.


SCI LIBRARY

Liberalism: On A Collision Course With Liberty

Edward J. Dodson


[1992]


Within the United States the ideological frame of reference used by politicians and citizens alike to label an individual or a proposal is based on the terms liberal and conservative. Given the long tradition attached to these socio-political labels, we apply them without much conscious thought. Yet, many of us who might willingly describe ourselves with one of these two labels are ourselves unsure of what we have in common with others who do likewise.

In a very general way, being liberal is thought to suggest approval of government intervention to promote an equality of treatment for all individuals under the Constitution. A liberal is also thought to advance the cause of equality of opportunity (or, to a greater or lesser degree, equality of result) where the distribution of personal wealth and income are concerned. A conservative, on the other hand, is thought to favor a far more narrow interpretation of the Federal government's responsibilities in the protection of civil liberties or pursuit of equality objectives, assigning these issues to the prerogative of the States. In point of fact, these seemingly clear distinctions tell us very little.

Except for those individuals whose writing, statements or actions puts them clearly outside the mainstream, there is considerable cross-over by so-called liberals and conservatives on many policy issues. Often, an individual's ideological rhetoric conflicts markedly with the type of policy initiatives pursued when holding political office or serving in some advisory capacity. One reason for such inconsistencies is that our socio-political arrangements and institutions serve to mitigate and limit the range of policies around which a consensus can be built. There is a remarkably homogeneous value system holding Americans together, despite the nation's tremendous diversity in ethnic, religious, and racial makeup.

The everyday challenges of settling a continent, building an industrial base and absorbing an endless stream of immigrants from all over the globe did create a nation very different in circumstance from what the framers of the Constitution ever foresaw. Despite a strong bias in favor of the propertied and a concentration of local and national power in the hands of a select number of families, those born in America or who came here during the nineteenth century adhered to the romantic notion that the playing field in America was, if not perfectly level, more level than anywhere else. Not until the late nineteenth century did American institutions come under direct attack by reformers and agitators championing causes similar to those the Old World hierarchy wrestled with much earlier. The reform movement was initiated in the United States by a strange coalition of labor organizers, social scientists, professional managers and educators under the Progressive banner. In the twentieth century an enlarged coaltion that included enlightened industrialists and public officials, forged what has been called Liberalism.

Throughout most of the nineteenth century, the accepted role of government was to facilitate private interests. This was the age of unbridled individualism; and, in its later stage, of monopoly-capitalism. In the last two decades of that century, a growing number of thoughtful individuals began to take stock of the systems' shortcomings and consequences; they united against the excesses that had despoiled the public domain and created a large and growing underclass of propertyless farm and industrial workers. By the early twentieth century, their efforts were rewarded in subtle but important changes in public opinion and in the use of government to regulate private interests. When those who had operated virtually uncontrolled for so long finally understood what was at stake, they inched toward compromises that softened some of the outward conditions of poverty and oppression their enterprises had contributed to, but used their wealth and power to make sure change would be incremental and largely to their benefit.

Americans were unwilling to consider nationalization of land or industry as proposed by European Socialists or Russian Marxists. The spirit, if not the reality, of individual liberty remained one of the nation's strengths. There was, however, great concern among leading citizens over the appearance in the United States of Old World problems. Progressives clamored for reforms in child labor laws, for government support of education, for the construction of hospitals, for clean drinking water and sanitation systems, and for a whole range of programs thought unnecessary or intrusive by earlier generations.

Widespread unemployment in the 1930s opened the door to even more direct government intervention in the private affairs of individuals and businesses. Beginning with this period, both the Republican and Democratic parties advanced increasingly interventionist progams designed to reduce the social and political tensions between economic classes. The Second World War, the post-war anti-communist crusade, the civil rights movement, the rise of feminism and environmentalism, all contributed to the great enlargement of government enterprise and to the politics of Liberalism that has dominated the last half century.

Liberalism functions on the basis of compromise and a blend of policy choices in six key areas. These are detailed on the attached chart to demonstrate that liberalism, itself, is not a socio-political philosophy, but crosses the boundaries between cooperative individualism and state socialism. Under liberalism, full equality of opportunity cannot be realized. The securing of liberty is, in fact, prevented under liberalism by the degree to which privilege (i.e., sanctioned inequality) dominates socio-political arrangements.

Socio-Political Systems


The chart identifies and describes the five important theoretical forms of socio-political systems. As shown, liberalism operates to a greater or lesser degree under policies associated with either cooperative individualism or state socialism. The greater the policy emphasis on security (i.e., order), on redistribution, on policy driven economic activity, on the use of manmade law to control individual behavior, on centralized authority and on representative (i.e., delegated) democracy, the stronger will be the pull toward a system of state socialism. Conversely, policies adopted in the direction of maximizing individual liberty, natural distribution, market (i.e., noncoercive, win-win) economic relationships, ethical constraints on behavior, decentralized authority and maximum citizen participation in government, will pull a society toward cooperative individualism.

Movement too far to the left in these policy areas supplants liberalism with harsher forms of state socialism and, potentially, totalitarianism. Policies implemented beyond the bounds of cooperative individualism pull societies into what are historically uncharted waters; there, human nature collides with the degree of cooperation and selflessness demanded under communitarianism or anarchy.

An important point to take notice of is that socio-political arrangements allowing natural law to freely operate may create equality of condition but cannot generate equality of opportunity. Only cooperative individualism (by prohibiting sanctioned inequalities to occur) establishes the conditions necessary for equality of opportunity to flourish. This is accomplished by protecting individual liberty against the criminal and economic licenses alluded to by John Locke generally, and with greater specificity by Tom Paine.

Another important characteristic of cooperative individualism is that the natural distribution of wealth to its producers be protected by the positive laws adopted. Such laws as they relate to property will clearly distinguish between production and values attributable to privilege held in the form of titleholdings to nature and licenses restricting open commerce and trade.

Labor, applied to land (i.e., nature) produces wealth. This describes the distributive process for legitimate individual property. Wealth belongs to its producer. Titleholdings and licenses are privileges, the exchange value of which is created by the nation's willingness to uphold these claims to privilege. Therefore, this form of value (if permitted to accrue to the titleholder or licensee) is by definition unnatural property. To the extent that government fails to collect these values for the benefit of the entire nation, the nation suffers from a redistribution of wealth -- from producers to those who simply claim what is produced on the basis of privilege.

The securing of liberty and its protection requires the establishment of government. However, a strong argument can be made against the formation of large nation-states based on their historical tendency to protect monopoly privileges with highly coercive and oppressive police powers. Cooperative individualism works on behalf of liberty by maximizing citizen participation in government and by preventing monopolies in both property and political power. As a result, much of the societal conflict associated with other socio-political systems is mitigated by the high level of cooperation generated when individual initiative is rewarded in direct proportion to the effort expended.

History and our common sense direct us to cooperative individualism as the only means to secure for ourselves and future generations the benefits of a fundamentally just society.

Socio-Political Systems
A New Approach to the Left/Right Paradigm


LIBERALISM
Security
Redistribution
Policy Driven
Positive Constraints
Centralized Authority
Delegated Democracy
Liberty
Natural Distribution
Market Driven
Moral/Ethical Constraints
Decentralized Authority
Participatory Democracy
Positive Law Natural Law ....
CONTROL OF NATURE AND CAPITAL GOODS

TOTALITARIANISM

STATE
SOCIALISM

COOPERATIVE
INDIVIDUALISM

COMMUNITARIAN
SOCIALISM

ANARCHISM

by the State and/or a privileged elite (e.g., oligarchy) by the State, with wealth production and distribution highly planned primarily by private individuals and groups, with some State control of "public domain" as societal trustee by private groups on a cooperative basis, limited to what is actively used
in production of wealth
by private individuals and groups under voluntary agreements
RELATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS

TOTALITARIANISM

STATE
SOCIALISM

COOPERATIVE
INDIVIDUALISM

COMMUNITARIAN
SOCIALISM

ANARCHISM

directed by the State and laws based on moral relativism directed by the State and bureacratic authority, subject to extensive corruption directed primarily by reliance on private. voluntary (i.e., non-coercive) arrangements, subject to law based on reasoned principles directed entirely by non-hierarchical decision-making (e.g., a tribal council) but with risk of behavior codes being based on tradition rather than reasoned principles governed entirely on the basis of voluntary, private arrangements, without distinction between tradition, moral relativism or reasoned principles
PROPERTY DEFINED

TOTALITARIANISM

STATE
SOCIALISM

COOPERATIVE
INDIVIDUALISM

COMMUNITARIAN
SOCIALISM

ANARCHISM

by the State and may or may not be limited to personal items by the State and is generally limited to personal items (other than housing) by law consistent with human rights, so that what is produced by the individual (with the assistance of capital goods) is private property by the community based on voluntary agreement (sometimes consistent with the principles of human rights, sometimes based on tradition and moral relativism) by individuals in voluntary association (sometimes consistent with principles of human rights, sometimes based on tradition and moral relativism)
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS CONTROLLED BY

TOTALITARIANISM

STATE
SOCIALISM

COOPERATIVE
INDIVIDUALISM

COMMUNITARIAN
SOCIALISM

ANARCHISM

a privileged minority with minimal citizen participation a privileged minority, with citizen participation at local and regional level all citizens under a system of law guaranteeing individual liberty and narrowing defining the powers of the State small, largely autonomous groups and loosely cooperating on matters affecting each other in the absence of the State. Societal responsibilities contractually undertaken
RIGHTS

TOTALITARIANISM

STATE
SOCIALISM

COOPERATIVE
INDIVIDUALISM

COMMUNITARIAN
SOCIALISM

ANARCHISM

are defined and codified into law by the State and its privileged elite are defined and codified into law by the State and its privileged bureaucracy are attached to the individual as a human being , are protected by positive law and are consistent with reasoned principles of justice are attached to the individual as a member of the group, are protected by positive law but may or may not be consistent with reasoned principles of justice are defined under contractual agreements voluntarily negotiated, and may or may not be consistent with reasoned principles of justice
PROPERTY IN NATURE

TOTALITARIANISM

STATE
SOCIALISM

COOPERATIVE
INDIVIDUALISM

COMMUNITARIAN
SOCIALISM

ANARCHISM

sanctioned by the State, generally to the benefit of a privileged elite and to the exclusion of overwhelming majority held by the State and administered by bureaucratic agencies for the benefit of the privileged elite defined by law as a privilege, with titleholdings a form of economic license the exchange value of which is collected by government as a societal fund for use in creating public infrastucture or distribution as a social dividend to all citizens conveyed to the group, with rights of usage allocated in some manner accepted as just by the citizens sanctioned by private, contractual agreements with titleholdings protected by the force of universal acceptance
SANCTIONED INEQUALITY EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY EQUALITY OF CONDITION....