Mill vs Pettit
Two major philosophical positions on political and social justice are
libertarianism and republicanism. John Stewart Mill’s On Liberty is
one of the most influential works on libertarianism and Phillip Pettit makes a
strong case for republicanism in his work Republicanism: A Theory of
Freedom and Government. In this paper it will be shown that
libertarianism makes a more consistent and compelling argument for individual
liberty, which in turn promotes social justice.
In order to make a distinction between libertarianism and republicanism, non-interference and non-domination will be examined. Mill describes libertarianism as a form of non-interference, which is the belief that one should be able to do as they please so long as they are not interfering with others, and one should be free from interference by others. Mill has two main arguments on why this type of liberty is so essential, autonomy and individualism. Autonomy, according to Mill, is being able to choose ones goals without interference, and one should be able to pursue the chosen goals without interference. For example, if ones goal is to become a mathematics teacher there should be no outside force obstructing his path in pursuit of becoming a mathematics teacher. Of course, it is assumed that the pursuance of ones goals does not interfere with someone else’s pursuance of their goals. Individualism is important because it promotes progress. If everyone conforms to the common belief then there will be no one to find the downfalls of the common belief. For example, when the Pythagorean mathematician Hippasus of Metapontum discovered the existence of irrational numbers he was thrown overboard to drown at sea. It is easy to see that this is a bad situation because the existence of irrational numbers creates a whole lot of interesting fields of mathematics that further increases humanity’s knowledge of the universe. Therefore, if the majority has the ability to interfere with the minority in order to subdue opposing beliefs, new truths will be left off the table when debating justice or liberty. Another example where individualism is important to consider is during state and federal election cycles. More often than not debates between potential republican nominees are over very similar things and are essentially debating different versions of the same policy. However, if there is one candidate that has very different opinions, if his views are closer to the truth and our constitutional principles but were subdued due to being the minority the public would be worse off for never hearing his opinions. Thus, autonomy and individualism are important facets of liberty.
Mill would
believe there are very few legitimate justifications for government
intervention. Basically, he would only be in favor so long as it promotes
the type of freedom as stated above. If a simplified society is examined,
the type of government intervention that is legitimate is very clear.
Imagine a three-person society governed by a single agency. If two people
were engaging in a voluntary transaction, it would only be legitimate for the
government to interfere if the third person were harmed by the
transaction. If a person is acting alone, the government has no right to
step in and stop the act so long as he is not interfering with the other two
people. Obviously any voluntary transaction that takes
place between all three individuals is allowable. Now imagine if the
three-person society takes place on an island with rough terrain and the three
people living on all different corners of the island. The governing agency
would have a legitimate justification for some sort of taxation that will be
used to pay for a form of transportation to decrease transaction costs between
the individuals, i.e., the government can create a tax on X so that the
efficiency of transactions increases to an equal or greater amount of the
taxes. One last thing that Mill would believe the government is justified
doing is creating a tax on Y to pay for a national defense system. It is
hard to imagine how a defense system would be formed in such a simplified
society, but the point is that a national defense system is one justified role
of the government. Would the government have any right to help the person
whose area of the island is less endowed than the others? The answer is
no if it interferes with the other two citizens. The discussion will
clearly become more complex as the assumptions of the simplified society are
relaxed, but the same basic principles of non-interference apply.
Non-domination as described in Pettit’s work Republicanism: A Theory of
Freedom and Government will be examined. The difference in
non-domination and non-interference is that under non-domination principles one
can be interfered with as long as the interference is not arbitrary. If
the laws that are interfering with the citizens are arbitrary then according to
Pettit, the laws become the instrument of the governing agency’s will. If
this happens we have a regime of an absolute King in which the citizens become
slaves and are entirely deprived of their freedom. (Pettit, 36) Now the
question is who decides on the arbitrariness of an issue and what is arbitrary?
The answer is the officials that are elected by the public through a democratic
process. These officials should not have arbitrary power that is stated
in a proper constitution. These officials should also not be able to pass
any laws that allow one group of citizens to dominate another group of
citizens, or for one group to arbitrarily interfere with another group.
This point arises in one of the initial questions of what is arbitrary.
Pettit says the following:
While the law necessarily involves interference-while law is
essentially coercive-the interference in question is not going to be arbitrary;
the legal authorities will be entitled and enabled to interfere only when
pursuing the common interests of citizens and only when pursuing these in a
manner that conforms to the opinions received among the citizenry.
By this Pettit means laws are not arbitrary as long as the
citizens are not dominated in any form. The inferior persons choice
options should not be narrowed, nor should the interferer change their
judgment. It is also clear that in order to not be arbitrary it must be
accepted amongst the majority of the citizenry, but still within the realm of
the drafted constitution.
From the definitions alone there is not a clear distinction between
non-interference and non-domination, but Pettit gives examples of being
dominated while not being interfered with that paints a clearer picture.
His example of being dominated only is known as the benevolent slave
owner. He claims that if there is a slave that has an owner that allows
them to do as they please they are not technically being interfered with; they
are however, being dominated. This slave is just as free as the slave
with an unkindly master, so therefore according to Pettit freedom requires the
absence of domination, not just the absence of interference.
These two philosophies are very prevalent in the current political climate of
America. Most politicians adhere to Pettit’s definition of republicanism
and some hold to Mill’s definition of libertarianism. There are some clear
overlapping policies endorsed by these politicians and there are also some very
distinct differences. For example, all politicians believe in the basic
freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion
and other things that do not interfere with others, but these freedoms are also
making sure that no group can dominate another. Other freedoms beyond
America’s Bill of Rights can start to become less clear. For example,
both a republican and liberal will be in favor of some taxes in order to pay
for the basic necessities that a government must, or at least traditionally
provide, i.e. roads and a national defense. A republican however, can
claim a government should provide many more things so long as it is not
arbitrary. For example, a libertarian would never believe that it is the
government’s responsibility to provide its citizens with health care, just that
the government doesn’t disallow people to receive health care or that the
government doesn’t interfere with ones pursuit of receiving health
care. A republican on the other hand could claim that insurance
companies and hospitals dominate the citizen’s life in that if the citizen
cannot afford health care they have a higher chance of dying. Then there
is an argument that the government should step in and socialize health
care. Another area in which the libertarian and republican might differ
is legalization of all drugs. A libertarian would say if someone is doing
drug M in their home, and doing this drug does not interfere with the life of
anyone else there is no reason for the government to interfere with this
person’s life. But, a republican could claim that criminalizing drug M is
not arbitrary because it is protecting the citizen from being dominated by a
substance. Furthermore, it decreases the availability of the drug and should
ultimately decrease its usage by the citizens. Another issue these two
philosophies will differ in is the presence of labor unions. A
libertarian would say that as long as the working conditions are came to by a
voluntary agreement, the agreement is just and fair according to the two
parties. A republican would not agree with this because then the employer
will dominate the employee. Thus a labor union will protect the employees
working environment, make sure the employee has a fair wage, make sure the
employer can’t fire the employee in order to hire cheap labor and provide the
employee certain benefits such as health insurance. There are many more
things that a republican would argue for that are beyond the scope the rights
provided by a libertarian.
Now that the differences and similarities have been explained, it will be shown
that libertarianism is a much more consistent view if individual liberty.
The example of the simplified society clearly points out the type of laws and
institutions that a libertarian would be in favor of, but if the same example
is looked at through the republican definition of liberty it gets much more
complicated. As pointed out, the governing agency would still have the
responsibility of forming a tax code that pays for a national defense and a
transportation system for the citizens, the voluntary exchange principle would
be the same, but the example of one person having a less endowed portion of the
island is a bit unclear. As pointed out, the libertarian island would not
expect the government to intervene, but the republican government could claim
it needs to intervene and it is not arbitrary. If one person is less well
off in the three-person society, they are going to be at the whims of the other
two, and in a sense dominated by them. Therefore the government needs to
step in and help them not be dominated. It is unclear how they will help,
but nonetheless the government must take from one or the other citizens, or
both. Since the other citizens are now forced to work for the government
in order to help the less well-off they are being interfered with and dominated
by the government. They are not choosing to help the other, thus they are
being told what to do with their time. Because they are being told what
to do with their time they are disallowed to choose freely how they want to
spend their time and therefore being interfered with. So the government
makes a claim of non-arbitrary interference for the benefit of one citizen, but
now it is dominating and interfering with at least one other citizen. Now
the argument of whose rights of not being dominated are more important must be
had in order to resolve this issue.
If complications
arise in the simplified society many more complications will arise once the
assumptions are relaxed. For example, the labor unions as mentioned above
would cause complications. One can make an argument that if labor unions
are formed then the employees are dominating the employer. Then one must
ask why the employee’s rights are more important than the employers, just
because there are more of them? Furthermore, if we look at past
experience it can be seen that industries with high labor unions are ran
inefficiently. These inefficient industries lower the standard of living
because prices must rise; profits will be lowered, and ultimately if these
industries do not want to go bankrupt there must be some sort of trade
restrictions to stop foreign firms without unions to dominate the unionized
domestic firms. Due to higher prices and more trade restrictions simple
economic models can show the dead weight loss to a society. Furthermore,
as Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction points out, a firm must
have profits in order to invest in research and development in order to have
technological innovations which further increase standard of living. So
now in order to protect the employees, the standard of living of an entire
country is lowered by raising costs, increasing trade restrictions and slowing
down the rate of technological progress. This is just one of the issues a
republican must tackle when they are arguing that non-domination is the best
road to freedom; there are many more issues they must work very hard to prove
that the interference is not arbitrary and that the interference would in fact
create more freedom.
Another problem with Pettit’s non-domination is that it is assumed that one can
be dominated while not being interfered with. The example of the
benevolent slave owner violates the Mill’s principle of autonomy. If a slave
has a benevolent owner, they are not free to pursue their goals without being
interfered with. Using the same example as before, a slave cannot become
a math teacher even if their owner is benevolent to the highest degree, and if
they can become a math teacher, they are not a slave. Therefore the
assumption that non-domination is more important than non-interference is not
coherent with the ideal that Mill presents.
Based on the evidence presented, one must conclude that libertarianism is the
most consistent form of individual liberty. It is a clear and concise way
of defining freedom. It gives everyone equal rights without the chance of
the government picking winners or losers, as in the case of the union
example. Therefore if a nation wants to progress it must promote social
justice through libertarianism.
Sources
- Mill,
J.S, On Liberty
- Pettit,
Phillip. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government.
- Van
Den Berg, Hendrik. International Economics, 1st edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment