How much Freedom?
"The critical issue ... is whether a person's liberty should get just the same kind of importance (no more) that other types of personal advantages - incomes, utilities and so on - have. In particular, the question is whether the significance of liberty for the society is adequately reflected by the weight that the person herself would tend to give to it in judging her own overall advantage." -Amartya Sen "Development as Freedom"
Sen's starting point for the amount of freedom in society is perhaps more towards the libertarian perspective than most all existing societies in the world today. People typically want more freedom for the sorts of things they do, but when asked about what other people should be allowed to do, most democratic countries fit the beliefs of their median voter. Sen says that people should be free by the amount they want to be free (can you handle that much freedom?!?). There are many reasons why there is less freedom than recommended by Sen, despite the appeal of the baseline. First we need to figure out what Sen meant by "the amount they want to be free", which sounds appealing at first, but is an extremely confusing statement for a policymaker. Who is "they"? They themselves? Everyone values their own freedom, except maybe a few compulsive gamblers or drug addicts. It's other people's freedom they don't like. For example, what if you have one group (51% of society) that believes criticizing their religion is forbidden. The other 49% thinks that religion is wrong and their religion requires them to criticize all wrong religions. How much freedome do they want? What if birth rates change and it goes the other way. In practice you could have wildly varying policy based purely on Sen's maxim. Is there a physical distance before you don't get the right to control others? Is it morally acceptable to control someone's behavior if they live nearby but not far away? Are their psychological barriers? Suppose an author writes a book in French that is highly offensive, which French speakers around the world don't like, but the author's native country speaks English and so they don't bother to outlaw the book. Is the relevant sphere of analysis French speakers, the author's home country, or the author? In all of this analysis, if you say the individual, you are led to very libertarian conclusions, whereas if you say any group that can manage enough violent capacity to force others to their will, you are led to totalitarian conclusions.
Suppose there are two groups of people of equal size: Atheists and Baptists. Atheists love to read Dawkins and Baptists read the Bible. Atheists want to outlaw the Bible and Baptists want to outlaw Dawkins. If each wants to outlaw the others' book more than they want to read their own, the optimal society is to outlaw both. If the relevant unit of analysis is the individual, nothing will be outlawed. If either group gets a majority, they will outlaw the other book and read their own, leading to losses for the minority group. It might even lead to a holy war. Paternalism is a tricky subject, which might be one reason the American colonies developed polycentric mutually tolerant system of government. They hated each others' religion, but not enough to fight over it.
Many argue that freedom should be far less than people would value themselves. The main reason people set up systems to restrict freedom is not to restrict their own freedom, but to control the lives of others around them. Humans struggle for power to survive and reproduce. Part of that power is the ability to make others do what you want them to do. Tolerating someone else's freedom is an acknowledgment that you are not superior to them. For example, occupational licensing is a societal structure set up to reinforce the social superiority of those who are already doing the profession. New entrants to the field are not evaluated based on how well they do the job, but on how well they can supplicate themselves to the current socially superior workers. Paternalism is driven by disapproval of other people's lifestyles and the imposition of restrictions is a way to assert dominance over less powerful individuals. Self control issues dominate the rhetoric of paternalists. They argue that people can not control themselves and thus need an outside force to maintain discipline. Unfortunately, men are not gods and regulators are subject to the same fallibility as those they would control. Politicians are notoriously short sighted, and so will only focus on the next few years when they formulate their vision of society. Health paternalists could easily go overboard driving society into a fun-free hellscape without enough salt, alcohol or delicious food. Paternalism by its very nature is one size fits all, and so can not be tailored to suit individual preferences. It tailors society to fit the politician's vision of the weakest citizen, not its average citizen, who may be more responsible.
Perhaps the significance of liberty for society is understated by the value placed on it by the average individual. If people systematically underestimate the gains from more free societal structures, there might be a good argument to set up a society with institutions that protect individual freedom more than the tides of public opinion would prefer. J.S. Mill argued that the discovery of truth was such a valuable goal that it outweighed objections against freedom of speech. He wrote that only in a completely free society would all perspective be examinable and pointed to a historical record where oppressive governments repressed true but unpopular facts. In fact, the only example that I can think of where the lie was outlawed and the truth allowed is Germany's holocaust denial laws. Most speech restrictions are due to government fear that the truth will get out, or preventing someone from expressing a contrarian viewpoint. The reason for this is simple: the truth has nothing to fear from lies. Lies can be refuted by a careful examination of the evidence. Lies do fear the truth, for it will sweep them away. Economic freedom allows for far more rapid innovation than other economic structures, since it allows for more mutation (through entrepreneurs), clear inheritance (through a strong profit motive) and faster selection (through more competition). Freedom creates a lot of positive externalities by disseminating knowledge quickly. Pragmatic libertarians would argue that in most cases, freedom allows for more resilient social structures because of quick adaptation to local environments and because it allows people to try new possibilities more quickly. Natural rights libertarians would argue that freedom is so important for its own sake, as a societal maximand, like virtue or happiness
In the end, the quest for more freedom is a fool's errand. In any form of government approximating democratic control, people will get about the amount of freedom (for others) as they want. The powerful will always strive to control the weak. I believe that the best a libertarian can do in a democratic society is to teach others that freedom works. That letting people do what they want (harm none) really isn't a bad way to run society. Liberal democracies can win wars. Liberal democracies outproduce every other form of economic organization. Liberal democracies are the best form of government for scientific advancement. Once people are convinced, we can let democracy run its course.
Sen's starting point for the amount of freedom in society is perhaps more towards the libertarian perspective than most all existing societies in the world today. People typically want more freedom for the sorts of things they do, but when asked about what other people should be allowed to do, most democratic countries fit the beliefs of their median voter. Sen says that people should be free by the amount they want to be free (can you handle that much freedom?!?). There are many reasons why there is less freedom than recommended by Sen, despite the appeal of the baseline. First we need to figure out what Sen meant by "the amount they want to be free", which sounds appealing at first, but is an extremely confusing statement for a policymaker. Who is "they"? They themselves? Everyone values their own freedom, except maybe a few compulsive gamblers or drug addicts. It's other people's freedom they don't like. For example, what if you have one group (51% of society) that believes criticizing their religion is forbidden. The other 49% thinks that religion is wrong and their religion requires them to criticize all wrong religions. How much freedome do they want? What if birth rates change and it goes the other way. In practice you could have wildly varying policy based purely on Sen's maxim. Is there a physical distance before you don't get the right to control others? Is it morally acceptable to control someone's behavior if they live nearby but not far away? Are their psychological barriers? Suppose an author writes a book in French that is highly offensive, which French speakers around the world don't like, but the author's native country speaks English and so they don't bother to outlaw the book. Is the relevant sphere of analysis French speakers, the author's home country, or the author? In all of this analysis, if you say the individual, you are led to very libertarian conclusions, whereas if you say any group that can manage enough violent capacity to force others to their will, you are led to totalitarian conclusions.
Suppose there are two groups of people of equal size: Atheists and Baptists. Atheists love to read Dawkins and Baptists read the Bible. Atheists want to outlaw the Bible and Baptists want to outlaw Dawkins. If each wants to outlaw the others' book more than they want to read their own, the optimal society is to outlaw both. If the relevant unit of analysis is the individual, nothing will be outlawed. If either group gets a majority, they will outlaw the other book and read their own, leading to losses for the minority group. It might even lead to a holy war. Paternalism is a tricky subject, which might be one reason the American colonies developed polycentric mutually tolerant system of government. They hated each others' religion, but not enough to fight over it.
Many argue that freedom should be far less than people would value themselves. The main reason people set up systems to restrict freedom is not to restrict their own freedom, but to control the lives of others around them. Humans struggle for power to survive and reproduce. Part of that power is the ability to make others do what you want them to do. Tolerating someone else's freedom is an acknowledgment that you are not superior to them. For example, occupational licensing is a societal structure set up to reinforce the social superiority of those who are already doing the profession. New entrants to the field are not evaluated based on how well they do the job, but on how well they can supplicate themselves to the current socially superior workers. Paternalism is driven by disapproval of other people's lifestyles and the imposition of restrictions is a way to assert dominance over less powerful individuals. Self control issues dominate the rhetoric of paternalists. They argue that people can not control themselves and thus need an outside force to maintain discipline. Unfortunately, men are not gods and regulators are subject to the same fallibility as those they would control. Politicians are notoriously short sighted, and so will only focus on the next few years when they formulate their vision of society. Health paternalists could easily go overboard driving society into a fun-free hellscape without enough salt, alcohol or delicious food. Paternalism by its very nature is one size fits all, and so can not be tailored to suit individual preferences. It tailors society to fit the politician's vision of the weakest citizen, not its average citizen, who may be more responsible.
Perhaps the significance of liberty for society is understated by the value placed on it by the average individual. If people systematically underestimate the gains from more free societal structures, there might be a good argument to set up a society with institutions that protect individual freedom more than the tides of public opinion would prefer. J.S. Mill argued that the discovery of truth was such a valuable goal that it outweighed objections against freedom of speech. He wrote that only in a completely free society would all perspective be examinable and pointed to a historical record where oppressive governments repressed true but unpopular facts. In fact, the only example that I can think of where the lie was outlawed and the truth allowed is Germany's holocaust denial laws. Most speech restrictions are due to government fear that the truth will get out, or preventing someone from expressing a contrarian viewpoint. The reason for this is simple: the truth has nothing to fear from lies. Lies can be refuted by a careful examination of the evidence. Lies do fear the truth, for it will sweep them away. Economic freedom allows for far more rapid innovation than other economic structures, since it allows for more mutation (through entrepreneurs), clear inheritance (through a strong profit motive) and faster selection (through more competition). Freedom creates a lot of positive externalities by disseminating knowledge quickly. Pragmatic libertarians would argue that in most cases, freedom allows for more resilient social structures because of quick adaptation to local environments and because it allows people to try new possibilities more quickly. Natural rights libertarians would argue that freedom is so important for its own sake, as a societal maximand, like virtue or happiness
In the end, the quest for more freedom is a fool's errand. In any form of government approximating democratic control, people will get about the amount of freedom (for others) as they want. The powerful will always strive to control the weak. I believe that the best a libertarian can do in a democratic society is to teach others that freedom works. That letting people do what they want (harm none) really isn't a bad way to run society. Liberal democracies can win wars. Liberal democracies outproduce every other form of economic organization. Liberal democracies are the best form of government for scientific advancement. Once people are convinced, we can let democracy run its course.