Do We Own Ourselves? / Libertarianism
Summary
The chapter begins by giving statistics showing that the rich are very affluent, much more than the poor. It raises a question: Should we tax the rich more? When money is taken, rich people will not feel much unhappiness, but poor people will gain much more happiness. This then raises another question: Should we take away the wealth of the rich until the happiness of the rich and the unhappiness of the poor become equal?
One objection is utilitarian: too much tax leads to people being less willing to earn money. Another objection comes from libertarianism: taxing the rich to help the poor goes against fundamental rights. It violates the liberty of people to use the money the way they want. Libertarians believe that people have freedom and a fundamental right to liberty—the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, as long as we keep the rights of others.
Libertarians reject paternalism. States should not ban actions that harm me, if I am responsible for them. They also reject legislation derived from morality. Morality should not be enforced by the law. They also reject redistribution of income. The state has no right to take away my money. Such action is coercion, even theft.
An influential thinker related to this theory is Friedrich A. Hayek. He is an Austrian-born economic philosopher. In the Constitution of Liberty (1960),he wrote that attempts to increase economic equality lead to a coercive society that is not free. American economist Milton Friedman wrote in Capitalists and Freedom (1962) that lots of state activities infringe on individual freedom. For example, retirement programs go against the right of people to choose when they want to use their money. Friedman also objects to minimum wage and labor rights, believing that they go against the rights of people entering voluntary contracts with others. He also rejects occupational licensing. If people want to receive service from untrained barbers and physicians, they should be able to. They can be informed through rating services.
Robert Nozick also defended libertarianism. He famously did so in Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974). He believes people hold on to the right to wealth as long as it is justifiably earned and transferred. If the money is not earned through theft, slavery, or other illegal means, it is justifiably earned. If the money was earned through free exchanges in the market or through voluntary gifts, it was justifiably transferred. The state should not tax the money just because it is large in amount.
An example to explain this idea is Michael Jordan’s money. Jordan earned the money. People voluntarily gave him money. Taking away the money has two problems: 1. it constatnly intervenes free market and 2. it goes against the right of Jordan. Nozick has further explanation to make the logic stronger. He discusses self ownership. I have a right to myself. I have a right to my own labor. I have a right to the fruits of my labor. Thus, I have a right to my wealth. By taking away my wealth, the state takes away my labor and the right to own myself. Taxation can be considered as a form of slavery.
There are objections to this. In this summary, I will list the objections and responses briefly.
1 Taxation is not as bad as forced labor. You can choose to work less and pay less tax.
Response: It is still bad. I might want to work more but want it not taken away. That should not be penalized.
2 The poor need the money more.
Response: They might, but it goes against the rights of people.
3 Jordan plays with others; he should help those who have contributed to his success.
Response: Teammates, coaches, and others were all paid in the process. That is especially not a justification for helping the homeless.
4 Jordan has a voice in democracy, so he consented.
Response: The majority consented, not Jordan. The majority do not have a right to decide everything, especially when it severely harms certain people.
5 Jordan is lucky. He lives in a society that celebrates his talents. Talents are given through luck, too.
Response: Jordan owns his talents. His talents are a part of himself. If we do not grant him the right to own them, that goes against self-ownership.
The book then gives more cases to think about in terms of libertarianism.
1 Selling kidneys.
Am I allowed to sell my kidneys? A libertarian would say yes. I have the right to myself. How about in cases where selling my kidneys will end my life? An ardent libertarian would also say yes for the same reason.
2. Assisted suicide.
Libertarians would believe it should be possible. I own myself, and I consent that I have made that choice. Opponents can argue that because of dignity and compassion, it should not be allowed.
3. Consensual cannibalism.
This is assisted suicide, but it is more extreme. An extreme libertarian will say this is allowed too. However, of course, this will be rejected by many who value the lives of people.
Thoughts
I support libertarianism. The logic is sound and intuitive. I am a little different from other supporters, though. I do not support libertarianism only for the reason that it preserves fundamental rights or that I have the freedom to control myself. I support it because keeping my fundamental rights and having the freedom to control myself increase my happiness. So it is more from a utilitarian perspective. Regardless, I support the values that many libertarians hold.
However, my support is not as extreme as Friedman’s. There are some exceptions.
The first is that keeping universal human rights, or basic human rights, should be prioritized. We must not let people suffer in extreme poverty. We should provide the right to food, water, shelter, and a humane life to everyone. This means that taxation and redistribution of wealth can be done to this extent. The justification here goes beyond the boundaries of libertarian thought. People have an obligation to respect the dignity of others, and this is the least that they can do.
The second is when extreme happiness can be gained by going against libertarianism. I would kill the five in the trolley problem. However, I would not kill a 1,000 people. Blind support for libertarianism under the rhetoric that “people have rights” is myopic. For the same reason, I think vaccines should be mandated. It saves people from getting sick and dying. I do not care that some people must sacrifice an hour of their lives, getting a needle in their body, or some irrational fear. The justification here comes from the fact that I am a utilitarian. Keeping rights is only another reason to keep happiness, and that should be weighed against other methods of gaining happiness.