Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I think a lot of people think I'm going to make a video about big L Libertarianism. I'm
not, and I hope you're not too disappointed. I sympathize somewhat with Libertarians, though
I'm not one myself anymore. I had my fling with the big L party back in college when
I was briefly county chair, as the previous county chair stepped down to run for office.
I find some of their arguments interesting, and I think the primary appeal is that they're
consistent to an ideology, rather than to issues. Ron Paul, the faux Republican, idealizes
this principle. His inability to be elected largely stems from the fact that he sticks
to his principles, even when they don't represent the views of the mainstream of the Republican
party.
This video is about the "libertarian argument", which goes something like this: "The government
has no right to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes,
places of business or public spaces." I want to be very clear: this isn't a fallacy by
itself. Personal freedom is a universally good thing. I just want to discuss when I
find it particularly unconvincing.
First, let's start with a case study. Imagine the presidential candidates are on the way
to a conference together and the plane crash lands on a distant island. The candidates
are the only survivors, and they have to forage and fish for food, remain on guard for ships
or airplanes on the horizon, and also the usual housekeeping chores, so they divide
up the tasks. Let's say Romney is in charge of fishing, Newt the cooking and foraging,
Santorum keeps watch for planes and ships, and Ron Paul is in charge of gathering firewood
and maintaining the latrine and fire. Only Ron Paul decides he doesn't really want to
do that. He's decided that he'd rather build a hammock and staring at the palm trees. The
group get together and attempt to persuade him, explaining the danger of starvation or
the missed rescue attempt that would come from someone else covering his duties. Ron
Paul insists that he has no interest in cooperating. The rest of the group agree that if he doesn't
share in the work, he should receive much less food. Ron Paul explains that he would
rather be a little hungry than help. At that point, the group faces a choice. They can
force him under duress to comply, say NO food if he doesn't do a bare minimum at his job,
or threaten to beat him up if he doesn't do his job, and that forced compliance would
benefit the community but hurt Ron's personal liberty. They can respect his wishes, and
the community suffers at the cost of respecting Ron Paul's increased liberty. They can redraw
the responsibilities allowing less free time for everyone so that Ron Paul can free-load.
Put yourself in their shoes. It would be very tempting to use threats to motivate your fellow
community member. But you may want a day off later, and the community would remember how
quick you were to be punitive against the slacker. Every choice you make has some consequence.
Either the community suffers or the individual suffers. Feel free to share your own preference
in comments.
Let's redirect this scenario to the real world we all live in. Suppose that the community
decides that the cost of smoking is too high. They could completely outlaw it, and that
would benefit the community, but at a cost to liberty of individual smokers. Instead,
we levy punitive taxes, the so-called sin taxes, to offset the cost to the society of
the individual's harmful choices. How is smoking harmful to society? It increases medical costs
born by the health care system, it decreases productivity, making a group less competitive,
it creates an industry dedicated to promoting harmful behaviors.
So we always have a tension between personal liberty and social costs. When does personal
liberty always trump social cost? I would propose in cases of civil rights: equality,
rule of law, privacy, right to protest, right to seek redress, freedom from repression and
right to participate in government, for example. Our freedoms are dependent on these first
generation rights, because without them it's too easy to silence dissidents or political
minorities. It's in our second generation rights that things get more complicated. We
all value our personal freedoms, but society also values community obligations. From this
we get the highly controversial ideas like public smoking bans, the recreational drug
wars, and Roe vs. Wade. Let's look at three such issues:
1. The US Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare individual mandate
The US takes a lot of flak from other countries for not having a robust public healthcare
system. President Obama made an effort to improve that situation, controversial though
it is, in a bill that included, among other things, a mandate that every individual has
to have medical coverage. This law is under review now by the US Supreme Court and it
may be judged Un-Constitutional. It violates the liberty of individuals who must bear the
cost of medical insurance. This hits those who are just above the cut-off for government
support the hardest, the lower middle class where insurance may be a significant burden.
Let's look at the societal costs, though. When someone without insurance develops a
serious illness, they typically go to an emergency room for care and they enter the system without
any way to pay for their care. That usually results in a cost being passed to other users
of the facility or to the healthcare system in general.
2. Helmet laws Some states, but not all, require that motorcycle
or bicycle riders wear protective headgear. This again represents a trade off position.
The cost to personal liberty is that you can be fined or jailed for your risky behavior.
The cost to society can be measured in insurance premium increases, as any motorist involved
in a accident with a bike rider has a higher chance of being judged responsible for a fatality.
The fatality itself represents a social cost at multiple levels. Traffic delays, the cost
and availability of emergency medical care and transport, life insurance premiums, emotional
trauma of bystanders. When the community legislates safety laws, whether they be about cell phone
use while driving, seatbelt laws, or mandatory fire inspections, those laws are about preventing
people from making risky decisions that affect the rest of that community. That's not to
say that we have to follow the slippery slope to every person being forbidden to take the
slightest risk, requiring that we all sit inside all day twiddling our thumbs and thinking
clean thoughts. Instead, we try to strike a balance between what's fair for the individual
and also fair for the community.
3. Raw milk I bring this one up because I have been surprised
by the zeal of people who oppose restrictions on raw milk sales. The issues are nearly identical
to those of helmet laws. The community gets to decide what's most fair in balancing personal
and social costs. In some communities, that means allowing farmer direct sales. In others,
a complete ban, or complete permission within a licensing framework. The personal liberty
to drink something that some people believe has magical health benefits have to be weighed
against the increased chance of outbreaks of communicable diseases that hurt or kill,
especially since those who are injured are often children.
I think a lot of people assume that when I say that something is risky or harmful that
I'm necessarily suggesting we make it illegal. All it really means is a more complex cost-benefit
analysis. People always hate it when their rights are infringed. But they also hate it
when the selfish actions of one or two people result in cost to the entire community. The
unintended externalities are often hard to see in these complex issues, but unless you
are the sole occupant of a distant island, the choices you make always affect the people
around you.
Thanks for watching.