Difference between revisions of "What Is Liberty?"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Category:Mike Huben]] | [[Category:Mike Huben]] | ||
[[Category:Liberty|040]] | [[Category:Liberty|040]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Libertarians Misunderstand Liberty|100]] | ||
[[Category:Positive Alternatives To Libertarian Ideas]] | [[Category:Positive Alternatives To Libertarian Ideas]] | ||
[[Category:Under Construction]] | [[Category:Under Construction]] | ||
| − | {{DES | des = Liberty (AKA Freedom), the supposed object of Libertarianism, is hardly ever defined or discussed analytically by libertarians. Liberty, as used by libertarians, is a [ | + | {{DES | des = Liberty (AKA Freedom), the supposed object of Libertarianism, is hardly ever defined or discussed analytically by libertarians. Liberty, as used by libertarians, is a [[Fallacies_Of_Philosophy#Glittering_Generalities_Of_Propaganda|glittering generality of propaganda]]: an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason. But liberty is susceptible to analysis and that analysis reveals enormous problems with libertarian ideology. | show=}} |
A good model of liberty should be consistent with observations from law, economics, and anthropology. If it is based on observation, we can call it a positive model, like other models in the sciences. (But not necessarily philosophy.) | A good model of liberty should be consistent with observations from law, economics, and anthropology. If it is based on observation, we can call it a positive model, like other models in the sciences. (But not necessarily philosophy.) | ||
== Libertarians Avoid Saying What Liberty Is == | == Libertarians Avoid Saying What Liberty Is == | ||
| − | Libertarians are big on prescriptive (philosophically normative) descriptions of what they want as liberties. But they evade positive statements of what liberty IS. | + | Libertarians are big on prescriptive (philosophically normative) descriptions of what they want as liberties. But they evade positive statements of what liberty IS. Essentially, the libertarians have no clothes. |
For example: | For example: | ||
| Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
* [[David Schmidtz]] and [[Jason Brennan]], in ''[[A Brief History of Liberty]]'', write "Here we categorize forms of liberty as much as our present purpose requires. We don't assume that there is any essence awaiiting our discovery; neither do we assume otherwise." They gloss over [[Gerald MacCallum]]'s [[Freedom as a Triadic Relation]] in a footnote, despite the fact the he unifies liberty with a model and dismisses the positive and negative distinctions the authors prefer. There is no mention of [[Hohfeld’s typology of rights]], and thus they conflate power, rights and liberty. | * [[David Schmidtz]] and [[Jason Brennan]], in ''[[A Brief History of Liberty]]'', write "Here we categorize forms of liberty as much as our present purpose requires. We don't assume that there is any essence awaiiting our discovery; neither do we assume otherwise." They gloss over [[Gerald MacCallum]]'s [[Freedom as a Triadic Relation]] in a footnote, despite the fact the he unifies liberty with a model and dismisses the positive and negative distinctions the authors prefer. There is no mention of [[Hohfeld’s typology of rights]], and thus they conflate power, rights and liberty. | ||
* [[John Hospers]] in [http://public.callutheran.edu/%7Echenxi/phil315_101.pdf What Libertarianism Is] provides two contradictory sentences. "Each man has the right to liberty: to conduct his life in accordance with the alternatives open to him without coercive action by others." You might notice that he does not define liberty: he declares the one vague liberty that he wants. And of course it is foolish, because every right is coercive, including the rights to life, liberty, and property that he wants, and thus contradicts his demand for liberty. He also writes "The right to liberty: there should be no laws compromising in any way freedom of speech, of the press, and of peaceable assembly." A more specific liberty that he wants. But no definition of liberty. | * [[John Hospers]] in [http://public.callutheran.edu/%7Echenxi/phil315_101.pdf What Libertarianism Is] provides two contradictory sentences. "Each man has the right to liberty: to conduct his life in accordance with the alternatives open to him without coercive action by others." You might notice that he does not define liberty: he declares the one vague liberty that he wants. And of course it is foolish, because every right is coercive, including the rights to life, liberty, and property that he wants, and thus contradicts his demand for liberty. He also writes "The right to liberty: there should be no laws compromising in any way freedom of speech, of the press, and of peaceable assembly." A more specific liberty that he wants. But no definition of liberty. | ||
| + | * [[Eric Mack]], in "[[Libertarianism (Mack)|Libertarianism]]", provides no definition of liberty. | ||
| + | * [[Brian Doherty]] does not index a definition of liberty in "[[Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement]]". | ||
| + | * [[Eric Mack]] does not index a definition of liberty in "[[Libertarianism (Key Concepts In Political Theory)]]", and only describes a liberty he wants in his introduction: “An individual’s liberty is understood as that individual not being subject to interference by other agents in her doing as she sees fit with her own person and legitimate holdings.” | ||
| − | This absence of satisfactory definitions of liberty or freedom is typical of libertarian literature. The most libertarians seem to do is to arbitrarily declare that negative liberty is the only true liberty: but that does not explain other people's conceptions. | + | Excerpt From: Eric Mack. “Libertarianism.” Apple Books. . |
| + | |||
| + | This absence of satisfactory definitions of liberty or freedom is typical of libertarian literature. The most libertarians seem to do is to arbitrarily declare that negative liberty is the only true liberty: but that does not explain other people's conceptions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Usually libertarians provide some examples of what they consider liberty, but examples do not provide a definition. For example, if I tell you birds and mammals are examples of vertebrates, that doesn't tell you if fish are vertebrates or what vertebrates really are. And of course it can also lead to faulty generalizations, such as that vertebrates are warm blooded. | ||
| + | {{QuoteOne|Review Essay: Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism.../amazing}} | ||
| + | {{QuoteOne|The Heterodox ‘Fourth Paradigm’ of Libertarianism: an Abstract Eleutherology plus Critical Rationalism/theory}} | ||
== Liberty as a glittering generality of propaganda. == | == Liberty as a glittering generality of propaganda. == | ||
| Line 29: | Line 39: | ||
{{QuoteOne|Two Concepts of Liberty/porous}} | {{QuoteOne|Two Concepts of Liberty/porous}} | ||
| + | Berlin goes on to say: "I do not propose to discuss either the history or the more than two hundred senses of this protean word, recorded by historians of ideas." | ||
| + | |||
| + | == There is no such thing as "liberty" in general. == | ||
| + | Most uses of the term liberty are as abstract universals. That means all possible separate liberties as an infinite set. It makes sense to talk about a single liberty or a set of specific liberties, but not an infinite set. In the remainder of this document, we will discuss liberties one at a time. You could call that methodological individualism of liberty. | ||
== [[Hohfeld’s typology of rights|Hohfeld's Definition of a Liberty]] == | == [[Hohfeld’s typology of rights|Hohfeld's Definition of a Liberty]] == | ||
| Line 41: | Line 55: | ||
{{QuoteOne|Two Concepts of Liberty/Mill}} | {{QuoteOne|Two Concepts of Liberty/Mill}} | ||
| − | |||
== Liberties Always Conflict == | == Liberties Always Conflict == | ||
Most obviously, you can have a liberty to restrict other people's liberties. For example, freedom to enslave means no freedom from slavery and freedom from slavery means no freedom to enslave. Don't kid yourself that either of these are not real and desired freedoms: major wars have been fought over them. Requiring equal liberties means restriction of the liberty of those who want unequal liberties, and vice versa. | Most obviously, you can have a liberty to restrict other people's liberties. For example, freedom to enslave means no freedom from slavery and freedom from slavery means no freedom to enslave. Don't kid yourself that either of these are not real and desired freedoms: major wars have been fought over them. Requiring equal liberties means restriction of the liberty of those who want unequal liberties, and vice versa. | ||
| Line 50: | Line 63: | ||
A good model of a liberty should be consistent with observations from law, economics, and anthropology. If it is based on observation, we can call it a positive model, like other models in the sciences. (But not necessarily philosophy.) | A good model of a liberty should be consistent with observations from law, economics, and anthropology. If it is based on observation, we can call it a positive model, like other models in the sciences. (But not necessarily philosophy.) | ||
| − | A person (P) is free to do or be a thing (T), to achieve a goal (G), using an ability (A), with a resource (R), when all others (O) do not interfere, despite opportunity costs (C), | + | A person (P) is free to do or be a thing (T), to achieve a goal (G), using an ability (A), with a resource (R), creating externalities (E), when all others (O) do not interfere, despite opportunity costs (C), Because of reason (B). |
This is not as complex a model as it could be, but suffices to capture most of of the ideas of liberty. For example: | This is not as complex a model as it could be, but suffices to capture most of of the ideas of liberty. For example: | ||
| − | Pete is free to Trampoline, to achieve a Goal of exercise, using his Ability to jump, with a trampoline as his Resource, when the Owners do not interfere, despite the opportunity Cost that they could use it themselves, Because Pete can bribe them with a rental fee. | + | Pete is free to Trampoline, to achieve a Goal of exercise, using his Ability to jump, with a trampoline as his Resource, creating the externality of the trampoline being unavailable to others, when the Owners do not interfere, despite the opportunity Cost that they could use it themselves, Because Pete can bribe them with a rental fee. |
Let's look at parts of this answer more closely. | Let's look at parts of this answer more closely. | ||
| Line 63: | Line 76: | ||
== Why Is A Positive Model Important? == | == Why Is A Positive Model Important? == | ||
| − | It is called facing reality. Stating only prescriptive (philosophically normative) descriptions of what you want as liberties ignores the conditions needed to create them and the side effects of those liberties. A model helps reveal what is implicit in a liberty. That can have enormous practical consequences. This model, for example, shows why liberties cannot be unlimited: because of competition for limited external resources (R) and because of the need for reasons (B) for others not to interfere. | + | It is called facing reality. Stating only prescriptive (philosophically normative) descriptions of what you want as liberties ignores the conditions needed to create them and the side effects of those liberties. A model helps reveal what is implicit in a liberty. That can have enormous practical consequences. This model, for example, shows why liberties cannot be unlimited: because of competition for limited external resources (R, E) and because of the need for reasons (B) for others not to interfere (which restricts the liberty of those others.) |
== Confusion of Liberties with Rights == | == Confusion of Liberties with Rights == | ||
| Line 72: | Line 85: | ||
== How Does This Model of Liberties Relate to the Capability Approach?== | == How Does This Model of Liberties Relate to the Capability Approach?== | ||
[[Amartya Sen]]'s and [[Martha Nussbaum]]'s ideas of [[Capabilty Approach]] are prescriptive oughts based on ideas of the kind of lives people would have reason to value. This model attempts to be descriptive of what is, not an ought. The chosen capabilities would be realized as liberties in the model's sense. | [[Amartya Sen]]'s and [[Martha Nussbaum]]'s ideas of [[Capabilty Approach]] are prescriptive oughts based on ideas of the kind of lives people would have reason to value. This model attempts to be descriptive of what is, not an ought. The chosen capabilities would be realized as liberties in the model's sense. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Development Versus Abandonment == | ||
| + | Liberty can be classified as two types: development and abandonment. Development increases freedoms, while abandonment ("negative liberty") leaves people with whatever they have, no matter how insufficient. | ||
== Why We Need To Choose Which Liberties We Value == | == Why We Need To Choose Which Liberties We Value == | ||
