The heroic resistance by many Hong Kong residents suggests that all individuals want liberty, an idea inherited from the Enlightenment. But is this classical-liberal and libertarian vision generally valid? Here are some related questions.
In the Fall issue of Regulation, I have an anniversary review of James Buchanan’s What Do Economists Do?, a collection of essays he wrote in the 1960s and 1970s. One of these essays, a lecture he gave at a 1978 Liberty Fund conference, makes an uplifting statement consistent with the classical-liberal and libertarian tradition (italics in original):
Man wants liberty to become the man he wants to become.
Buchanan apparently did not remain as optimistic. In a 2005 Public Choice article, “Afraid to Be Free: Dependency as Desideratum,” the Nobel Prize laureate called attention to what he called “parental socialism” or “parentalism,” that is, the desire of citizens to be to the state what children are to their parents. Because of this, he claimed that
socialism in terms of the range and scope of collectivized controls over individual liberty of actions … will survive and be extended. … During the course of two centuries, the state has replaced God as the father-mother of last resort, and persons will demand that this protectorate role be satisfied and amplified.
He formulates a troubling hypothesis:
The thirst or desire for freedom, and responsibility, is perhaps not nearly so universal as so many post-Enlightenment philosophers have assumed.
I raised this question and quoted Buchanan in at least another post on this blog, in order to illustrate the “delight in despotism” that some people seem to express.
In the same Public Choice article, Buchanan wrote:
To my knowledge, the term “parental” has never been explicitly discussed as being descriptive of the motivation behind the collectivization-socialization of human activity.
I am not sure he was right on this last point. In their textbook Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (Second Edition, University of California Press, 2016), Lawrence O. Gostin and Lindsay Wiley argue that American state and local governments have long claimed a parens patriae—literally “parent of the nation”—function, which drifted into a general state-parental duty that has been recognized by the courts at least since the late 19th century. The two professors of public health law write:
In the United Sates, the parens patriae function belongs primarily to state and local governments. It is traditionally invoked in two contexts: to protect individuals who are unable to protect themselves because they are incapacitated, and to assert the state’s general interest and standing in communal health, comfort, and welfare, safeguarding collective interests that no individual, acting alone, has the capacity to vindicate.
In other words, a narrow legal theory of government’s care of orphans and incapacitated adults has become a broad justification for considering citizens as children of the state in a growing number of situations—and this, much before the turn of the 21st century.
It seems that, at least in developed countries, a significant proportion of individuals don’t care much about being free; they want security instead. According to a recent opinion poll, for example, a majority of Americans favor “Medicare for all” in the sense of allowing anybody to “buy into” the scheme; perhaps more significantly, only a slight majority of 56% oppose a universal Medicare scheme that would replace private insurance, presumably by banning it.
The higher is the proportion of individuals who don’t want liberty, the greater the risk to the (partly) free society. The advantage of a general system of individual liberty is that it lets those who want liberty have it, while allowing those who don’t care much for it to establish some private, contractual limits on the exercise of their own liberty. One may enter into a convent, get a regular nine-to-five job, get married, make (some) private oaths, commit part of his future income to a mortgage (under penalty of losing an important asset and a stream of future income), and so forth. A system of non-liberty, on the contrary, does not allow those who prefer individual liberty to live as they want. When individual preferences are different (as they have to be in a modern society), a regime of individual liberty is thus preferable to its opposite, at least if we value individual preferences. The two systems are not symmetric in the sense that they would simply favor and harm different sections of society.
This argument has limits. Those who love restraint cannot get enough of it in a free society. Moreover, somebody may not only hate liberty for himself; he may hate even more the idea that others enjoy it–like the abbé de Mably, of whom Benjamin Constant said that “he detested individual liberty like a personal enemy.” A Buchanan-type of social contract is one way to overcome such limits. In an implicit bargain, those who want liberty may be willing to bribe those who don’t want it. Those who don’t want to be free will have their beloved security supplied by the state. Those who pay the bribe (through taxes) keep more liberty than they would have in a society run by a totalitarian mob. One question is whether such an equilibrium is stable. The current evolution of society and of the state as well as some explanatory theories (see Anthony de Jasay’s theory) raise some doubts. Is there a better alternative?
READER COMMENTS
Thaomas
Oct 7 2019 at 8:37am
I think we can pretty well dismiss both abstract desires for liberty and those who “love restraint and cannot get enough of it” as political motivations. My model of the political dynamic is a democratic capitalistic economic polity constantly creates new conditions, conditions that some people will think need to be corrected/regulated.
Example 1: In the 2000’s health insurance was getting more expensive and fewer employers were offering it. Individual health insurance markets did not work well for people with pre-existing conditions. Mainstream conservatives proposed to change the individual market to require “community ratings” but that was though to require as well a universal mandate to purchase that kind of insurance. [Getting rid of the entire employer “provided” insurance and channeling all government subsidies into individually purchased schemes were not seriously proposed, much less just removing all subsidies for health insurance purchase even less.] Liberals wanted a more centralized, “single payer” system. Ultimately liberals came around to the conservative approach and ACA was the result. It did not grow out of an ideology of “loving restraint.”
Example 2. (one in which I don’t like the result): in the 2000’s there was a growing number of low skilled immigrant in the country, many of whom had come without visas or had overstayed visas. Liberals, including mainstream Republicans at the time, favored legalizing the status of these undocumented immigrants, but that set off a backlash that eventually led to much greater if ineffective almost counterproductive efforts to stop the entry of immigrants without visas and to deport such immigrants. Again, this unhappy result did not grow out of an ideology of “loving restraint.”
Would both these growths of state intrusion have been thwarted by a greater abstract desire for liberty? Possibly.
But is an ever-growing (in “percentage” terms) state inevitable? No because the dynamic of a democratic capitalistic economic polity is constantly creating new areas and activities free of state control. It is in this area that Tyler’s “Stubborn Attachments” that argues for valorizing economic growth per se much more highly is really important. But so too, I’d argue, is the need to present less state-intrusive ways of addressing new problematic conditions. EITC instead of minimum wages, zoning reform instead of rent controls, revenue neutral tax on CO2 emissions instead of Green New Deals, subsidized individual insurance instead of single payer, international trade agreements instead of trade wars, progressive consumption taxes instead of structural deficits. None of these fall out of an abstract desire for liberty but if successful, I think they would have that net result.
nobody.really
Oct 7 2019 at 1:06pm
Well … foo. I was preparing a harsher rebuttal, but this reasonable, well-expressed, and constructive response took the wind out of my sails.
What fun is that?
Thaomas
Oct 7 2019 at 4:46pm
Sorry. I’ll try to be less reasonable and constructive next time. 🙂
Mark Z
Oct 7 2019 at 7:34pm
I think you’re framing here means to lead one to a particular conclusion: there’s a problem which can only be solved by state; we can either solve it via a less intrusive or more intrusive means. Of course, there is nearly always a hypothetical more intrusive policy to address any problem next to which one’s favored policy looks unintrusive. But also, we don’t all upon what is a ‘problem.’ There are better and worse ways to “fix” income inequality or growing market shares of tech companies, but that assumes the cost of the fix is worth the expected benefit. The EITC may well be such an example as well, given Henrik Kleven’s recent paper finding that the salutary effects of EITC on workforce participation were actually probably he result of welfare reform policies; perhaps the actual optimum in the choice of “minimum wage or EITC” is none of the above?
I think you’re right though that most policymaking or even policy preferences is not borne of an abstract love of liberty or restraint for oneself. I do think a desire for restraint of others is a factor, though it’s not usually seen that way. Rather, I think there’s a tendency of people to believe others’ deviation from one’s own preferences are the product of collective action problems. E.g., I want comprehensive health insurance, and I know everyone else does too, but many others don’t buy it because it’s too expensive; if we force everyone into the market, it’ll bring down prices to where everyone would buy it anyway, so we’re really just compelling everyone to get what I know they want. Similar arguments are made for the number of hours people can work per week or increasing regulation of relatively dangerous jobs.
Thaomas
Oct 8 2019 at 8:22am
Good comments.
Roger McKinney
Oct 8 2019 at 10:57am
The problem with your healthcare example is that high prices didn’t just happen like lightening out of a blue sky. It resulted from decades of state interference in the market, mainly at the behest of the AMA. The US had a well-functioning private healthcare system in the 1920s in which most people, especially the poor, got their healthcare through mutual aid societies like the Masons. But the AMA thought the system kept physician pay too low so it bribed legislators to destroy the system. The AMA has continued to create legislation to increase the cost of healthcare by limiting the supply. At the same time, federal subsidies through Medicaid and Medicare have created unlimited demand. So the question is why the people put up with this? I think envy and the lust to dominate are the best explanations.
The same goes for example #2. That didn’t happen in a vacuum. The US went through the immigration debate several times in its history. The US had no immigration controls until the 1930s because the Constitution precluded the federal government from doing anything. Then the federal government took that power from the states without an amendment or even discussion. It first limited Chinese, then Catholics from Eastern Europe. But the Great Depression was the main driver because of unemployment. Reagan faced a similar problem in the 1980s without the backlash. The pattern is clear. Socialist policies destroy the economy and caused high unemployment which then causes people to oppose immigration. So why have Americans always demanded greater state control over the economy in each instance? Again, envy and the lust to dominate by elites is the best answers.
nobody.really
Oct 8 2019 at 1:17pm
1: In the 1920s, health care costs were low because health care was basically useless. We didn’t even discover penicillin until 1928.
2: The AMA’s clever strategy to suppress mutual aid societies was called the Great Depression, whereby these societies largely went bankrupt ‘cuz the needs of the their members continued even as the dues did not. It was a really effective strategy. Indeed, it was so effective that the AMA seems to have stamped out mutual aid societies in Europe, too. Damn, that’s a powerful lobby.
Call me crazy, but have you considered that people might pursue policies for health care and jobs ‘cuz they want health care and jobs?
Roger McKinney
Oct 10 2019 at 10:02am
No, that’s not true. Healthcare costs were low because the federal government hadn’t given the AMA the power to restrict supply. The AMA didn’t control all medical colleges so there were many and they turned out a large number of doctors who competed on price. The AMA began working to destroy mutual aid societies long before the Great D. The bribed congressmen to give the AMA a monopoly on approving medical schools and then shut down most. With a shortage, doctors no longer competed on price.
“Call me crazy, but have you considered that people might pursue policies for healthcare and jobs ‘cuz they want healthcare and jobs?”
What does that have to do with the motivations behind people wanting greater state power? Your statement is nonsense, but I’ll try to guess at what you might mean. Do you mean that people vote for greater socialism and state power because they think that will give them more jobs and better healthcare? If so, they’re irrational. So what causes them to be irrational? I argue, along with Schoeck, that envy is the cause of irrationality.
Ockham’s razor doesn’t mean it’s good to be ignorant of history so that you can make up the simplest answer and accept it. If the simplest answer flies in the face of historical evidence it’s not a good answer.
Phil H
Oct 10 2019 at 10:14pm
I’ll never understand this “envy” trope. Under a free, capitalist system, people are allowed to want more money/better healthcare/whatever. And yet when Roger M sees a situation in which poor people act because, in his own words
” they think that will give them more jobs and better healthcare”
he says, no, this is illegitimate. It’s “envy”.
I’m not allergic to conservative/capitalist arguments. But the “envy” argument has never made any sense.
Jon Murphy
Oct 7 2019 at 9:05am
I think you highlight an important tension within man’s breast. Adam Smith points out in Theory of Moral Sentiments both this desire for liberty and a desire to dominate (or be dominated via security). We have these warring sentiments within us. It’s one of the reasons he argues philosophical education is so important (although it is hardly a cure-all, as he also states philosophy will struggle “in vain” to moderate these sentiments).
Floccina
Oct 7 2019 at 12:19pm
I think most people want to be free, but they don’t want others to be free. For example they want to be free to spend their money as they wish, but they think people richer than them should be taxed.
Dustin
Oct 7 2019 at 1:31pm
Quick anecdote – during my tour in the US Army, I knew many young soldiers who re-enlisted upon the completion of their initial commitment not out of a sense of duty, but rather a fear of a return to civilian life where they must make very basic decisions, such as where to work/live. Many of my fellow soldiers loved to complain about Army life, but it was “easy” in the sense that you’re not really required to make many decisions. You just kinda show up when and where you’re told to do so, and you had a reliable paycheck and near absolute job security.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 7 2019 at 1:47pm
Interesting point, @Dustin. Under a minimal state, the military would also provide an escape route for those who don’t want freedom. (It does not make the permanent army less dangerous, though!)
Peter
Oct 10 2019 at 10:00am
Same observation during my time and TBH a common enough one but I would point out this behavior is rife in the private sector as well hence the popularity of unions, hourly wages, fixed schedules, etc. It might not be obtainable for many but it is desired by most.
Roger McKinney
Oct 8 2019 at 10:26am
Excellent and very interesting article. The Bible describes an anarcho-capitalist society in the original constitution for Israel, the Torah. Moses was educated in Egypt and trained to rule a command economy in which the pharaoh owned everything. But he gave the Hebrew people a constitution without a human exec or legislature. It had just 613 laws, most of which applied to religious ceremony or morality. Courts were the only governmental institution and they adjudicated only the civil laws such as “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not murder.” Most of the civil laws protect property. Israel abandoned their freedom for a monarchy and tyranny after 400 years. The Bible doesn’t give a reason, but it appears to be what Augustine called the lust to dominate on the part of the leadership. I give the summary in my book “God is a Capitalist: Markets from Moses to Marx” available at Amazon.
I think it’s generous to call worship of the state the desire for security. It could be. But it is more likely to be envy. See Helmut Schoeck’s “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” which I summarize in my book. A lot of things can be used to disguise pure envy, including the desire for security. Few people will admit that their true motivation is envy. Combine envy on the part of the masses with the lust to dominate on the part of the elites and you have the natural chemistry for tyranny.
I think Douglass North shows that tyranny is the most robust form of government throughout history and even today. Most people like tyranny because it keeps the majority equally poor and submissive, which pleases envious people. And as Schoeck points out, the masses don’t envy the elite because they masses have no chance at becoming one of the elite. The elite inflame envy in the masses in order to stay in power and fill their lust to dominate. Envious people are miserable in a free society where their peers can do better than them.
Schoeck points out that only Christianity managed to subdue envy enough to allow for individualism, innovation and therefore economic growth. But that lasted a short time, roughly 200 years each for the Dutch Republic, the UK and the US.
Joseph McDevitt
Oct 8 2019 at 10:46am
The answer for most people is No.What is liberty? taking responsibility for ones self that is the problem this thing we call Liberty is a hard master to work for.
Steven Hankin
Oct 8 2019 at 3:31pm
Even if most Americans prefer security to freedom, they should still want to allow economic freedom for those who would prefer freedom to security. Those who want gov, provided security need to understand that gov. largess requires gov. revenue, and that requires a a lot of GNP, which is largely the result of entrepreneurial activity. That of course means letting, at least, some individuals being free to do their own thing (take risks and receive the benefits of those entrepreneurial risks). That is, this requires that at least some individuals be free to engage economic activities of their choosing!
Roger D McKinney
Oct 8 2019 at 4:35pm
They won’t, though, because the real motivation is envy.
Mark Brady
Oct 9 2019 at 8:28pm
Pierre writes, “The heroic resistance by many Hong Kong residents suggests that all individuals want liberty, an idea inherited from the Enlightenment.”
Maybe, but I doubt if many (any?) of Hong Kong’s heroic demonstrators want to replace their current system of health care with the U.S. model.
Pierre writes, “It seems that, at least in developed countries, a significant proportion of individuals don’t care much about being free; they want security instead. According to a recent opinion poll, for example, a majority of Americans favor “Medicare for all” in the sense of allowing anybody to “buy into” the scheme; perhaps more significantly, only a slight majority of 56% oppose a universal Medicare scheme that would replace private insurance, presumably by banning it.”
Without speculating on people’s ranking of liberty and security, I suggest that the principal reason why a majority of U.S. citizens (residents?) are reported to favor “Medicare for all” and why 44% support a universal Medicare scheme that would replace private insurance is because of their (plausible) belief that it would be cheaper. Think of the horror stories of exorbitant prices paid for patented drugs. Think of the higher salaries that U.S. doctors earn. There’s plenty of evidence that it might well be cheaper.
And FWIW, the UK with its National Health Service (warts and all) does not ban private insurance or private treatment.
Comments are closed.