I've been thinking about it, and I guess I am Libertarian in some core ways, but I think the party is stupid. In the course of thinking about politics and ideology I've come to this conclusion: money is the basic unit of liberty in the US today. Maybe that's more obvious to everyone else than it was to me at the time, but I think its definitely true. Money is what gives you freedom. Its with money that you have the power to create, build, buy, grow, eat, work, contribute to society, etc. There are other ways for all of these things to happen, but they are all precluded by money. Money is the basis by which we can accomplish anything on our own in America today. I know that people have been talking about the "almighty dollar" and things like that for a long time. But this isn't about what motivates us, its about freedom, liberty. Many people find it distasteful to say that money is the basic unit of liberty. They feel like there should be something more ephemeral, something more ideological. But it seems to me that in our capitalist society there is no more basic form of liberty. Some would say that our votes are our most basic form of liberty. But again, I disagree. Our votes let us shape the way that our liberty will be infringed or expanded upon. Take away my vote but give me money (in our society) and I can still accomplish things on my own. Take away my money but give me my vote and I can't do anything but vote. Similarly, some people would say that privacy and personal choice are the basic form of liberty. Again, take away my privacy but leave me money and I can do things. Take away my money and give me privacy and personal choice and I can't accomplish anything. In fact, without money I quickly lose privacy and probably personal choice. Money is the means by which all the liberties we prize are afforded us. And therefore money is the basic form of liberty.
This has given me a somewhat different perspective on things like taxes and welfare. Taxes are the government taking away some of my liberty in order to provide me with services. In return the government protects my liberty from being taken in a greater degree by others. Its a trade off, but obviously its something I'm willing to pay for (otherwise I'd leave. Since I have money I have the liberty to do so). Welfare, on the other hand, is the government taking away some of my liberty so someone else can have their own. This is incredibly altruistic and idealistic. But is it right? Is it the government's place to see that everyone has some degree of liberty, even at the cost of infringing upon another citizen's liberty? My initial response is no, that government programs like welfare are unethical. My money is my liberty. My money affords me the opportunity to give liberty to others by sharing with them. If I am a good and ethical person I should give from my excess to those in need so that we can all enjoy liberty. However, I should not be forced to, nor should I be told how much of my own liberty I must give away.
On further thought, however, I find a line hard to draw. If I should be able to choose whether I give up my liberty for social equality, why can't I choose whether to give up my liberty for the government's protection (taxes). The logical conclusion from my previous line of thinking is that taxes should be voluntary and everyone should buy, whether from the government or elsewhere, whatever protection, social justice, and anything else that they feel is beneficial. Social equality is certainly beneficial. Is it as beneficial as the government's protection of my liberty? If so then I should not mind paying for it. If not then why not? And at what point do we draw the line? I am forced to concede to the tyranny of the majority. The only logical and ethical way to decide what is important enough to be required of people and what should be voluntary is to have everyone vote and go with the majority opinion. I can't think of another way which is viable in practice and not oppressive to the majority by a minority, which seems worse than the opposite. So now we decide by voting what liberty we, as a society, are willing to give up. This gives more power to the vote, which in turn gives even more power to money. Now money has become not only my liberty, but if I can use my money to influence the way others vote (which I obviously can) then my money has become a means by which I affect the liberty of everyone in the country. My money can buy me even more power when applied to the vote.
In summary, money is the basic unit of liberty in America today because it is the means by which we can accomplish anything and the basis for all other liberties. The government's forced taking of my money through taxes is a sacrifice of my liberty to gain some other end. Whether this end is worth the price paid cannot be left to the individual because it is impossible in practice and unfair to let each individual decide what government programs they will pay for. So we bow to the majority's interpretation of cost and benefit. And this gives my money even more power, including the power to manipulates others' liberty. In America today, money is the means whereby liberty is granted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I basically agree, but I think money is more power related than liberty related. Anyone is basically free to do anything, but money is the fundamental unit of achieving whatever it is you want. Good post though.
I see your point, Jack. I think this raises a fundamental question about liberty, though. Which is kinda what I was getting at anyway. Is liberty the freedom to be allowed to do what you want, or the ability to actually accomplish what you want? Is the first useful at all without the second?
Liberty has to be the freedom to do what you want, not the means. The Bill of Rights guarantees "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I think it would be a disaster if this was interpreted that everyone is guaranteed the means to do what they want. For example, I would love a private jet to have the liberty to fly from here to Colorado to Michigan to GCC and back, but I don't think the constitution gives me that much liberty...
Barnabas- CHange it to empowered then. Money is still power though, you're telling me I can't coerce you to run through campus naked for $10,000?
Okay, so I can agree that maybe money is not itself liberty. But I stand by the point that money is the means whereby our liberty is granted. And therefore if you take away my money you are taking away my liberty. I could be allowed to do whatever I want, but without money I can hardly do anything. So taking money from me takes away my ability to accomplish what I have the liberty to do. And giving me money allows my liberties to become actions that I enjoy.
In our society, we've insisted that personal liberty is the fundamental right of all people. In order to impose that principal, and ensure that no-one suffers the dehumanizing effects of abject resourceless poverty, we agree through legislation to some degree of welfare.
Welfare is indeed unethical in a Randian sense, but not viewed in this light. It is our responsibility as members of a society that affirms the necessity of liberty for all people to help provide it for those who momentarily are in need.
This does not in any way mean our welfare system isn't broken, ridiculous, and vastly in need of reform. Only that the basic fundamental principal of state welfare is not unethical.
"It is our responsibility as members of a society that affirms the necessity of liberty for all people to help provide it for those who momentarily are in need"
I agree completely. But is it ethical for the government to force us to do everything we are responsible for? Should the government enforce certain ethics? Or is it up to each individual in society to take care of their own responsibilities? And, furthermore, if the majority of a society has to be forced to behave ethically is that a good society? Is that the kind of society we should be happy with, or should we work for a society where the average person is invested and interested in doing what is good and right for the society? I think that these types of societies can exist, but that's the subject of an entire post -- which I will post sometime soon.
Here is my problem with this all: Your equation of liberty with money is only possible when the idea of liberty is ripped from its grounding. Liberty is not some obvious good in itself, nor is its regular synonym, freedom. The mistake that you are making is two fold:
a) You are elevating a tool to the status of an end. Liberty, your starting point, has unfortunately long been misconcieved of as an end in itself; an unfettered, unqualified moral good. Accompanying this detatched form of liberty is always an implicit judgment that having liberty is better than not having liberty (that is the consequence of considering something a moral good). The problem is, liberty always begs the questions “Liberty to what?” “Liberty of what?” “Liberty for what?” In other words, it is incomplete by its nature, hence cannot be an end. It is always pointing to something else that it helps facilitate which is not intrinsic to itself. By equating money, then, with liberty-as-it-is-commonly-concieved, you are making the same error. Money is at best a tool, not some end in itself. By making it an end in itself, you are making (either implicitly or explicitly) a moral claim about the value of wealth and the status of the one to whom that wealth belongs. I won’t even go into the problems associated with that (both functional and ethical ones). Now, your hypothesis doesn’t necessarily entail all of the above, but your talk about freedom and taxes does.
b) You are replacing a thick tool with a thin one. Money is a material tool, liberty is a cultural tool. If we accept that tools always point to something else that they help facilitate which is not intrinsic to themselves, then we would have to say that insofar as money and liberty are equitable, the horizons of our affections and claims are limited to the material. The implications there are huge. We no longer, for instance, have a claim to religious freedom, only to acts or instances of religiousity. We no longer have a claim to speech, only to particular speech acts. In other words, it recasts some very basic features of society by limiting our tools to the material. The moral, the ethical, the good, the responsible, the equitable, the just exist in the realm of culture. Material tools just can’t get at that.
Human freedom has always been linked to promotion of and participation in the good. What has happened in the last several centuries has been a creeping progression towards understanding human freedom as a self-contained good. If, however, we understand freedom and liberty in the classical, thick sense of it, then we cannot possible confuse it or its aims with the material.
To quote Russell Crow’s famous line from Gladiator: “Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?”
Post a Comment