Welcome friends!
This is the first entry in what I hope will be an ongoing blog in which I provide a liberal, secular humanist, man-in-the-street commentary on some topical issues from my own personal perspective. I say man-in-the-street because I am not a pundit, an academic, a policy wonk, or any of those various sorts of people who find themselves able to follow, research, and debate issues to their heart’s content. Nor am I any sort of authority on liberalism with a capital L. I am simply a man who considers himself to be a liberal and a secular humanist who has a bit of free time to jot down some thoughts and ideas. My humble hope is that a few of my fellow liberals might stumble across my site and something I’ve written may occasionally stimulate a thought or conversation. A modest secondary objective is simply to represent one man’s understanding of liberalism to those who have no liberal acquaintances of their own. I intend to avoid the common tendency among bloggers to simply repeat and amplify the partisan bickering one finds in the media. Instead, I would like to keep the discussion at a very fundamental and personal level, and I hope a reasonably friendly and welcoming one as well. And I really must apologize at the outset for the verbiage. I know it’s not the modern way, but you see I believe it takes time to say some things correctly, and I’m not in a hurry. So, if you’re just browsing for a few glib lines or bon mots to back up your opinion (or to throw rocks at) then I’m afraid you’ve arrived at the wrong site.
To begin, I’ve noticed labels for political perspectives are rather variable, imprecise, and idiosyncratic. I suspect there are probably as many definitions of liberalism as there are liberals (or conservatives for that matter). Therefore, for my initial offering, I’d like to just spend a few minutes talking about some of the fundamental values I personally associate with being a liberal, values that will inevitably inform and underlie my later and more topical postings. Incidentally, I make no claims for this list in terms of its originality, accuracy, or completeness, and I may certainly revise it in future postings. Nevertheless, for whatever it’s worth, here are six important values or beliefs I have come to associate with liberalism and I think help distinguish liberalism from some other common political viewpoints (a point I hope to establish in my later postings).
Individual liberty is paramount as long as it doesn’t impinge in a serious way on other people, at which point political, legal, and moral principles come to the fore.
Democracy represents the best and most stable form of social decision-making; it is not the poor cousin of a meritocracy or a pay-to-vote free market system.
Intellectual freedom and freedom of speech (in appropriate venues) are absolutely crucial to society.
The separation of church and state is very important for maintaining individual liberty and promoting a stable society.
Government has an important role to play in society and should play as big a role as necessary, but no bigger.
The free market is great for some things in some situations, not so much for other things in other situations.
Again, one or more of these values will probably underlie most of my later postings so there’s really no need to go into a lot of detail now. All will be revealed in time.
Next Time: A liberal’s impressions of some other common political perspectives and how they differ from liberalism.
Appendix
That’s really all I intended to say today. However, for those with a little more time on their hands I’ve jotted down a few more introductory remarks about these values. If you prefer to just see them in action rather than thinking about them in abstract terms you may prefer to simply wait for later postings.
Individual liberty is paramount as long as it doesn’t impinge in a serious way on other people, at which point political, legal, and moral principles come to the fore.
Individual liberty is great! People are happy when they do what they want and we all save resources when we don’t try to control one another. However, if one’s actions have a significant impact on other people then unfortunately we have a conflict that must be resolved in some way. In these types of conflict situations invocations of personal liberty may be tempting but are not particularly helpful because both parties have a claim to liberty — one to do what he or she likes, and the other to go about his or her business without being seriously impinged upon by someone else. I use the words “serious” and “significant” when describing the type of impingement I’m talking about because if one takes a sufficiently expansive view of what constitutes impinging on one’s welfare then one can leave precious little room for other people to express their own individual liberty. Of course, drawing the line between what is merely irritating or offensive to one’s beliefs or sensibilities and what constitutes a significant impingement upon one’s welfare is the tricky part and will no doubt feature prominently in some of my later postings. However, the general perspective I think I share with most liberals is that one should at least try to be as selective as possible with respect to what one considers to significantly impinge upon one’s welfare so we can all have as much space as possible to live freely. As a case in point, I don’t believe government has any business posing as some sort of guardian of public morality except insofar as it involves resolving conflicts involving someone infringing in a serious way on someone else.
One potentially useful way of thinking about this issue, which I must have read about somewhere, is to draw a distinction between one’s “values” and what one might call one’s “meta-values,” that is, general higher level values that govern how one expresses one’s values in a social setting and how one responds and reacts to the values of other people. For example, the belief that one should allow other people space to do what they want if they’re not significantly impinging on the welfare of other people can be considered a meta-value. It doesn’t necessarily mean one will approve of what a particular person happens to choose to do nor does it imply one would choose to do the same thing oneself. I believe a successful society needs consensus on some basic meta-values to function effectively although in other respects a diversity of values does no harm and may even provide society some benefit.
Democracy represents the best and most stable form of social decision-making; it is not the poor cousin of a meritocracy or a pay-to-vote free market.
I believe there are two great virtues associated with democracy: 1) it provides a relative stable framework for accommodating social change, and 2) it channels political energy into more or less sensible debate and discussion rather than overt conflict. This is not to suggest that democracy will necessarily lead to an optimal outcome at any given time on any given issue. In the end it’s just the opinion of some random people who may or may not have the faintest idea what they’re talking about and who may or may not share one’s values or beliefs. However, it does provide a basis for at least some degree of general acceptance of policy decisions and it does ensure that those who don’t approve of particular policies will at least have their say about it and a recurring chance to win other people over to their side. (Which is not to say democratic decision making on its own is enough for a successful civil society. It seems pretty clear that one also needs an independent judiciary to look after the important issue of protecting the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. A pure majority rule democracy could become very ugly very quickly indeed.)
Our current version of democracy with one person one vote regardless of that person’s wealth, education, intelligence, knowledge, reasonableness, wisdom, etc., is a distinctive form of social decision making I believe generates benefits quite different from other potential forms of social decision making such as a meritocracy of experts or market outcomes based on the ability and willingness to pay. I believe one of the great underlying problems of American society is that we have largely failed to articulate and impress upon the young any sense of the beauty and power of our political system. The unfortunate result is that many people today seem to support democracy only to the extent it gets them what they want when they want it and who imagine and ascribe to our system all manner of fatal deficiencies when it does not, which is clearly a very dangerous and troublesome place for us to be, as a society, for any extended period of time.
Intellectual freedom and freedom of speech in appropriate venues are absolutely crucial to society.
We need intellectual freedom and freedom of speech if we’re going to have a functioning democratic society. Indeed, one might say the entire democratic enterprise is predicated on free enquiry, discussion, and debate. And I believe this certainly applies to things like other people’s beliefs including especially their ethical and religious beliefs. As such, I believe support for intellectual freedom and free speech should qualify as meta-values we all can share regardless of the differences in the particular values we wish to discuss and express.
As a case in point, I believe a great deal of harm is done to our society by our tendency to give privileged status to religion-based discourse so that religious people are generally presumed free to use offensive, outrageous, and threatening language toward other people under the guise of expressing their religious beliefs while other people, including their targets, are discouraged from responding in kind because it might offend the other person’s religious sensibilities, thus qualifying as a sort of hate speech. This type of distortion or imbalance in the normal flow of intellectual discourse leads inevitably to resentments, misunderstandings, and conflict. Just to be clear, saying you hate someone because they believe (or don’t believe) X is clearly a form of hate speech. However, saying that in your opinion X is the biggest load of BS the world has ever yet heard is not. (It may not be the most mature or sensible way to make one’s point, and we would all prefer a somewhat more elevated form of discourse, but that’s really beside the point here; we need to work with what we have.) So what’s the difference between the two? The first statement is about people. The second statement is about ideas. In a free society we must be able to criticize and debate ideas, beliefs, and values without the implication that by doing so we are insulting those who happen to hold those ideas, beliefs, and values.
The separation of church and state is very important for maintaining individual liberty and promoting a stable society.
I think the main problem with failing to separate church and state is that religions frequently deal with behaviors that do not impinge significantly on the welfare of other people and should, therefore, remain in the realm of individual choice and liberty rather than in the realm of politics and government. In terms of the distinction I suggested earlier about values and meta-values: religions seem to be peculiarly unsuited to distinguishing values from meta-values. In most religions, what’s wrong for me as an adherent of the religion is also wrong for you, never mind you are not a member of the religion or you have your own ideas about what you ought to be doing. And in the same way I am morally obligated to act in a certain way in my personal life by my religious beliefs I am also morally obligated to try to force you to act in a certain way in your personal life. Thus, religious people typically end up being bullies at one level or another, well meaning perhaps, but bullies nonetheless. Indeed, I don’t think it’s any exaggeration at all to say linking religion and government is probably the surest way yet conceived of eroding personal liberty and generating civil conflict. Of course, I suppose I may be a little more sensitive to this particular issue than your average American because I happen to be a secular humanist and atheist while the vast majority of Americans, both liberals and conservatives, consider themselves religious. Despite my clearly minority view on the subject I do intend to take up in future postings what I see as the often baleful and divisive influence of religion on society.
Government has an important role to play in society and should play as big a role as necessary, but no bigger.
I don’t believe government is inherently good or bad or any more or less efficient or effective than any private company. The great virtues of government are 1) it provides a mechanism for directing collective effort in addition to those provided by the market and voluntary associations, and 2) it is at least theoretically accountable to those it serves in a way private companies and even voluntary associations are not. From my perspective, I feel it’s fairly obvious there are some things best addressed by government and some things best addressed by markets and voluntary associations. Deciding which is which is the tricky part and will no doubt provide plenty to think about in future postings. Like many liberals, I tend to have little patience for abstract pronouncements about minimizing the role of government or dogmatic assertions about the supposed evils of government. I would suggest determining whether a particular government program or policy is advisable requires a good cost benefit analysis and an open-minded discussion of the pros and cons, not anti-government dogma and demagoguery. And may I just add that in terms of my own personal experiences I have found that the federal, state, and local governments generally do a pretty good job of keeping things going in as unobtrusive a way as possible. Yes, there are a few bad policies and a few bad actors out there we need to address but in general I think our system actually works pretty well. So, no, I’m afraid I don’t really agree at all with the view of many of my conservative friends that living in the US today is tantamount to living in some sort of soviet gulag. (In fact, I sometimes have to wonder what the heck these people are doing that brings them into such dire and continual conflict with the government. I’m just saying.)
The free market is great for some things in some situations, not so much for other things in other situations.
Having spent perhaps a little too much time studying academic economics in my youth I should start out by saying I have a deep appreciation for the beauty and simplicity of the theoretical model of the perfectly competitive free market. And in broader terms there’s certainly something attractive about the idea of setting up market institutions (property rights, contracts, etc.) and then sitting back and letting all manner of wonderful things happen like so much clockwork. Nevertheless, I find myself rather more ambivalent about the outcomes of some real world markets. (A humorous aside: One of my economics professors once asked my class with more than a bit of irritation, “What is this real world everyone keeps talking about?” He wasn’t joking. He really wanted to know.) And, of course, quite aside from the attractiveness of economic theories and models it’s obviously always easier and cheaper to just let particular markets do what they do rather than getting in there and mucking up the works. Nevertheless, I believe real markets sometimes need a little help if they are going to generate what I would consider optimal outcomes, both in terms of particular markets and in a broader macroeconomic or system wide context.
This is obviously another big topic that will no doubt feature in future postings. However, in the spirit of an opening salvo to set the tone, I see two basic types of potential problems with real world markets. The first and I would say most general potential problem is that market outcomes depend crucially on the distribution of resources (i.e., money, economic power) within a society, so if one sees any issues with how resources are being distributed then those issues will naturally affect one’s assessment of the resulting market outcomes. Of course, the distribution of resources is based partially on the labor market, which in some ways is simply another market like any other. And indeed, many conservatives tend to think of “the market” as one vast system that governs both the production and distribution of resources. However, I would suggest the labor market has some characteristics that make it a bit different from many other markets in certain respects and consequently make it rather difficult for me to conceive of the labor market as simply an element of one big free market system. For example, there seems to me to be a potential normative or value element to wages and working conditions that doesn’t necessarily apply to the types of products traded in other types of markets. That is to say, I think we are sometimes concerned (and I believe rightly) with issues such as whether working people are making a living wage, whether their working conditions are safe, whether they are being compensated fairly relative to other people, whether they are old enough or too old to be working, etc. And we have the interesting issue that most people cannot simply opt out of the labor market because they don’t like what they see in the same way they can opt out of participating in many other markets. And then there are some concerns about how workers can realistically respond to market signals: opportunities for retraining and relocating may vary with the ability of people to pay for additional training, or their innate abilities or talents, or their previous educational opportunities and choices, etc. I could go on, but perhaps that is enough to suggest there may be some distinctive features of the labor market that make it a little tricky to simply include the labor market as one element of some abstract all encompassing free market system. And relative to the point I made about the labor market expressing values, we also have the fact that the labor market does not simply reward behaviors we find laudable such as hard work or a willingness to do what is actually required in a particular economy; it also rewards somewhat more questionable things such as childhood circumstances, family wealth and connections, innate talents and abilities, health status, luck, etc. Nor is the labor market even the sole mechanism at work: we also have inheritances, taxes, lotteries, crime, and who knows what else. So what’s the point? Simply that I believe some issues may plausibly arise from time to time with respect to how resources are distributed in our society that may, in turn, be transmitted to an assessment of market outcomes.
Now I appreciate this sort of talk sets academic economists and their followers on edge because most economists are trained specifically to suspend judgment on distributional issues and to think about the optimality of markets in the restricted terms of concepts like “Pareto optimality” (briefly, the best one can do without making judgments about distributional issues). Although this is perfectly fine for academic economists, who can certainly limit their attention to whatever they like, I find it rather absurd in any broader intellectual context. Thinking about the optimality of a system of producing and allocating goods without worrying about who is getting what, who needs what, who deserves what, who gets the most value from what, etc., is like thinking about war while setting aside the issue that some people may end up killing some other people. Of course, academic economists are fond of pointing out if one has concerns about the distribution of resources then it is generally more efficient to simply address that issue directly rather than attempting to make up for any perceived shortcomings by messing about with product markets themselves. I actually find these arguments pretty persuasive. Allocating resources in some way and then trying to “fix” it later in the context of particular markets can be quite costly and cumbersome. Unfortunately, in the real world it is not a simple matter to simply change how resources are distributed or even to discuss distributional issues in any sensible way, so that option is generally not available. Again, this is a big issue I will no doubt address in future postings. However, I would suggest the fact that we in the US are largely unable or unwilling to have any serious discussion about distributional issues is probably associated with some of the more distinctive features of our particular version of a market economy, notably the increasing concentration of resources in the hands of a relatively few people (and the social pathologies that go along with that) and the need to generate economic activity by fabricating new and increasingly trivial wants for a relatively wealthy few rather than addressing the arguably more pressing needs of the relatively poor (and the social pathologies that go along with that). Of course, we’re certainly not the first country to go down this road, and I suppose students of history may have some idea about where this type of thing tends to end up if it goes on long enough, but that’s a story for another day.
And the second basic type of potential problem with real markets I mentioned earlier? Simply that actual markets always differ more or less dramatically from the theoretical model of a perfectly competitive market ranging from situations in which unregulated markets don’t work very well even on paper (monopolies, oligopolies, public goods, externalities, etc.) to situations in which maybe they work well enough and maybe they don’t (imperfect information, non-rational behavior, etc.) I don’t mean to suggest these are minor details. As we have seen in the last few years, market failures in certain sectors such as in financial markets or real estate can have truly spectacular macroeconomic effects that can generate huge and long standing changes in our economic well being.
So, to make a long story short, I tend to have little patience for sweeping generalizations about real world market systems. Yes, markets make a lot of sense in many cases, and they are always a relatively cheap way to go in terms of public expenditures. However, unregulated markets do not actually always lead to optimal results. In the end, one must be willing to get in there and think critically about what is happening in particular market systems and, if one does see some sort of problem worth fixing (and not all problems are), to think about the particular interventions best suited to the job. When it comes to people’s economic welfare and livelihoods I think there is really no place for simplistic doctrines or ideological claptrap about The Free Market.
