As you know (if not: what are you doing here? ;-), I like reading. One of the books I am reading is “Justice: What’s the right thing to do?” by Michael J. Sandel, a Harvard professor. It’s apparently based on his course, which you follow online.
I’m now at page 70, and I keep having this urge to argue with this book. I experienced it first during the introduction/motivation part (on Purple hearts for psychically wounded soldiers). It was less strong in the first chapter where Utilitarianism was discussed. Now I’m reading on Libertarianism, it’s getting too much to keep in. So I’m arguing with it here :)
And thus ended the introduction
Libertarianism is (in the book explained as) based on individual freedom, which is considered sacrosanct (in all three meanings given here). Thus, rules of a state (or, for that matter, any organisation) are only allowed if they do not encroach upon these individual freedoms. In particular, the book lists:
- No paternalism — no laws forcing me to protect myself from harm.
For example: no laws to wear helmets while driving a motorcycle, because: I have the right to take whatever risks I want with my own body. - No moral laws.
E.g. no laws against prostitution, because I have the right to choose if I want that or not - No redistribution of wealth or income.
So no taxation of the rich to give benefits to the poor, because I have the right to my earnings.
I’d like to reply to each one of these in-depth. But, while I would try to do so to illustrate that the entire premise is faulty (in my opinion), that is not a correct reply. I reject the entire premise, not merely the individual points that follow from it.
You see, you are living in a community. And libertarianism fails to recognise that as an entity in its own right. If I want to be part of a community, I have to abide by the rules set forth by the community — whether I agree with them or not. Now I will not gainsay anyone’s right to leave a community. You are allowed to leave, never forced to abide by the community’s rules — but then you’d also have to leave its sphere of influence.
The book has a motivating example for a libertarian view on taxation. Consider Michael Jordan, a famous basketball player from the 90s (did I need to explain that? Am I getting that old? Ouch). Libertarians could argue that the state has as much right to tax his (luxurious) income as the state has to force him to labour (rough paraphrasing of the book), that he deserves what his skills are getting him, that the state has no right to help others because he happens to be good, that he doesn’t owe his teammates (they’re getting compensation themselves), etc.
But the way I see things: if Michael Jordan wants to be part of a community (e.g. an American citizen), then he has to abide by the rules of that community (e.g. taxation). He’s free to argue for a change of the community’s rules (using whatever process the community agreed upon for changing its rules: voting, rule of the strong, etc.). But as long as that isn’t successful, he has to abide by the rules set forth.
He’s free to leave. He can go to Europe, and play for a club here. He’d have to take a paycheck cut, probably… I don’t think European basketball clubs can afford $13 million a year for one player. And that is because the community here does not value basketball players that highly (take up football, Michael! ;-). But if he wants to be there, and reap the benefits of his skills there, fine. But you get to abide by the rules of the community.
And that is where libertarianism fails. The community is an entity, a power structure, and it has powers. You don’t like ’em? Fine, you can move. You don’t want to? Fine, abide by the rules.
I’m curious as to your thoughts on the matter!
Note: I am aware that in some cases this comes dangerously close to support for dictatorship/totalitarian rule. And I abhor totalitarian rule… by anyone who isn’t me ;-)