I think a lot of people think I'm going to make a video about big L Libertarianism.
I'm not, and I hope you're not too disappointed.
I sympathize somewhat with Libertarians, though I'm not one myself anymore.
I had my fling with the big L party back in college when I was briefly county chair, as
the previous county chair stepped down to run for office.
I find some of their arguments interesting, and I think the primary appeal is that they're
consistent to an ideology, rather than to issues.
Ron Paul, the faux Republican, idealizes this principle.
His inability to be elected largely stems from the fact that he sticks to his principles,
even when they don't represent the views of the mainstream of the Republican party.
This video is about the "libertarian argument", which goes something like this: "The government
has no right to tell people what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own homes,
places of business or public spaces."
I want to be very clear: this isn't a fallacy by itself.
Personal freedom is a universally good thing.
I just want to discuss when I find it particularly unconvincing.
First, let's start with a case study.
Imagine the presidential candidates are on the way to a conference together and the plane
crash lands on a distant island.
The candidates are the only survivors, and they have to forage and fish for food, remain
on guard for ships or airplanes on the horizon, and also the usual housekeeping chores, so
they divide up the tasks.
Let's say Romney is in charge of fishing, Newt the cooking and foraging, Santorum keeps
watch for planes and ships, and Ron Paul is in charge of gathering firewood and maintaining
the latrine and fire.
Only Ron Paul decides he doesn't really want to do that.
He's decided that he'd rather build a hammock and staring at the palm trees.
The group get together and attempt to persuade him, explaining the danger of starvation or
the missed rescue attempt that would come from someone else covering his duties.
Ron Paul insists that he has no interest in cooperating.
The rest of the group agree that if he doesn't share in the work, he should receive much
less food.
Ron Paul explains that he would rather be a little hungry than help.
At that point, the group faces a choice.
They can force him under duress to comply, say NO food if he doesn't do a bare minimum
at his job, or threaten to beat him up if he doesn't do his job, and that forced compliance
would benefit the community but hurt Ron's personal liberty.
They can respect his wishes, and the community suffers at the cost of respecting Ron Paul's
increased liberty.
They can redraw the responsibilities allowing less free time for everyone so that Ron Paul
can free-load.
Put yourself in their shoes.
It would be very tempting to use threats to motivate your fellow community member.
But you may want a day off later, and the community would remember how quick you were
to be punitive against the slacker.
Every choice you make has some consequence.
Either the community suffers or the individual suffers.
Feel free to share your own preference in comments.
Let's redirect this scenario to the real world we all live in.
Suppose that the community decides that the cost of smoking is too high.
They could completely outlaw it, and that would benefit the community, but at a cost
to liberty of individual smokers.
Instead, we levy punitive taxes, the so-called sin taxes, to offset the cost to the society
of the individual's harmful choices.
How is smoking harmful to society?
It increases medical costs born by the health care system, it decreases productivity, making
a group less competitive, it creates an industry dedicated to promoting harmful behaviors.
So we always have a tension between personal liberty and social costs.
When does personal liberty always trump social cost?
I would propose in cases of civil rights: equality, rule of law, privacy, right to protest,
right to seek redress, freedom from repression and right to participate in government, for
example.
Our freedoms are dependent on these first generation rights, because without them it's
too easy to silence dissidents or political minorities.
It's in our second generation rights that things get more complicated.
We all value our personal freedoms, but society also values community obligations.
From this we get the highly controversial ideas like public smoking bans, the recreational
drug wars, and Roe vs. Wade.
Let's look at three such issues:
1.
The US Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare individual mandate
The US takes a lot of flak from other countries for not having a robust public healthcare
system.
President Obama made an effort to improve that situation, controversial though it is,
in a bill that included, among other things, a mandate that every individual has to have
medical coverage.
This law is under review now by the US Supreme Court and it may be judged Un-Constitutional.
It violates the liberty of individuals who must bear the cost of medical insurance.
This hits those who are just above the cut-off for government support the hardest, the lower
middle class where insurance may be a significant burden.
Let's look at the societal costs, though.
When someone without insurance develops a serious illness, they typically go to an emergency
room for care and they enter the system without any way to pay for their care.
That usually results in a cost being passed to other users of the facility or to the healthcare
system in general.
2.
Helmet laws Some states, but not all, require that motorcycle
or bicycle riders wear protective headgear.
This again represents a trade off position.
The cost to personal liberty is that you can be fined or jailed for your risky behavior.
The cost to society can be measured in insurance premium increases, as any motorist involved
in a accident with a bike rider has a higher chance of being judged responsible for a fatality.
The fatality itself represents a social cost at multiple levels.
Traffic delays, the cost and availability of emergency medical care and transport, life
insurance premiums, emotional trauma of bystanders.
When the community legislates safety laws, whether they be about cell phone use while
driving, seatbelt laws, or mandatory fire inspections, those laws are about preventing
people from making risky decisions that affect the rest of that community.
That's not to say that we have to follow the slippery slope to every person being forbidden
to take the slightest risk, requiring that we all sit inside all day twiddling our thumbs
and thinking clean thoughts.
Instead, we try to strike a balance between what's fair for the individual and also fair
for the community.
3.
Raw milk I bring this one up because I have been surprised
by the zeal of people who oppose restrictions on raw milk sales.
The issues are nearly identical to those of helmet laws.
The community gets to decide what's most fair in balancing personal and social costs.
In some communities, that means allowing farmer direct sales.
In others, a complete ban, or complete permission within a licensing framework.
The personal liberty to drink something that some people believe has magical health benefits
have to be weighed against the increased chance of outbreaks of communicable diseases that
hurt or kill, especially since those who are injured are often children.
I think a lot of people assume that when I say that something is risky or harmful that
I'm necessarily suggesting we make it illegal.
All it really means is a more complex cost-benefit analysis.
People always hate it when their rights are infringed.
But they also hate it when the selfish actions of one or two people result in cost to the
entire community.
The unintended externalities are often hard to see in these complex issues, but unless
you are the sole occupant of a distant island, the choices you make always affect the people
around you.
Thanks for watching.