Individual liberty is a precise concept and a powerful ideal. It has an enormous moral appeal – “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Jefferson wrote these words even though there was only liberty for propertied white males at the time in the US, but these words would serve as a beacon through American history, which Lincoln would invoke to motivate the Emancipation Proclamation, and which Martin Luther King would invoke to end Jim Crow and get de-facto voting rights for blacks.
Freedom also has pragmatic appeal. I think the case is strong that many of the accomplishments of economic development are due to liberty – such as the cornucopia of consumer goods through economic freedom, technological innovation through scientific freedom, and holding states accountable for a minimum quality of public goods through political freedom.
Yet the word “liberty” is also much abused and used as cover for many less glorious causes – like promoting an amusement park in the example above (maybe next year’s Davos could have participants go first to “Refugee Run” and then to “Liberty Land.”) Bush used “liberty” as a cover for invading Iraq. To many others, individual liberty is a code word to promote selfish greed or right-wing ideology. We have to rescue the inspiring ideal of “liberty” from these abuses.
Liberty just means the individual’s right to choose his or her own course as long as they do not harm others. The invasion of Iraq obviously does not fit this definition – it didn’t respect liberty for Iraqi individuals. And there is no presumption that the individual’s own course has to be selfish greed — individuals could also choose altruism towards the poor, or sacrificing themselves on behalf of some larger group.
Nor is “liberty” automatically associated with the Left or Right, because neither ideology really accepts it. The Left tends to restrict your economic choices, while the Right tends to restrict your moral choices. (The Left won’t leave you alone in the marketplace, the Right won’t leave you alone in the bedroom.)
In development, liberty is spreading de facto (as the share of nations that have either political or economic freedom or both keeps rising steadily) but is still not really recognized as a guiding ideal. This is a shame, when our generation has already seen the greatest expansion in liberty in human history, at the same time as the greatest decline in the global poverty rate in human history. Obviously, correlation is not causation, and both trends could be driven by some third factor, but I think there is plenty of other research that would suggest the rise in liberty and the gradual ending of poverty are closely related.
Maybe Liberty Land could add a development ride called “Free the Poor!”
8 Comments
How does an amusement park for kids with the name “liberty” hurt anyone? This example seems not worth mentioning.
I would define liberty as the ability to choose the good. The problem is that it’s hard to know what actions are good because reality is complex and there are a lot of unknowns. No man is an island and every personal choice has an affect on others.
The problem with your definition is that it looks at the problem with the angle of how selfish can I act until I cross the line and actually hurt someone. It aims too low.
You’ve got an implicitly moral argument there, but one with explicitly liberal restrictions on the definition of “moral” — might I suggest that a brief review of Jonathan Haidt in, for example, this paper would help broaden your thesis?
I take exception with your statement that the left “restrict your economic choices”. Redistribution can in fact increase economic liberty when more people benefit than pay.
George Bush used to say freedom more than liberty. I guess that’s why the latter still sounds beautiful.
It would be interesting to know how your claims correspond to the ones Sen made in his famous book “Development as Freedom”. They sound quite similar to me.
There’s another Libertyland in Memphis, recently closed. It was popular with Elvis.
Unfortunately, there were no poverty themed attractions.
“Liberty just means the individual’s right to choose his or her own course as long as they do not harm others.”
This definition of ‘liberty’ is simplistic, fuzzy and quite useless. Based on your definition, liberty sounds like a great idea. Why would anybody want to restrict anybody else’s “right to choose blah, blah…” Liberty (like magical ponies) is a wonderful thing that we would like everybody to have.
SO WHAT?
Like ‘good governance’ it sounds like a great idea, until you actually have to put it into PRACTICE. For example, how does the example of China fit into your argument that increased liberty = decreased poverty?
And this is NOT true either: “The Left tends to restrict your economic choices, while the Right tends to restrict your moral choices. (The Left won’t leave you alone in the marketplace, the Right won’t leave you alone in the bedroom.)”
At least not in the United States. Here (what passes for ) the Left was quite happy to encourage deregulation and the current administration is still very hesitant to abolish the disaster that is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
So what’s your point?
Mine: you’re generalizing in a way that you so often criticize in others. Do better.
“Bush used “liberty” as a cover for invading Iraq.”
No doubt you believe that, but his willingness to work toward a genuinely democratic government in Iraq suggests it was less a “cover” than an important part of his real agenda.
I think this kind of partisan sniping is beneath you, and undermines a point about liberty/freedom well worth making.