Ciao!

On liberalism

02.26.2004

It surprises some that I consider myself a liberal. Of course, in the modern American political lexicon, a "liberal" is someone who supports strong state activism — the so-called welfare state. Another, older definition of "liberal" is someone who opposes strong states, except when it comes to explicitly protecting minorities from majorities. Liberalism, after all, was founded as a philosophical movement that advocated the rights of individuals against both state & society. That's the kind of liberal I am.

It's not that I don't think states have important roles to play. I'm no anarchist. But I think it's important to never lose sight of what states are. The classic definition of a "state" is an organization w/ a monopoly on the means of coercion over a specific territory. The key word is coercion. The power of states — all states — is based on their ability (legitimate or otherwise) to coerce citizens. We pay our taxes because the state punishes us if we don't.

Obviously, there are many things I'm willing to pay taxes for. After all, states are also organizations that provides services: security, infrastructure, schools, etc. As a social being, I'm willing to pay for services & the benefits of social life. But. There's a limit.

I defend the interests of individuals against coercion by either society or the state. That means freedom of speech, the press, religion, and all the rest. But it also means the freedom to live my life as I choose — not as others would dictate. Of course, my free will is limited by the rights of others. I'm free to flail my arms about at will; that freedom ends when my arms strike another.

So. What does this have to do w/ my liberal opposition to the welfare state? Simple. I oppose unnecessary coercion. The argument for the welfare state — as well-meaning as it is — is based on a subtle ideological premise that violates the liberal principle of individual choice. I've no opposition to giving money to social causes (you'd be surprised to know I, too, contribute to causes I find worthwhile). But I'm opposed to anyone — especially the state — determining which causes I must support.

On one hand, I'm skeptical of a large political bureaucracy being efficient. I'm also worried that the state can become "captured" by special interests that'll determine which groups receive state help, and which won't.

But the important point is that state activism rests on coercion. Notice that I don't oppose you giving to any number of worthy causes. But the arguments from most welfare state supporters isn't that giving to worthy causes is good. Their argument is that everyone must give to the same worthy causes they support. This violates freedom of choice.

I may think someone's a heartless Scrooge if they don't give money to starving children. I may even denounce that person, extoll him to change his heart. But. What I can't do is force him to give money against his will. After all, taking money from another w/o consent, by force, is known as theft. Because I can't in good conscience force anyone to agree w/ my philosophical convictions, I can't allow anyone else to force others. Not even the state.

Few welfare liberals would accept a state that collected taxes on behalf of a church. After all, they believe in a separation of church and state. I do, too. But. What separates a religious conviction from a philosophical one? Philosophical ideals aren't much different (if at all) from religious convictions. And just as I don't think a society of 90% Christians has the right to force the other 10% to pay taxes to support their ideals, I don't believe that any society has the right to demand that any minority that opposes some policy should be made to pay.

Some have argued that their liberal beliefs aren't "beliefs" but universal truths (and that my religion analogy doesn't work). But the position that these are universal rights are, themselves, a belief — one bounded by one's personal experience, education, social culture, and other factors. To believe that one holds the absolute truth in what human society must look like is not only egotistical, but also potentially dangerous. Especially if it allows one to condescendingly dismiss anyone with opposing views. In the end, that kind of ideological dogmatism is not for me.

What if someone doesn't support national health care, for example. I think it's more than fair for the state to refuse them medical care if they don't choose to participate in a state medical program. That's a legitimate choice; they prefer not to purchase that service. If you support national health care, I certainly won't stop you from giving as much money as you wish to the program. But I don't think you've the right to force others to support such a program against their will.

Take another example: public education. I support public education, believing state & society have a duty to educate younger generations. But I also support school vouchers — state subsidies to pay for private schools. Why? Because all parents should have a choice as to where their kids are educated. I don't think it's fair that only rich families can send their kids to private school. If the state's empowered to provide for public education, it should also provide every parent the right to decide what kind of schooling their children will enjoy. Again, this is based on the principle of choice.

A third example: pacificism & military spending. While I'm not a pacifist, I don't think states have a right to demand that pacifists pay taxes to support military spending. Of course, I don't think a nation of pacifists has the right to prevent its non-pacifists from defending themselves in the case of foreign invasion, either. But the point is that forcing pacifists to pay taxes to support a state's military is a direct violation of a deep moral conviction of those citizens. It essentially means the state forces pacifists to act as if they weren't pacifists — a violation of freedom of conscience.

And that, in short, is the difference. While I'm not willing to use coercion to change anyone's behavior or beliefs, welfare liberals have little qualms about enrolling the coercive apparatus of the state to force others to change theirs. I may agree w/ many goals of welfare liberalism. But I don't agree w/ the means. When a society or state decides that it can determine what is in the best interest of its citizens, individual choice is sacrificed, and we're on a dangerous path. Too many graves mark the path to paradise on earth for my taste.

What it comes down to is this: I've no right to expect, much less demand, that others act towards me as I would want them to. I can only act towards others as I would have them act towards me.

Posted by Miguel at 05:22 PM

Comments

Posted by: Steph at February 26, 2004 06:56 PM

Posted by: Miguel at February 26, 2004 06:59 PM

Posted by: Steve at February 28, 2004 12:30 PM