By
Josh Sager
In politics and in debates over social issues, we
often encounter the word “liberty”, or “individual rights” in reference to
arguments over what society should regulate and what it has no right to decide
on. With such a commonly used argument, one would think that there would be a
reasonably high level of consistency in the definitions of the concepts used in
the arguments. Unfortunately, there are two fundamental flaws to the invocation
of “liberty” in an argument that often cause different points of view to be
difficult to reconcile. “Liberty” often has a different definition based upon
the political system or even personal political party affiliation within a
single political system.
What
is “Liberty”?
The first flaw in invoking liberty in an argument is
that there is no set definition as to what liberty actually consists of when
put into practice. Some people believe that liberty is the ability to have
absolute control over your own actions, as well as their corresponding
consequences, and no responsibility for the actions of others. Other people
hold that liberty is the freedom to live in a society with the guarantee of
vital services and rights. In addition to these two definitions of “liberty” we
encounter dozens of different definitional permutations that people of various
viewpoints hold to be true; as nobody can accurately quantify the meaning of
the term “liberty” many arguments that are based upon personal liberties are
not easy to reconcile when they are made from different viewpoints
“We all declare for
liberty, but in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing. With
some the word liberty means for each man to do as he pleases with himself and
the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men
to do as they please with other men, and the products of other men's labor.
Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things called by the same
name liberty.”
--Ron
Paul--
Examples of where the different definitions of
liberty can create difficult situation are common in our society; one example
of different definition of liberty clashing is the debate over “home-schooling”
or “un-schooling”. Parent who do not wish to enroll their children in public or
private schools demand the “liberty” to make choices for their children and
their family. Those who are against non-traditional education seek to
“liberate” children from the untenable situation where they are not receiving a
proper education, often with severe future consequences. One side defines
liberty as the ability to control one’s own actions regardless of others in
society’s views while the other side defines liberty as the ability of children
to receive a good education regardless of their family background; either
position is arguable under the definition of “liberty” that is presented to the
other, but at the same time, the concept of “liberty” means two completely
different things.
The second, and most significant, flaw inherent to
invoking liberty in an argument is that people of differing opinions often
disagree upon where one person’s personal liberty ends and the rights of others
begin. Giving a type of liberty to one
party has been shown to, at times, infringe upon the “liberties” of other
parties. Due to the tradeoff inherent in granting liberty to one side, society
must decide which group’s liberty should be protected at the expense of the
other.
“The
shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's for which the sheep thanks the
shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the
destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a
definition of liberty.”
--Abraham
Lincoln—
Virtually every argument that invokes “liberty” has
some degree of exchange involved in it. The classic example of a societal
choice in America that restricts “liberty” to some but give it to others is
segregation. In the segregation fight, the federal government interceded on the
behalf of African Americans in order to remove not only state sponsored
segregation but also private segregation practices (lunch counters, busses,
etc.). While only a small, bigoted, fringe of the population would disagree
with the removal of the Jim Crow laws, there are those who argue that
businesses should have remained free to segregate. Those who hold this view
believe that in order to increase liberty for African Americans, the federal
government infringed upon the “liberty” of the individual to control their own
property. While I, like a majority of Americans, disagrees with this argument,
it is still a valid argument because technically the business owners were
restricted from controlling their own operations.
In the divide demonstrated by the segregation
example, we see the fundamental questions that are involved in the concept of
“Liberty”. If liberty has no one meaning, then how can it be used to justify a
position during an argument? If either action or inaction can change the
balance of “liberty” between two parties, then what is the proper action for
society/government? Does the government step in to redress imbalances and if it
does, which version of “liberty” is the government to protect? The different
answers of these questions are part of the fundamental differences between the
various political ideologies.
Political
Ideology and “Liberty”
At the core of each dominant political ideology is a
different version of the concept of “liberty” that leads to wildly different
results when it comes to governing. In the following section, I describe the views
definitions of “liberty” as well as the policy outcomes caused by this
definition inherent to each of many purist political ideologies. The purist
views are not universally held by member of each ideology, as many citizens are
moderate or conflicted in their views, but they act as a generalized picture of
what the party as a whole believes.
Left Wing:
Progressive (“Liberal”) Ideology
The progressive economic ideology is characterized
by a strong social contract that allows for high levels of equality of
opportunity and a strong social safety net. The promotion of equality and high
levels of public services are performed by a large federal government and
funded through high levels of taxation. Countries with strong progressive
movements, the best examples of which are the Scandinavian countries, often
have nationalized health care, a high quality of public education, and higher
levels of social spending than other countries of similar demographics and GDP.
Progressivism may sometimes be denigrated as “tax and spend” by its detractors
(and this characterization is somewhat true) but in many cases, the government
produces results more efficiently and less expensively than decentralized
private providers.
Progressive societies focus upon the advancement of the
lower tiers of society, paid for primarily by those who can afford to pay a
little more. In a progressive society, tax codes tax the rich at a higher
percentage than the poor under the belief that they can afford to give back to
society more.
“Here is my principle:
Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American
principle.”
--Franklin
D. Roosevelt--
The progressive social ideology is one where
individual social rights are respected but there is a great focus upon the
social good. Progressives are likely to support individual freedoms that do not
have negative social externalities (such as abortion, gay marriage, the right
to free speech, etc.) but often support restrictions on actions that do have
negative externalities (gun ownership, pollution, abuses of workers, etc.).
Progressive ideals are intended to maximize the social good, while paying less
attention to the individual good, thus any action that produces negative social
outcomes is more likely to be regulated or prohibited than in other ideologies.
“In our personal
ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political
progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people.”
--Franklin
D. Roosevelt--
As conceptualized by F.D.R. in the above quote, progressive
ideals are based around the concept that everybody has the right to control
their private lives but any action that affects society as a whole is the
business of society. Personal “liberty” in progressivism is the ability to live
in society with some degree of certainty as to the provision of basic service
(food, housing, work, education) at the expense of paying into the system if
you succeed; personal rights are protected for the individual, but any action
that affects society is potentially regulated by society. Liberty to a
progressive is not a disconnection from social obligations and taxes but rather
an ideal that lives in-between the balance of personal rights and social
responsibilities. Taxes are higher in progressive countries because the
government does more to benefit the population in terms of services it
provides. As certain services are guaranteed to everybody and certain taxes are
expected of everybody, there is no opt out for goods and services in a
progressive society; essentially, if you don’t wish to use the public education
system or government-run health care option, you are free to purchase a private
good, but you will still pay into the system as though you were benefitting
from the public services.
At its extreme, the left wing progressive ideology
becomes one of several varieties of socialism or communism. In an ideal
socialist system, society takes precedent over the individual but everybody is
considered to be equal in society and entitled to a certain set of goods as a
member of society; all private property is considered public, and people are
expected to work together to achieve the maximum social good. The “elites” in
society (capitalists, investors, executives, landlords, etc.) are seen as the
oppressive influence that keeps control over the working class through money.
By removing all private goods, the socialist attempts to remove the control of
the rich over the worker and thus increase the freedom of the individual. As
there is no private property in a socialist system, there is no corresponding
“liberty” defined in relation to economic choices.
“The theory of
Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”
--Karl
Marx--
As a far more extreme version of progressivism,
individual rights are heavily constrained if they act in detriment to the
general social welfare. Individual “liberty” is seen as the right to live and
work in equality with all others in society, without the oppressive influence
of the elite. All in society have the same rights and responsibilities, thus
the socialist sees society as “liberated” from the socioeconomic stratification
and the imbalances of power inherent to other political systems.
Right Wing:
Regressive (”Conservative”) Ideology
The regressive economic ideology is characterized by
a weak social contract and a high level of individual rights with a
correspondingly low level of social rights. The guiding principle of the
regressive ideology is that in the absence of government, worthy individuals prosper
and can buy the goods that they need without having to pick up after the free
riders. Many right wing regressives refer to their ideology as “ruggedly
individualistic” in that the individual is not seen as an extension of society;
everybody is an individual and has very little support from society while on
the other hand has few social responsibilities. Regressive economic policies
focus upon deregulating markets and allowing the free market to rule the
economic landscape. Virtually every social service and public good is
privatized under the ideal that private citizens can purchase the goods that
they choose to and not those that they feel that they don’t need; those who
fail to purchase a necessary good (Food, shelter, medical care, etc.) from a private
source have little to no recourse if they need a good and cannot afford it. The
only public services that the regressive government provides to the population
are national defense and law enforcement, as those are the only ones that they
believe
“Government
"help" to business is just as disastrous as government persecution...
the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by
keeping its hands off.”
--Ayn
Rand--
Regressive social policy is as individualistic as it
economic ideology in theory, but in practice, religion and social prejudice
often overshadows the concepts of individual freedom. An issue such as gun
control illustrates the regressive right wing ideology on social issues in its
purest form: The individual right to bear arms reigns supreme and society has
no right to regulate what individuals purchase with their own resources. Each
person is an individual and thus, while they are not prohibited from owning a
gun, they are responsible for their actions with said gun if they use it to
infringe upon another’ personal rights. While the gun control example gives the
regressive ideal for social issues, some specific issues such as gay marriage,
abortion and racial/gender equality have caused the American right wing to sway
significantly from the purist view of individual rights.
“Civilization is the
progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public,
ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free
from men.”
--Ayn
Rand--
As articulated by Ayn Rand, a right wing regressive
thinker, the regressive ideals of “liberty” are based almost entirely around
personal rights and responsibilities, disconnected from social responsibility
and support. “Liberty” to a regressive is to have virtually no tax burden or
regulation by a government authority either in social or economic arenas, while
at the same time having little to no support from society in return. To a right
wing regressive, a liberated society is one where individuals operate without
outside intervention by the government and are not held responsible for the
actions and safety of others in society.
At its most extreme, the regressive right wing
becomes classified as Anarcho-libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. For Anarcho-libertarians,
the state is seen as universally oppressive and is shrunk to the point of
non-existence. “Liberty” is seen as the freedom from all external interference
from aggregations of power and the promotion of absolute personal control over
one’s life; taxes are seen as theft to a believer of this ideology.
Anarcho-libertarians believe that individual interactions are able to sustain
society and that centralized control is unnecessary, thus they consider all taxes,
regulations and laws to by tyrannical. While there has yet to be a modern
country that has functioned under an Anarcho-libertarian ideology, the end
results of Anarcho-libertarianism can be seen in countries without law or
government, such as Somalia. While Somalia was rendered lawless through war and
a social collapse rather than a concerted ideology, it illustrates a society
that exists as an Anarcho-libertarian model; there are no social programs or
services other than community organizations and volunteer charities while at
the same time there are no taxes levied onto the population.
“It is curious that
people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus
organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the
exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for
necessarily demagogic appeals for votes. If individuals do not know their own
interests in many cases, they are free to turn to private experts for guidance.
It is absurd to say that they will be served better by a coercive, demagogic
apparatus.”
--Murray
N. Rothbard--
As individual rights are seen as absolute in an
Anarcho-libertarian system, believers in this ideology define “liberty”
entirely under its negative definition. Negative liberty is the freedom from
restriction by the state (as opposed to positive liberty, which is freedom
relating to having access to certain resources), thus the Anarcho-libertarian
“state” does little to redress inequality in its population. The protections of
personal liberty between individuals are left entirely up to the market and
voluntary relationships formed between individuals; for example, if a business
wants to segregate its customers by race or gender, they have that rights and
the customers have the right not to attend that particular business.
Authoritarianism:
Theocratic, Corporatist and Fascist Ideology
“Liberty” in an authoritarian system of government,
whether it is fascist, corporatist or theocratic in its centralized power
structure, is entirely defined by the faction in power. In an autocracy, those
in power define word so as to control the population. The most famous example
of the use of language to limit a population is that of the George Orwell book
“1984”, where an autocracy uses “doublespeak” and redefinition of words to control
the population (This book is the genesis of terms such as “doublespeak” and
“Big Brother”). If the autocracy defines “liberty” as doing everything that the
leaders dictate, then that is the party ideology; in this, “liberty” is both
more defined than in other political models, as it has a defined meaning, yet
meaningless because it’s definition is not natural, rather dictated by edict.
If those in charge of
our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and
television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They
will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.
--Howard
Zinn--
The method of defining the term “liberty” in an
autocracy is dependent upon the type of autocracy that is defining the term. In
fascism or corporatism, the autocratic leadership determines the party line on
what “liberty” is defined as and hands down this definition to the people. Often,
“liberty” is defined in a way that supports the dominant power structure and thus
precludes any rebellion on the part of the people in order to obtain true
“liberty” (whatever that actually is). In a theocracy, rather than the ruling
party, the religious texts, dogma, or leaders determine the meaning of
“liberty”. “Liberty” is defined within the laws of the religion rather than any
secular authority. There are numerous examples of how religion attempts to
define “liberty” in society but the two best modern examples are Islamic Sharia
law and Christian religious fundamentalism. In Islamic Sharia, “liberty” is
defined under interpretation of the Koran, and used to justify the restriction
of women and homosexuals; “liberty” is not considered universal but rather
dependent upon the characteristics of the individual. Regardless of the religion
that is dominant in the theocracy, the pattern remains that “liberty” is
defined in-between the constraints of the religious edicts present in the
religion.
“In every country and
in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance
with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
--Thomas Jefferson--
Jefferson’s quote directly addresses the threat to “liberty”
(or his definition thereof) that religion poses. According to him, religion
infiltrates government and then restricts the liberties of the non-believers to
conform to the ideals of the believers; it is this phenomenon that has been
seen in all current religious law based societies as well as some secular
societies. In the USA, homosexuals wish for the “liberty” to marry as
heterosexuals do, but religious Christians seek to restrict the “liberty” of
the homosexuals because they define liberty within the conformity of their
religious beliefs.
Conclusion
Due to the inability of people to agree upon the fundamental
definition of the concept of “liberty” many political arguments are born. Different
political ideologies see the “liberty” of one side as infringing upon that of
another and thus a debate begins over which “liberty” is more vital. The “sheep/wolf”
analogy that President Lincoln used in his quote is perfect in the context of
this argument in that the “liberties” of each side are dependent upon the lack
of “liberties” of the other side: Does the wolf have the “liberty” to prey on
the weaker sheep or the sheep the “liberty” to live unmolested by the wolf? Do
corporations have the right to make massive profits while polluting the world
or do the citizens of the world have the “liberty” of a clean environment? Do
the rich citizens of the USA have the “liberty” to keep all of the money that
they earn or do they have the responsibility to give back to society in order
to increase the “liberty” and opportunity of the poor? It is these fundamental questions
of liberty that define our political parties and drive the political debates of
our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment