Point, counterpoint
Concerning freedom: point left
By: Jonathan Cote
Issue date: 11/6/09 Section: Opinions
For our first edition of point-counterpoint, Barrett Bowdre and I want to examine the idea of freedom. There is no term more central to the American lexicon, but its meaning has yet to be fully established. In order to understand why conservatives and liberals disagree on specific policy objectives, the differing conceptions of freedom must be acknowledged.
The best description of the two primary ideas of freedom as I see them was penned by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre: "It is unsurprising that the politics of modern societies oscillate between a freedom which is nothing but a lack of regulation of individual behavior and forms of collectivist control designed only to limit the anarchy of self-interest."Although MacIntyre says too much of either conception would be intolerable, I value the latter over the former.
Individual liberty is obviously of great import, but it can quickly corrode the freedoms of others. Mr. Bowdre will argue that individual liberty is the only way to defeat the tyranny of the majority. His mantra is, do no harm that others will not harm you. Government must not intervene to promote some individuals or groups over others. Avoiding abstraction, the best concrete counterexample to this simplistic position is economic freedom. Mr. Bowdre ignores the fact that taking advantage of opportunities must come at the expense of others. His definition of harm is too narrow. He asserts that we must all be allowed equal chance to succeed on our own merits. Yet traditional measures of merit can be a discriminatory standard because we do not each have equal opportunity to develop our talents. It is no accident that upper level colleges such as Furman are composed of wealthier individuals, and a difference of values fails to fully explain the inequality.
You see, even when different economic classes attend the same K-12 schools, there are different amounts of educational opportunity. For most of us, our parents were able to invest significant amounts of time into our education. We were driven to after-school activities and tutored through tough classes. We had access to the Internet (after it was invented) and a quiet place to work. We were surrounded by books and a supportive educational environment. None of these factors have anything to do with innate intelligence or work ethic, although over time they can build both. These opportunities are often denied to some individuals based on wealth, geography or circumstance. Thus economic freedom, as determined by education and ability is in many ways determined by luck, not merit. Not a very just conception of freedom.
Freedom of economic opportunity is representative of other types of freedom. Mr. Bowdre fails to realize that freedom requires power to exercise, and power is not equally distributed in our society. We do not all have equal endowments, given by luck and nature. Regulation of individual liberty is not slavery - rather, it is necessary if we are to preserve basic freedoms for everyone. After all, just as jobs and resources are scarce, so are political liberties. Freedom is best understood not as a lack of government intervention, but as government action to promote equalization of opportunity. Restriction of individual agency paradoxically breeds freedom for all and prevents its concentration in the hands of a few.
So the next time you hear someone like Jim DeMint talk about the "big tent of freedom," think about what type of freedom they stand for. Is it freedom for the lucky few, or is it freedom of opportunity?
The best description of the two primary ideas of freedom as I see them was penned by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre: "It is unsurprising that the politics of modern societies oscillate between a freedom which is nothing but a lack of regulation of individual behavior and forms of collectivist control designed only to limit the anarchy of self-interest."Although MacIntyre says too much of either conception would be intolerable, I value the latter over the former.
Individual liberty is obviously of great import, but it can quickly corrode the freedoms of others. Mr. Bowdre will argue that individual liberty is the only way to defeat the tyranny of the majority. His mantra is, do no harm that others will not harm you. Government must not intervene to promote some individuals or groups over others. Avoiding abstraction, the best concrete counterexample to this simplistic position is economic freedom. Mr. Bowdre ignores the fact that taking advantage of opportunities must come at the expense of others. His definition of harm is too narrow. He asserts that we must all be allowed equal chance to succeed on our own merits. Yet traditional measures of merit can be a discriminatory standard because we do not each have equal opportunity to develop our talents. It is no accident that upper level colleges such as Furman are composed of wealthier individuals, and a difference of values fails to fully explain the inequality.
You see, even when different economic classes attend the same K-12 schools, there are different amounts of educational opportunity. For most of us, our parents were able to invest significant amounts of time into our education. We were driven to after-school activities and tutored through tough classes. We had access to the Internet (after it was invented) and a quiet place to work. We were surrounded by books and a supportive educational environment. None of these factors have anything to do with innate intelligence or work ethic, although over time they can build both. These opportunities are often denied to some individuals based on wealth, geography or circumstance. Thus economic freedom, as determined by education and ability is in many ways determined by luck, not merit. Not a very just conception of freedom.
Freedom of economic opportunity is representative of other types of freedom. Mr. Bowdre fails to realize that freedom requires power to exercise, and power is not equally distributed in our society. We do not all have equal endowments, given by luck and nature. Regulation of individual liberty is not slavery - rather, it is necessary if we are to preserve basic freedoms for everyone. After all, just as jobs and resources are scarce, so are political liberties. Freedom is best understood not as a lack of government intervention, but as government action to promote equalization of opportunity. Restriction of individual agency paradoxically breeds freedom for all and prevents its concentration in the hands of a few.
So the next time you hear someone like Jim DeMint talk about the "big tent of freedom," think about what type of freedom they stand for. Is it freedom for the lucky few, or is it freedom of opportunity?