key question: "What is the most efficient means of securing everyone's basic needs?" There are two forms of collective association: voluntary and involuntary.
ReplyDeleteVoluntary associations consist in free individuals (not coerced by others) choosing to associate with one another in pursuit of common goals. The beauty of voluntary association is that individuals can freely enter or exit these associations. When voluntary associations pursue the same goals, competition ensues and the less efficient ones lose membership and suffer extinction.
Involuntary associations survive not through personal choice, but through the use of coercive force where individuals are forced to pursue goals that they would not otherwise pursue by means that they would not approve. In short, involuntary associations survive by seizing the time, energy and/or resources of their members. Of course, the most notorious form of involuntary association is slavery.
Most libertarians that I know embrace voluntary association as the most efficient means of providing our basic needs. Until recently, modern corporations were able to provide most of us with decent jobs, products, and services. For those of us whose needs were not met by corporations, we had private charitable organizations and a modest governmental safety net.
The main problem with involuntary associations, especially governments, is that over time, they become less efficient over time and tend to crowd out the more efficient voluntary associations. That is the essence of "corporate welfare."
The malaise that is ruining the United States can be blamed on the gradual expansion of inefficient, coercive government and the invasion of voluntary associations by crony capitalism. Even our voluntary charitable organizations have been crowded out by government. Today Adam Smith and Karl Marx are both rolling in their graves.
Here's what I said on Facebook: "The problem is how do we effectively exercise human compassion, via coercive or voluntary association? That's the basic difference between socialism and libertarianism. Compassion is not a sufficient condition for compassionate action."
ReplyDeletePurely voluntary approaches too often lead to the "tragedy of the commons" -- free riders and lack of voluntary restraints. Or volunteers who simply don't show up to do their share. There are times when volunteerism sucks. I've been there! As Garrett Hardin said, often the only solution is "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon." Elinor Ostrom has shown that this can often be done better locally, though not always.
ReplyDeleteA common culture right now will be impossible. Let the thunder and lightning rattle and roll, until Hollywood dead and buried and then let's get on with my 'pet theory'- Ghost/animal civilization via the World Wide Web. The underground cemetery economy will be just a few clicks away!
ReplyDelete