“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
– Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
Two hundred and thirty years ago, Thomas Paine wrote a small pamphlet arguing against monarchy. His argument wasn’t a fanatic diatribe, and it wasn’t a complex theoretical treatise. It was just this: “Use your common sense. Does this seem like a fair system?†He was arguing against the powerful classes of his day who said, “Trust us, this system is ordained by God. It is perfect. Any change will bring ruin!†Of course, change did come and time made converts to the ideas of individual liberty and autonomy in a historic shift of thought now known as the enlightenment.
Today, the ideas of the enlightenment are universally accepted, and yet something is wrong. The rejection of autocracy has turned in to an obsessive fixation on the autonomy of the individual. The result of which is to entrench the powerful classes in our society. Even someone whose only choice is to work in a sweatshop or starve is deemed free to make that choice. And the multinational corporation that hires him for pitiful wages while making huge profits is thought to have done nothing wrong. After all, the worker signed a contract so he’s working of his own free will, right?
The definition of liberty is misconceived in our society. We assume liberty exists except in extreme circumstances such as someone holding a gun to your head. But the true definition of liberty is freedom from coercion. Coercion comes in many forms, and it is much more common than assumed by our social and legal institutions. In the sweatshop example, the lack of alternatives is a form of coercion. The company knows that this coercion exists and uses it to take advantage of the worker. So read these pages and use your common sense. The next time someone argues that things have to be the way they are ask yourself, “Does this seem fair?â€
Natural Liberty?
A town council was discussing the best way to add a wheelchair ramp to their community center when one of the councilors said, “I don’t think we should have a wheelchair ramp at all.†The others said, “But that would be unfair to people in wheelchairs.†And the one replied, “No it wouldn’t. They have just as much right to use the stairs as everyone else.†Clearly, having the right to do something that you don’t have the ability to do is not liberty.
Theoretically, you can do whatever you want, but in reality you are checked at every turn. Theoretically, you can live anywhere except on land that’s already owned, but in reality everywhere is already owned. Theoretically, you can trade anything with anyone, but in reality you can only buy what is offered by the merchants around you. Theoretically, you can do whatever you want with your time, but in reality you need a job to pay your bills. Theoretically, you can work at any job you want and refuse to work unless you are given a fair salary and benefits, but in reality you have to take the best job that’s available. We are not totally free in the choices we make. It is more accurate to say we are free to choose from a menu of choices, but we have little control over what’s on the menu.
This is at odds with the enlightenment concept of natural liberty. Natural liberty assumes there is some starting point where everyone is separated from each other and totally free. And from this starting point people can choose to interact, or they can choose not to interact. Under this thinking every human interaction is voluntary so anything is okay as long as someone signs a contract. But is this reasonable? It assumes each individual is entirely self sufficient. As if we each had a cocoon that would keep us alive and where we could live forever if we wanted. So a sweatshop worker has plenty of choices. He could work, starve, or stay in his cocoon. Since he has choices he must be choosing to work voluntarily! But the cocoon doesn’t exist. The liberty is an illusion.
What is the state of nature for human beings? You are born in a particular place at a particular time surrounded by particular people. You are entirely dependent on the care of others for many years of your childhood. Even when you reach adulthood do you grow your own food or make your own clothes? Could you even if you wanted to? Throughout human history community was the norm. Banishment was a punishment for a crime, not a return to the state of nature. In short, the idea that all human interaction is completely voluntary is wrong. You have some choice about who you interact with, but you have no choice not to interact. Telling someone in a sweatshop he has the right not to work is like telling someone in a wheelchair he has the right to use the stairs.
What I am suggesting is nothing less than a redefinition of one of the fundamental pillars of our society and legal system. The philosophers of the enlightenment declared “all people are born equal and free.†It is time to amend this to read “All people are born equally deserving of freedom, but in an actual state of duress.â€