Here’s a letter that I just sent to the Washington Post:
Michael Gerson rightly praises philosopher Michael Sandel for attending to difficult moral questions (“Giving democracy a dose of clarity,” October 28). Gerson, however, too quickly accepts Sandel’s reason for rejecting freedom of choice as supplying, in Sandel’s words, “an adequate basis for a just society.”
Contrary to Sandel’s assumption, the justice of freedom of choice doesn’t require the absence of family, religious, or other ties that bind each of us in non-economic ways – in non-calculating ways – to other people and to various ideals. Instead, the justice of freedom of choice springs from the fact that, regardless of how strongly Jones is constrained by ‘non-calculated’ influences to reject certain options out-of-hand, no other person is in as good a position as is Jones to make sound choices for Jones.
Freedom of choice won’t propel anyone to a bliss point. But it will protect each individual from the injustice of being coerced by others into serving persons and causes that he or she chooses not to serve. In our imperfect vale, that’s the best justice that we can hope for.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
{ 30 comments }
Apparently Sandel has never read Hayek.
Apparently Sandel has never read Hayek.
But socialists believe they can provide a more perfect, Utopian justice.
But socialists believe they can provide a more perfect, Utopian justice.
This is just the same stuff repackaged with some bright new, shiny wrapping paper.
This is just the same stuff repackaged with some bright new, shiny wrapping paper.
Will the wrapping paper hide the noose?
Well, speaking generally, to the Nomenklatura we are – to use Stalin’s phrase – the horse upon which they ride.
Well, speaking generally, to the Nomenklatura we are – to use Stalin’s phrase – the horse upon which they ride.
Will the wrapping paper hide the noose?
From the article…
…but between those who recognize nothing greater than individual rights and choices, and those who affirm a “politics of the common good,” rooted in moral beliefs that can’t be ignored.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
See, “communitarians” are the only people with morals that cannot be ignored.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
From the article…
…but between those who recognize nothing greater than individual rights and choices, and those who affirm a “politics of the common good,” rooted in moral beliefs that can’t be ignored.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
See, “communitarians” are the only people with morals that cannot be ignored.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
“Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing “the right thing to do” in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose.”
Okay, I can run with that. The purpose of the institutions of the political class is to exploit people like me. So they can refer to “morality” as often as they wish, but to me it is just propaganda.
“Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing “the right thing to do” in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose.”
Okay, I can run with that. The purpose of the institutions of the political class is to exploit people like me. So they can refer to “morality” as often as they wish, but to me it is just propaganda.
I like Sowell’s characterization of the political divide better. Those who believe in freedom from coercion and those who believe in freedom from consequences.
I like Sowell’s characterization of the political divide better. Those who believe in freedom from coercion and those who believe in freedom from consequences.
This is very appropriate to an essay that I am working on.Responsibility demands control. Self responsibility is no exception, only with self responsibility the control is expressed in personal choice.If I am not free to make my own personal choices, I have no control and I can not be held responsible.If I am not responsible for my actions who is? Answer: The ones who took the freedom of personal choice away from me.Who takes the freedom of personal choice away from individuals? Answer: The state.By taking my personal choice the state assumes my control, which means the state now controls me and assumes my responsibility. I am a ward of the state and subject to the state’s privilege in all things at all times.In other words, a slave.
This is very appropriate to an essay that I am working on.Responsibility demands control. Self responsibility is no exception, only with self responsibility the control is expressed in personal choice.If I am not free to make my own personal choices, I have no control and I can not be held responsible.If I am not responsible for my actions who is? Answer: The ones who took the freedom of personal choice away from me.Who takes the freedom of personal choice away from individuals? Answer: The state.By taking my personal choice the state assumes my control, which means the state now controls me and assumes my responsibility. I am a ward of the state and subject to the state’s privilege in all things at all times.In other words, a slave.
Normally I agree with you, but I think you’re going overboard there.
In a sense I understand what you’re saying, that you are free to do what you are allowed to do. Like that Metallica song Eye of the Beholder says “you can do it your own way, if it’s done just how I say”.
However you are not property to be bought and sold, so I think you’re bordering on hyperbole.
JohnK,You and I agree that we are not property to be bought and sold, but do you think it is hyperbole to state that there are others, socialist elites, who do not think the same way we do? There are people who are perfectly comfortable with enslaving you with either ideological chains, financial chains, or actual chains. When chained and made to perform, what are you? Answer this bit of hyperbole. Does the democratic leadership seem to see you as a valuable individual with whom to work and share? Or, do they seem to see you as a serf/slave, a pet, or a prisoner? I suggest that their view of you falls into one of the three latter categories.If you are willing to labor for them, you are one of their serfs or slaves.If you are not willing to labor and choose to be privileged and supported by others, they view you as a useful pet.If you chose to do neither, then they will make you a prisoner.But one thing they will not see you as is a free valuable individual with whom to partner.As a slave, pet, or prisoner they control you. As a free individual you scare the shit out of them.But, really I was not saying that I am free to do what I want to do, my poor English must be the problem, my intention in posting was to support the truth that justice is found in personal choice, freedom of choice, and I gave my reasons for doing so.
The brainwashing begins with the statement “We are government”, because once you believe that statement any criticism of government is taken personally.
This is especially evident on MSNBC when Olberführer and Madcow use the first person when talking about the Democrat party or the actions of the government.
The individual is the enemy of the collective.
However I do not see us as slaves. Not yet anyway.
The brainwashing begins with the statement “We are government”, because once you believe that statement any criticism of government is taken personally.
This is especially evident on MSNBC when Olberführer and Madcow use the first person when talking about the Democrat party or the actions of the government.
The individual is the enemy of the collective.
However I do not see us as slaves. Not yet anyway.
I go with serf. The serf paid a duty to his landlord of about half of what he produced. So do we. The landlord had a nominal duty to protect his serfs, but nothing could bind him to it if circumstances made it infeasible. Ditto for our progressive landlords.
I go with serf. The serf paid a duty to his landlord of about half of what he produced. So do we. The landlord had a nominal duty to protect his serfs, but nothing could bind him to it if circumstances made it infeasible. Ditto for our progressive landlords.
Sandel delivered the 2009 Reith Lectures on the topic of “A New Citizenship”. His first of four lectures entitled “Markets and Morals” will be of particular interest to readers of this blog.
Overall, I was unimpressed and really quite disappointed with his arguments. For example, in his second lecture, “Morality in Politics”, he argues against what he identifies as the libertarian position that the state should remove itself entirely from matters relating to marriage. He explains that while this may seem to be an intriguing argument in favor of same-sex marriage, it is problematic because it implies that polygamy should be legal as well. This seems to be a pretty blatant case of argument from assertion on Sandel’s part.
In any event, audio recordings of all four lectures can be found on the BBC website.
Don–
I find the last paragraph of your letter to be a wonderfully concise rebuttal to Kerry Howley’s essay in reason magazine. Howley and Will Wilkinson have been espousing a version of libertarianism that actively challenges established cultural norms and traditions.
Wilkinson, from the comments section of a blog post in which he defends Howley:
“I think pluralism is inevitable in a liberal society. But some norms are terribly illiberal, and those of us who value liberty ought to at least acknowledge that they are and at best will participate in the attempt to install countervailing norms by working to achieve broad social consensus about the bounds of liberality that will raise the social cost of adopting norms on the wrong side of the line.” (emphasis mine)
Will has that bliss point in his cross hairs. Look out!
That’s a good essay summarizing the two schools of thought on societal organization. But what happened to the third definition of justice? I’m not sure he got to that.
I am afraid that, by emphasizing the injustice rather than futility of “progressive” policies, you are conceding their utility.
And that may not be the best way to defend freedom of choice.
No disagreement here.
No disagreement here.