I’ve come to notice one common value question that runs through a lot of liberal/conservative disagreements. It’s the question of whether humans are fundamentally connected or fundamentally separate beings. Let me start with an example,Two people own two houses right next to each other. One day, a tornado whips through and completely destroys one house, but leaves the other untouched. Someone could say, “The one guy didn’t do anything to deserve having his house destroyed, and the other guy didn’t do anything to deserve having his house spared. So why should one guy lose his house and the other guy lose nothing? Since neither of them did anything to deserve it, it’s not fair for the costs to be so unevenly distributed.” But someone else could say, “The guy whose house was spared didn’t do anything to cause the destruction of the other house. Why should he have to pay when he didn’t do anything wrong?”
That’s the value question. Should society work to even out the effects of undeserved luck and any inequality needs to be justified? Or is undeserved luck just a fact of life and any redistribution needs to be justified? Are we all in this together, or are we individually accountable? Are we fundamentally connected or separate?
I think this one theme explains a lot. For example, no-fault car insurance. The states that have no-fault car insurance tend to be the more liberal states, which are more on the solidarity end of the scale. States without tend to be more libertarian, more individualistic. What’s the philosophy behind no-fault car insurance? Well, a lot of people drive. There’s nothing wrong with driving. But every time you drive there’s a chance you’ll get into a wreck. There are bad choices you can make that will increase your chance of a wreck like speeding or drunk driving. But even if you make perfect choices there is still some residual risk.
The solidarity philosophy says, “Look, humans are imperfect. Even if you are as careful as possible there is no way to absolutely eliminate the risk of getting into a wreck. And if you have no control over that risk why should you be held responsible for it? Since every driver on every trip assumes this same residual risk, why should the costs be unfairly applied to those unlucky enough to get into a wreck when others who chose to assume the same risk get off scott free just because they were luckier?”
On the other hand, the individualist philosophy is, “You know there is a residual risk that you can’t eliminate whenever you get behind the wheel, but you choose to take that risk. Even if you are as careful as possible you are still responsible for everything that happens to you that isn’t someone else’s fault. If you take the risk of driving and get into a wreck, and someone else who takes the same risk doesn’t, that’s life.”
This issue does spill over into another question, which is how much do we estimate people actually have control over what happens to them? Liberals estimate that the residual risk is significant, and fairness is best served by erring on the side of assuming a person couldn’t control their situation unless there is evidence of a bad choice like drunk driving. While libertarians estimate that the residual risk is insignificant, and fairness is best served by assuming a person had total control over their situation unless there is evidence of no choice such as having a heart attack while driving. Irrespective of our estimate of how much control people have, I think there is a separate question of what should we do about things over which we have no control.
Life involves risks and luck. Is that fair? Is it a moral responsibility for us to share the effects, both good and bad, of things ouside our control, or is it wrong to force someone to share their good luck with others or to share in someone else’s bad luck. The answer to this one question, I bet, would be very predictive of a person having liberal or conservative views on a wide variety of issues.
9 comments ↓
I think that the individual-collectivist (right-Left) continuum is very limiting. The difference are real. However, there are also those that want to maximize equality and individual freedom. In a right-left continuum this would put you in the center or weak on both. However, the use of a map, such as the world’s smallest political quiz, allows more options than simply right or left, even if the quiz is skewed towards right-wing libertarianism due to its makers’ ideology.
I’m sure most of you have see it, but here is the link:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
When I saw Joe’s comment I knew there was something I wanted to say, but I couldn’t figure it out. It finally came to me. This comment is really late and maybe no one will read it, but here goes.
Joe,
I think what I’m talking about is different than collectivism. It’s not “should we pool our money and join a commune?”
The issue that I’m calling solidarity is for people who took the same risks, behaved exactly the same in everything that they had control over, is it morally right for them to receive a different outcome because of things they had no control over.
Someone could be a non-collectivist, believe in private property, believe that each person should be responsible for himself, and that people who work harder deserve more money, and yet still believe that undeserved luck should be spread evenly. I’m not talking about giving to the less fortunate because you are a nice person. I mean that the fraction of what you earn that is due to undeserved luck isn’t really your money. You have a moral duty to spread that equally over everyone.
You talked about maximizing equality and individual freedom. My response is, what’s the definition of equality? Does equality mean we all receive an equal result from things we have no control over?
I tried to avoid collectivist/individualist terminology, but the best I could come up with was solidarity/individual accountability. Maybe this axis isn’t completely orthogonal with collectivist/individualist.
Yeah, I was reading into what you were saying a little bit. Did you check out the map? I know you wouldn’t fall on the far left, but probably left of center along with social democrats and other liberals who believe in private property as well as a social safety net.
This map gages collectivism vs individualism and statism vs libertarianism. I imagine most liberaltarians fall into the north west region, or high on libertarianism, with more social tendencies than your libertarian capitalists.
Some liberaltarians, like myself, may be on the far left, but different than communist, whose statism would pull them south. Others liberaltarians may be closer to the center, mixing libertarian, social and individualist tendencies.
Yes, I had taken the quiz a long time ago. I took it again and wound up in the upper left. In liberal, but close to libertarian.
With only ten multiple choice questions the quiz is kind of limited. I think there’s extra dimensions that are missing. For example, I feel there are important social goals like environmental protection and an economic safety net that society has a moral duty to achieve. Its not required that the government do these things, but they’re not optional. If government is the only way they can be achieved then it’s better than not doing them.
Yes, the worlds smallest political quiz is very limited and a little biased. Here is one that used to be just left-right, but now has up-down dimensions as well, except its the opposite of the one you just took (north is authoritarian and south is libertarian). Its more extensive and nuanced in its questionnaire, except I’m not sure I understand the item: Some people are naturally unlucky. What does that mean?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I’m right on the left/libertarian line on the world’s smallest political quiz 100% on personal and 50% economic, and nearly to the bottom left on the political compass.
I agree with your last statement as well. Social, economic, and environmental justice are not optional. We must work towards these goals. The government can be used, but is not the only option. Sometimes it can be part of the problem, sometimes part of the solution.
Wow, this is a really productive discussion.
I like the way you said social, economic, and environmental justice are not optional, but they don’t have to be provided by government. I think that makes a good core tenant of liberaltarianism. That statement distinguishes it from both libertarianism and liberalism.
On the political compass quiz I think the statement, “Some people are naturally unlucky” was meant to be interpreted as, “Some people are hopeless cases and it’s not my problem to help them.” But it could be interpreted as, “Some people are unlucky through no fault of their own and I should help them.”
The political compass also had an interesting tidbit on the analysis page after you take the test. They described left libertarian as voluntary collectivism. As in, “I want to live in a commune, but I wouldn’t force other people to.” I haven’t really understood what was meant by the term left libertarian before. This might be a good description, or it might not include everything that others mean by the term.
And I had another insight about what I mean by the term solidarity. It means you believe there is a moral responsibility to make life fair for others. Even people you’ve never met. Even when you are not causing the unfairness. So solidarity people would agree with statements like, “My country should try to stop genocide anywhere in the world.” In a sense, non-authoritarianism, non-collectivism, and non-solidarity could all be called individualism, but in different ways.
I see myself as heavily pro-solidarity and mostly non-authoritarian. Each individual has an individual moral responsibility to make sure life is fair for others. If you don’t then you are doing something wrong in the same way that a blackmailer is doing something wrong. Mostly people will do the right thing by themselves as long as they live in a civil society where they see social norms of doing the right thing upheld. But if necessary, solidarity trumps non-authoritarianism and government can be used as a tool to promote fairness.
On the economic scale I’m somewhat collectivist. Being rich isn’t a personal goal for me. I’d rather have a comfortable middle-class standard of living and enough free time to do the non-economic things that are really important to me. I think the best way to achieve that would be a somewhat collectivist community where I wouldn’t have to spend so much time and energy defending my economic interests.
But I wouldn’t want to force others to live the way I want to live. I would rather have a society with a variety of economic systems where people can choose the system they want. In the absence of that I think it’s okay for authority to enforce a middle way so that collectivists aren’t forced to live in a purely libertarian society and libertarians aren’t forced to live in a purely collectivist society.
[...] http://www.liberaltarian.net/solidarity-or-individualism/#comments [...]
Why invent a such ideology as “liberaltarianism”, when the apparant stances and ideals of this mode of thought is already presented in existing ideologies and political standings such as social democratism, reformism, keynesianism and such? I mean, it basically seems as just another reformist ideology presenting regulated capitalism as an alternative to deregulated, unhindered capitalism.
The american usage of “liberalism” and “libertarianism” are completely falsehood, as these definitions are exclusively american and revisions of the original meanings of liberalism and libertarianism.
Liberalism as ideology is grounded in the principles of the “free market”, complete deregulation, equal rights and such (a modern variation is “neoliberalism”).
“Libertarianism” originates from anarcho-syndicalism, which is an anti-authoritarian form of collectivism. Or, more widely called, anarchism, which sprung up as one of the poles in the left movements among marxism (anarchism is also an ideology being revised in american terminology).
Thomas,
About the terms “liberal” and “libertarian” you are right that I am using their modern American meanings. “Liberal” used to mean laissez-faire in the days of Thomas Jefferson. I wasn’t aware “libertarian” was originally coined by anarcho-syndicalists.
But what’s important is what people mean by those words today. The meanings of words change over hundreds of years. If I went up to the man on the street and said “liberal” he would think big government and “libertarian” he would think free market. Do people elsewhere in the world still use those words with their original meanings? If so, then my posts are colored with American terminology, but people can still tell what I mean.
Your main point is a valid question. Aren’t we just inventing a new name for an ideology that already exists under a different name?
I don’t see my philosophy as matching up well with the current policies of the Democratic party here in America, which is who Americans would generally associate with reformist, regulated capitalism. The main difference is that it seems like democrats think it’s only natural for the government to be in charge of everything.
For example, I’m against laws requiring adults to wear seat belts, while democrats think the government should make people do what the government thinks is best for them. And in this latest economic bailout it seeems like democrats think the economy should be like an orchestra with the government as the conductor as opposed to a sports match with the government as referee.
So my views don’t match up well with the Democratic party, Republican party, or Libertarian party here in America. Perhaps if I lived somewhere else that had a parliamentary form of government I would be very happy voting for a minority party.
I’m probably not the first person to come up with these views and coin a name for them. But I didn’t know of any name in common usage that fit. I’ll read up more about the names “social democratism” and “reformism”. I think “keynesianism” is limited to just the economic sphere, and my scope is wider than that.
If there are any other political parties or movement names elsewhere in the world that you think describe what I’m saying I would like to know about them.
Leave a Comment