Majority Rule, Democracy and Liberalism

I am currently reading The Constitution of Liberty by Friedrich Hayek. Although there is much in his writing with which I disagree, I find the following quotes helpful in clarifying a distinction which has been a point of dissension for several discussions (on and off line) in which I have recently been involved.

Like most terms in our field, the word "democracy" is also used in a wider and vaguer sense. But if it is used strictly to describe a method of government---namely, majority rule--it clearly refers to a problem different from that of liberalism [in the European 19th century meaning of the word]. Liberalism is a doctrine about what the law ought to be, democracy a doctrine about the manner of determining what will be the law. Liberalism regards it as desirable that only what the majority accepts should in fact be law, but it does not believe that this is therefore necessarily good law. Its aim, indeed, is to persuade the majority to observecertain principles. it accepts majority rule as a method of deciding but not as an authority fo rwhat the decision ought to be. To the doctrinaire democrat the fact that the majority wants something is sufficient ground for regarding it as good; for him the will of the majority determines not only what is law but what is good law.

--F. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, University of Chicago Press, 1960, pg 103-104

Then in an end note, Hayek quotes another author in a way that I think adds even further clarification:

Liberalism and Democracy happen to be two things which begin by having nothing to do with each other, and end by having, so far as tendencies are concerned, meanings that are mutually antagonistic. Democracy and Liberalism are two answers to two completely different questions.

Democracy answers this question--"Who ought to exercise public power?" The answer it gives is--the exercise of public power belongs to the citizens as a body.

But this question does not touch on what should be the realm of the public power. It is solely concerned with determining to whom such power belongs. Democracy proposes that we all rule; that is, that we are sovereign in all social acts.

Liberalism, on the other hand, answers this other question,--"regardless of who exercises the public power, what should its limits be?" The answer it gives--"Whether the public power is exercised by an autocrat or by the people, it cannot be absolute: the individual has rights which are over and above any interference by the State."

-J. Ortega y Gasset, Invertebrate Spain, quoted in Hayek, ibid, pg. 442

It is thus possible to consent to the political order (e.g. the use of majority rule) without agreeing to the rightness or justness of every majority decision.


.

Living for yourself is not living only for yourself

This is the second of three installments aimed at addressing points made in comments to a previous post. In the first, I explained why I do not think advocating for voluntary funding of government is utopian (i.e. naive or unrealistic). Here, I would like to address another misconception: that in defending an individual’s right to be either persuaded or left alone, I am advocating we all “live only for ourselves.”

I do not “live only for myself”—nor is that what I advocate or promote. I am, however, insisting that each person has the right to exist for his or her own sake and that no one has any unchosen obligations. If a person chooses to be an antisocial recluse—that is their business, and I think, their loss as well. I am simply arguing that it is never right to do by ballot what you would never consider doing as an individual. One example would be demanding at the point of a gun that someone hand over his honestly earned money.

I do not advocate for any right which cannot be applied equally to all. It is this principle of non-contradictory individual rights which creates the barriers to stop each of us from infringing on others.

The basic political question is not “should I value and give my time to others?” (That is an important moral question--but not all that has to do with morals belongs in politics. Morals have to do with right and wrong in general; politics has to do with right and wrong in a social context, especially as related to the institutional use of force.) A fundamental political question is "If I don’t see the value in something, should my neighbors be able to gang up on me and force me into certain actions, regardless of my own judgment?"

Frequently it is postulated that either we put others before ourselves or we put ourselves before others. These two opposing alternatives do not exhaust the possibilities. The alternative I support is as follows: The respect for and valuing of other people is an extension of the respect for and valuing of my own life. My right to live for my own sake does not exist separate from the right of others to live for their own sake. My life is much richer for the interactions and exchanges I have with other people. Provided we keep our interactions voluntary, we have much to gain from sharing our lives, time, riches and values with other human beings.

When steeped in this mutual respect, people are of bountiful value to each other, not as supplicants or duty-bound servants, but as equals. When these rules of proper social interaction are codified in law, we can live amongst each other secure in our person and property, peacefully in freedom, with government acting solely as objective arbitrator and the protector of each and everyone's individual rights.

Up next: Voluntary taxes: How could it possibly work?

.

Education and Coercive Funding

The following is a series of letters to the editor published in the Half Moon Bay Review in opposition to a local parcel tax to help fund the local government schools, the latest of which was published today. Also, just today, I found a discussion site that I was previously unaware of hosted by the paper. After carefully reading all of the entries, I will do my best to respond. I am grateful to an editor who is willing to publish my views even though he is in disagreement with them.

LTE 3-17-2010

Budgets are cut. Jobs are lost. Schools are expected to do more with less. The suffering quality of education is a true tragedy—but not the one that most people seem to think.

The spiral of increasing costs accompanied by decreasing quality is an inescapable function of all goods and services provided via state central planning. The best intensions and admirable efforts of the hard working, honest individuals participating in this system can not overcome this economic fact.

The real tragedy is the existence of government schools. Compulsory attendance laws result in the government providing schools for students to attend. This requires funding, which--as in all government programs--is accomplished through the expropriation of private property, subsequently allocated on political terms, not according to quality or economic efficiency.

The strong-arm of government has created a near monopoly in education. Although private schools do exist, the variety of educational options is severely stunted. Because government schools appear to be “free,” and people who chose a private alternative end up paying twice, 80% of primary and secondary students attend government schools. Only the relatively wealthy are able to “opt out.” This crowding out of private alternatives leaves people dependant on government schools—and thus dependant on the political processes to affect both curriculum and funding.

With a captive “customer” base, the normal incentives for providing the best value for the lowest cost no longer exist. Powerful unions increase costs further while bolstering barriers to competition-induced improvements. Schools can not compete for funds by offering a better product, so they are reduced to begging for votes to expropriate even more of their neighbor’s money.

And that is the real tragedy of our educational budget crisis—a tragedy that only the free market and its consistent respect of property rights will alleviate.

LTE 6-2-2010

Measure E is on the ballot to raise money for our local government schools. Cutbacks in state funding mean the education of our local youth will suffer. This is tragic. Education is important and worthy of receiving adequate funding.

In spite of this, I cannot bring myself to support a law that uses the force of government to deprive others of their property. If people cannot be convinced to voluntarily provide financial support to the schools, I know of no moral principle that allows me to force others to act against their best judgment. Our Constitution was written to protect us from precisely this abuse of power by the majority.

It is simply immoral to even attempt to achieve a goal through the use of force, no matter how deeply ensconced in compassion, generosity, or good will. You may try to persuade your friends and neighbors, and tirelessly work to obtain their voluntary assistance (financial or otherwise), but, if you can’t convince them, there is no moral basis for employing the coercive power of the state to aid you in achieving through force what you can not achieve through persuasion.

What is at stake is greater than the plight of our schools. The peaceful coexistence of human beings is grounded upon the recognition of each individual’s right to his own life, liberty and property — and only his own.

The civilized world has come to recognize the immorality of enslaving another human being in order to employ his labor against his will. The next step in our moral progress is to recognize that a man’s property is an extension of his life, and that to seize a man’s property against his will is merely another form of slavery.

For this reason, Measure E is immoral and should be soundly defeated.

LTE 6-16-2010

Proposition E has passed. In spite of being against the principle of government-run education, I have mixed feelings about the results of last week’s election.

In part, I am relieved that the vital services our local schools provide will not suffer the devastating cuts they would have without this financial boost. At this time, for many students and families in our community (including mine) there is no realistic alternative to government schools. I am very appreciative of the relationships and experiences that my son enjoyed in his four years at Half Moon Bay High School. Many of the individuals in the system are excellent human beings devoted to providing a quality education to our children. That said, I continue in my concern that this is a temporary patch on a fatally flawed system, which in the long run is neither moral nor practical. The very existence of government education is premised upon the violation of property rights. Even though 70 percent voted in favor of Measure E, 30 percent of our neighbors will have their property taken against their will. Additionally, history has repeatedly demonstrated the failure of central planning — in business, in education, in health care. (Please see my letters from March 17 and June 2.)

I can only hope that, with more time and experience, more people will come to understand the superiority of a government limited to the protection of individual rights and a society which demands that all interactions are based on persuasion, and in which the initiation of force is always viewed as an illegitimate means for obtaining one’s ends.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my minority view in your publication.

Our Neighbor's Money is not Ours to Vote On

My hometown has a measure on the primary ballot to raise money for the local government schools. Cut backs in state funding have left them in a desperate state--forced to shrink or eliminate vital programs and services, which means the education of our local youth will suffer. This is tragic. Education is important and is worthy of receiving adequate funding. After years of homeschooling my children, both are now attending the local high school--so my children's education will suffer unless the schools receive more money.

In spite of these facts, I can not bring myself to support a law which uses the force of government to deprive others of their property. If people cannot be convinced to voluntarily provide financial support to the schools, I know of no moral principle which allows me force others to act against their best judgment. Our Constitution was written to protect the individual from precisely this abuse of power by government and the majority---even though this original meaning has been severely diluted and even lost in recent years.

It is simply immoral to even attempt to achieve a goal through the use of force, no matter how deeply ensconced in compassion, generosity, or good will. You may try to persuade your friends and neighbors, and tirelessly work to obtain their voluntary assistance (financial or otherwise) but if you can not convince them, there is no moral basis for employing the coercive power of the state to aid you in achieving through force what you can not achieve through persuasion.

For this reason, my local Measure E is immoral and should be soundly defeated.

For this same reason, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is immoral and should be repealed.

Use of government force to control how much and what kind of energy private citizens choose to purchase, is similarly wrong and should not be allowed.

What is at stake is greater than the plight of our schools, or the uninsured, or man's purported effect on climate. The peaceful coexistence of human beings is grounded upon the recognition of each individual's right to his own life, liberty and property--and only his own. We are neither masters nor slaves, neither our brother's keepers nor the kept.

This does not negate voluntary cooperation or pooling of resources and efforts to achieve community goals. (Many worthwhile projects can not be achieved without joint support and action.) It simply removes the use of force as a legitimate means of achieving one's goals at the expense of others.

The civilized world has come to recognize the immorality of enslaving another human being in order to employ his labor against his will. The next step in our moral progress is to recognize that a man's property is an extension of his life and liberty, and that to seize a man's property against his will is merely another form of slavery.

Until we are able to remove the intrusive hammer of government force from our private lives, our peace, good will, prosperity--and the moral character of our communities-- are in mortal danger.

To be moral in your interactions with fellow human beings, you must either convince him, or you must leave him alone.

Happy Birthday James Madison

There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied … than … that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong … nothing can be more false … it would be the interest of the majority in every community to despoil and enslave the minority of individuals … reestablishing … force as the measure of right.

--James Madison, "Father of the Constitution", in a letter to James Monroe, October 5, 1786

For more quotes see here, here and here. For Letter written my Madison, see here.