Hi Kevin,
I echo Billy's praise. I think this is some excellent thinking. However, I feel there are a few critical points that you gloss over. I don't know whether you have answers for these, or simply haven't considered them yet, so I'd like to understand how you'd respond (even if you don't have time to do so in full).
I am for a radical deconstruction of central planning, programs, practices, and regulations not because I am a Libertarin Utopian but because what we have now is so bloated that it has sucked the life and love out of communities. I might even venture to say that I am using libertarianism because it is the philosophy that needs to be applied today to unwind the inevitible build-up that occurs over time in human systems.
Sure, we all find the libertarian critique useful for that very reason. The difference is that Radical Centrists think in terms of "Lean Government" -- right-sized to do the appropriate -- not simply "Small Government."
Having worked for 20 years in human services, perhaps the most repressive and intransigent of all, I think something serious needs to happen to get back to efficiency and neighborliness.
Hard to disagree with that!
But I do believe in the theory of spontaneous order. So in that sense I take issue with some of the ideas in the article. When people are freed from psychological tyranny they naturally form cooperative enclaves because they have to.
Here I do disagree. In my experience in building communities and platforms, spontaneous order is a myth for any group of more than about seven people. Creating venues where people *feel* they have free exercise takes a *lot* of work, as you know if you've ever tried to moderate an online forum.
Yes, you can have communities of up to 150 people without any *visible* rules or hierarchy, but that is because there are extremely strong social strictures and emergent leadership.
Do you have any empirical basis for your belief in spontaneous order?
The Webster dictionary defines freedom as “being free” and free, as "not under the control or power of another.” As history proves repeatedly, freedom reflects the highest of all human aspirations.
Actually, no. I'd argue that love (or even simply belonging and security) trumps freedom all the time, as people regularly and voluntarily give up freedom for the sake of love (marriage, citizenship, employment, etc.).
Freedom is important, sure, but usually only in the service of something else (e.g., religious freedom, freedom of association, etc.). Lumping all of those into the abstract "freedom" is a huge leap, and not easy to justify empirically. As the Arab Spring has painfully reminded us...
Our Founders believed freedom was a natural right, meaning that it was guaranteed by God and was the basic condition under which all men should be allowed to live. The most basic belief, shared by most if not all of the founding fathers, was that men are entitled to be free and in the absence of legal safeguards, oppressive governments would enslave them. Thus, the birth of the United States was inextricably tied to the Founders’ belief in man’s right to be free and the vigilance with which the rule of law must protect that freedom.
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out which "Founders" held this high-minded belief. Madison (as Billy points out) who wrote the Consitution? Hamilton who wanted a strong federal government? Jefferson and Washington, who kept slaves?
I realize this is a book excerpt, but if you're going to argue for a position in this group -- and please do! -- cite specifics. Hand-waving generalizations don't help anyway.
This isn't a simple-minded cry about hyprocrisy, either. My hypothesis is that the most "Libertarian" of the Founding Fathers were precisely those who kept slaves and lived as mini-monarchs on their plantation, where they provided for most of their own needs through the work of laborers who were anything but free. The more commercial of the Founding Fathers were actually more for central government, as it improved the efficiency of business. That's might also be why I seem to see a lot of economists arguing for libertarian economics, but very frew entrepreneurs and CEOs.
That's my interpretation of the data. How would you refute it?
In my field of family therapy, we believe the drive toward human relationship balances the drive for pure freedom, and thus, human organization seeks balance between these two fundamental human desires. People want and need three interdependent elements: independence, structure, and love.
I can go along with that.
The question thus becomes, what is the optimal balance between pure freedom (anarchy) and social and psychological constraints. The psychological question thus supersedes the governance question, as the enlightenment philosophers well knew. They were pushing civilization away from religious and governmental repression, which had been the norm for centuries, and toward individual liberty, which made the age of reason an astoundingly liberal period in the history of the world.
Which ended in the French Revolution and the most enlightened nation of the 18th century, Germany, becoming the central villain of the 20th century.
Yeah, the enlightened focus on individual liberty (aided admirably by the Reformation) was a needed critique, but I think the empirical data shows it went too far.
That's my real problem with Libertarian thought: if it were truly a comprehensive theory, it should also be able to identify areas where we have (or had) too much freedom, and require *more* government. But they very idea appears unthinkable to most libertarians. How about you?
The Founders believed we needed just enough restraint on liberty to sustain a central government but not too much restraint, so that tyranny would prevail. They were students of history who knew man’s unchecked desire for power usually destroyed individual freedom, the same conclusion that Sigmund Freud later drew when he postulated his famous theory of libidinous energy.[i] T
They also knew that too much freedom created anarchy, and felt that too much democracy created paralysis. I find this one-sided interpretation of "The Founders" a bit disingenuous.
Given their experience with the tyranny of the English Crown, the Founders were most concerned about vigilance against the inevitable tyranny that comes with unchecked power. Edmund Burke was perhaps the most specific when he wrote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” And, “There is no safety for honest men except believing all possible evil of evil men.”[iii]
Thus, the Founders envisioned a society that was decentralized and barely beyond anarchy, giving the maximum opportunity for individual _expression_. They understood that human beings seek structure, and structure is part of free choice, but because of the controlling instincts of man and the corruption that power often provokes, they needed Constitutional protection against the threat of others imposing structure upon them. I believe their hope for freedom in America also mirrors the best recipe for human happiness on an individual level and that is what gives the idea its legitimacy.
Yeah, I agree with Billy that glossing over the Articles of Confederation seriously weakens your argument. There's an important lesson that the Founders learned when they tried "a society that was decentralized and barely beyond anarchy", and I haven't seen any libertarians willing to internalize that lesson.
I offer a blog for clients called Kevin’s Korner that talks about ways to find more happiness and productivity.[iv] This is a post from that blog:
“The older I get the more I value freedom.
Funny, the older *I* get the more I value constraints. Maybe because I just turned 44, but I treasure the fact that I have marriage covenant that binds me until "death to us part", and children who are a fixed point of need independent of my feelings. I like it when my church raises the standards for membership and leadership. I am thrilled when I find a new app to help hold me accountable for my eating, or a personal trainer who forces me to exercise.
Are these voluntary? Sure, but so it is citizenship. Changing countries these days is no more difficult than changing jobs, and in fact in some ways quite easier. Libertarians seem to think that the State is some magical beast with superpowers over individual lives that require extraordinary measures to keep in check that don't apply to other communities or relationships. I see them as a continuum.
Also, the older I get the more I realize the non-dichtomy between freedom and constraints. Perhaps surprisingly, stronger constraints can actually increase freedom along a different axis. Regulation of food vendors means I have greater freedom (lower transaction costs) when choosing a restaurant.
The real question -- as I think was highlighted in that essay -- is whose freedom are we protected, and from what? The Founding Fathers were mostly concerned with protecting the property-owning class from government, but who protected their workers (and slaves) from them?
it does mean that you have the right to live your life based primarily on your wants rather than your shoulds.
Perhaps, if you are living in isolation on a desert island. If you're living in community -- and we all start out that way, or else we'd die -- we sacrifice that theoretical right for the practical responsibility of getting along with and contributing to the group, even when we disagree.
This psychological notion, that free people are happy people is not without real world evidence. If one looks around the world it is readily apparent that countries high on authoritarianism tend to be low on happiness and countries high on free choice tend to be high on happiness.[vi] Furthermore, there is significant research to suggest that happiness is positively correlated with work schedule flexibility and personal control.[vii] People that have control over what they do and when they do it tend to be happier than people who are on fixed schedules and with tight job requirements. The freedom to make one’s own work schedule is an important happiness factor.
Absolutely. Freedom is *an* important factor. But not the *only* one. In Radical Centrism, we're trying to find *all* the factors so we can optimize them simultaneously, not pick one to obsess over to the exclusion of others.
Communalism is not the opposite of freedom as some Radical Libertarians wrongly postulate. On the contrary, free people tend to choose to put energy into the relationships that matter to them and eschew those that are repressive. Forced charitible giving is frequently at odds with happiness. Free people also tend to be better neighbors because they are unencumbered by the resentment that often comes with forced neighborliness. Psychological freedom is thus, the antidote to an overactive Superego.
Almost. It is "an" antidote. Otherwise, I agree.
Free will allows us to live intentionally without emotional baggage, or as I like to label it, psychological tyranny. Psychological tyranny is when we allow things that haunt us from the past or fears about the future to disrupt our enjoyment of the present. Psychological freedom is letting go of those past or future tyrannies in order to experience the present fully. Psychological freedom produces the opportunity for happiness. Consequently, much of the work in psychotherapy is helping people learn to let go of psychological tyranny so they can make deliberate healthy choices.
Even it means abandoning the constraints of, say, a wife and kids who insist on focusing on what they "should" do, instead of what they "want" to do? Or are there some "shoulds" that overrule "wants"?
A fulfilled life is an intentional life. The happy person is aware of his interdependence with his community and the opportunities it presents, adds positive energy to it, but does not let himself become entrapped by tyrannical darkness. Darkness usually comes in the form of narcissism, dependency, or attempts to control. Happy people make deliberate choices in order to experience the full breadth of humanity without getting engulfed by tyranny. A freedom mindset enables one to do so.
Hmm, if you're against narcissism, then perhaps we are closer than I think. Here's how I put it:
* The fundamental human right is the freedom to decide for myself what is good
* The fundamental human responsibility is the duty to decide for myself what is good
That is, freedom is not doing whatever I *want*, but the ability to decide for *myself* what is Good. But it carries the responsibility to *discern* what is Good.
Would you go along with that?
In a command system, even if the command elements are virtuous, free will is subservient to collective authority, which is authoritarian in nature. Man is not free to give. He is compelled to give in a manner that is reminiscent of how his mommy expected him to share his toys with his four-year old playmate. He does it but has no choice in the matter and derives pleasure only from the knowledge that he has pleased his mommy and thus will not be punished or abandoned. He enjoys no existential freedom or intrinsic satisfaction until he can decide for himself from his own volition whether he wants to share or not. Voluntary charity, thus, in contrast with coerced redistribution of one’s resources, reflects an advanced psychological and moral stage of development.
Okay, but I'll raise you one psychological state higher: joyfully complying with the external demands of authority because we treasure the benefits of belonging to that community.
You're a psychologist, you know the trend from childhood dependence to adolescent independence to mature interdependence. Most libertarian thought I've seen seems stuck in the middle stage. How do you get beyond that?
If people believe they have some influence over how regulations that affect them are constructed, they tend to trust the structures. If they see the regulatory authority as separate from them, they resist the control.
Okay, I agree with that.
I believe this is where we are today. Most people today do not believe the government is an extension of their authority.
That's an overly sweeping generalization. Having spent in truly corrupt countries, the kinds of things we complain about here in the U.S. are truly a joke. Most people in the U.S., I believe, are deeply frustrated by a few key areas that they see as completely irresponsible, but are blindly grateful for a whole host of structures that function largely as intended. And which they are deeply angered if anyone else tries to subvert.
Again, I agree that the Libertarian critique is extremely useful at this point in time. But I find it woefully one-sided, both historically and ideologically. In Radical Centrism, we try very hard to see *all* sides of the story -- including those damaging to our viewpoint -- and integrate them into something better.
Glad to have you along for the ride!
-- Ernie P.
