Recently I had cause to think of the concept freedom as it relates to economics. Freedom is a motherfucker as concepts go because it more or less falls under that Derridian category of transcendental signified, i.e., it is not clear exactly what's being referred to. Derrida would say something witty like we talk about our talk about, but we can't talk about "freedom as such." He'd say it in French and it'd look cooler and smarter.
The debate that I hear/have around the concept of "freedom" usually comes by way of someone who claims the ideology of Libertarianism. The view goes something like this: freedom should be maximized as a principle. The institution of government does not maximize freedom, in fact it does the opposite - it's constantly telling us what do; it moves our money around in ways we might not like and hence government should be reduced whenever possible.
As I understand this notion of "freedom," it's pretty damn absolute and it's related to a child's idea of freedom: I want pudding all the time and if I can't have pudding all the time, regardless of whether I have eaten my meat, I shall raise bloody hell.
Now to be fair - in theory maximizing freedom sounds well and good - hell, who doesn't want to do what s/he wants to do. But what happens when, say, in the 1960's a black patron wants the freedom to eat where he would like, while a white storeowner wishes to serve only white people - his freedom he believes because it's his establisment? The libertarian argument is simple here: the one who owns the means of production, the one who owns the establishment wins. His freedom trumps the freedom of the black person because of another concept: ownership. This is of course predicated on wealth, often inherited wealth.
Now, in my mind, things are much more complicated at this point. Libertarians often suggest that the only way to actually accomplish a state of FREEDOM is to impose completely deregulated capitalism. History has shown, at least as I see it, that the more deregulated a market is the more it hurts poor people. Now one doesn't have the freedom to be born to whatever economic class they wish. So, there is an element of luck in terms of who wins the Freedom lottery and gets born with a bitchin last name like Rockefellar and who has to sit in the alleyway with Dale Gribble and live off of Alamo beer.
So unless we are starting in an imaginary world where everyone has access equally to everything, the liberatarian concept of Freedom necessarily benefits some at the expense of others. It tends to benifit people with more money who look like me, i.e., white males.
In my view, it just logically follows that at some points we need a governement to redistribute wealth to some degree. Now, wealth tends to go from the poor up, so it's always being redistributed, usually just not in the direction that would be helpful.
More importantly, capitalism as a system has played off of the worst desires in me. I am constantly bombarded with things that are cool. Now, I'm glad I have the freedom to buy these things - but I don't know how wonderful this exercise in freedom is, i.e., I do not feel liberated by most of my consumer practices; there are exceptions. Mostly I feel overwhelmed and a little souldead but very, very entertained. I say this simply to suggest that I want a concept of freedom that is more complex - as David Foster Wallace pointed out constantly satisfying all of one's desires can actually become a kind of slavery. What that concept is or what kind of economics would help bring it about is a hell of a question - hopefully one that I will explore in the future.
All my critiques aside, I do absolutely love the libertarian desire to make vices legal. Vices speak to one's metabolism - Popeye likes Spinach, some people like Scotch, some people some weed. One's metabolism is the way one processes, digests, deals with, the world and it should not be denied, if it can be helped, unless it really fucks over someone else - but then it's sort of out of the category "vice."
More to follow.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA couple of things I noticed immediately--
ReplyDeleteWhile I can't speak for all other [small-'L'] libertarians, I can say that, while I of course like my pudding, I don't mind shelling out for meat[ infrastructure, reasonable national defense--even financial assistance to cripples and old folks]. The meal I can't stomach anymore, however, are the various excrement-based dishes presently served up by our immense and convoluted bureaucracy-- illegal perpetual warfare, drug wars, corrupt over-regulation of foods [no raw milk; no homegrown vegetables], espionage upon and suppression of our own citizens, financial support for gigantic failed corporations with lousy business models and, yes--limitless, unending funds to a lower class that I have come to believe largely perpetuates its OWN poverty.
On that last point, I need to clarify-- to some extent, our entire culture is to blame for the phenomenon I am about to describe. However, change will never come if the pattern is not broken--broken by those who have the most to gain from its breaking.
What I am referring to, of course is a taboo subject, because it is seen as an attack upon culture[s]. I will be direct, and say for the record that this IS an attack on two cultures-- that of poor white folk, and that of poor black folk. Obviously, these are very different cultures; however, they have a common bond: both of them internally enforce a 'self-improvement and education are 'selling out' policy.' For a young, poor black person, a desire to get a university education so often automatically means that [a] he's a 'faggot', and [b] he wants to be white. For a young, poor white person, the same desire often automatically means, [a] again-- 'faggot', and [b] he's too good for his family, his heritage, etc. The more tightly-knit the community, the worse it is.
Factor in a popular culture that [especially for the black community, REVELS IN and perpetuates and GLORIFIES this culture, and, well, damn-- it doesn't matter HOW much taxpayer money you hurl at the problem--it's not getting better.
One final note, as my hand is cramping. I was once a liberal. I was a liberal for exactly as long as it took me to understand that government, and the powerful people that comprise it, will never be content with the power they are granted. All of these various powers, economic and social, are capable of influencing one another. Grant the government power over anything, wait long enough, look again, and you'll find that power being use to squash dissenting ideas. And, to me--once a government is influencing its citizens ideas/ideals rather than the reverse, an intolerable condition has been attained.
A government is basically like a violent attack dog-- it can protect its owner, but when it's not busy doing that it must be kept locked down; otherwise its liable to fuck up the owner's house, the neighbour's house, the neighbour--and the owner himself.
I don't disagree with a lot of your points. I too am against wars of aggression, rabid support for the murder of Palestinians, useless drug wars and corporate welfare. I don't think this makes one liberal or libertarian or anything in particular. It basically just grants one the status of thinking human being, as far as I'm concerned.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of poverty, I think any serious systemic analysis would show that there are many, many more factors than just a self-perpetuating attitude problem. Of course, the cultures you reference do reinforce values that I wish they wouldn't. That does seem like a problem. However, ethically speaking what is the solution you are suggesting? Do we do nothing to help children of poor families? Not only does that seem unethical, I would consider it a grotesque act of violence.
I cannot comment on this post without letting my personal politics color my thoughts. Being a liberal, I do believe freedoms should be extended as much as is possible within the structure of a government. This covers things like legalizing non-addictive drugs and psychotropics, which libertarians agree with and echoing what you mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteWhere I differ is on the benefit of, and need for, some government controls. It's an incredibly simplified and dangerous argument that libertarians and tea-partyers perpetrate. A stripping back of the government and deregulation of the market will lead to a healthier and more prosperous country. I believe this to be inherently false and unfair to the less-fortunate among us, as you suggest.
Simple question: "Where would the country be if far-right or libertarian ideologues shot down Roosevelt's New Deal?"
To echo another topic in this thread: It can be argued that one's level of personal freedom is directly related to the amount of wealth one possesses. So on, at least an economic model, this equation holds truth: Wealth = Freedom. This thought, pushes me towards the belief that redistritubuting wealth has many benefits if, for no other reason, ceasing and repealing the increasing fiscal gap between the ultra wealthy and the rest of the nation.
I agree, once it's accepted that Freedom is connected to wealth, if one truly believed in maximizing Freedom it seems to follow that one would want a society that did not have such a radical imbalance of wealth.
ReplyDelete