Someone I don't know tweeted this late last week:
I recommend all Liberals and NeoLibs follow @RichardJMurphy.You won't agree with anything he says but his musings are enjoyably infuriating.
So why do I irritate a particular type of libertarian? It's a question I asked myself because it's very obviously true and yet I think of myself as both liberal and as being committed to personal freedom.
I think the answer comes down to what we mean by freedom. It's my suspicion that those libertarians that I irritate think freedom means being able to do what they like without constraint and maybe, even, restraint. I am aware that simplifies an ideology into one short sentence, but on this occasion I see no harm in that. I suspect most of the time most libertarians do little more.
I don't see freedom that way. I see freedom as having the choice to commit. As a result I think it is the act of constraining ourselves that is the ultimate expression of freedom.
So, I have committed to my family. I have committed to campaign on tax justice. I have committed to my colleagues. I have committed to live in a place. I have committed to a faith. I have in all these things committed to others. I have necessarily accepted restraint in each case and yet in doing so I obtain freedom. That freedom comes from the commitment of others to support me, and they do. It comes from the freedom from having continually to decide what to do. It comes from knowing I have made choices that seem to matter.
But this freedom is not one that can be enjoyed alone. This is a freedom that can only be enjoyed in company. In that case there is then no freedom for me if others cannot enjoy the opportunity to respond to the commitments I make. So my freedom is not absolute, as the libertarian would have it, with each free to enjoy without consideration for others. My freedom is wholly conditional on the freedom of others, and even on their ability to respond to me. So if those to whom I commit cannot or do not commit to me, to at least some degree, my freedom is necessarily constrained unless I, of course, then exercise the freedom to think again. That is why in this definition of freedom the ability to change one's mind, which appears anathematic to libertarians, is so important.
That freedom to rethink commitment is however, again, conditional. It assumes that those to whom I have committed can freely reciprocate my commitment. But suppose they cannot. Suppose their ability is constrained. What then? Am I free to ignore their constraint when reacting to their commitment to me? I think that in turn requires a conditional response.
If the constraint is of their own making then I might accept their actions. So, if they decided to reject or abuse my personal commitment and no other party is involved in any material way and I have made reasonable efforts to overcome the grounds for their rejection then I have to accept it is their right to reject my commitment. In that case it is my duty to accept that rejection and moved on because my continued commitment might otherwise harm me or them.
If on the other hand others are impacted by their rejection of me I have to consider whether I must commit to that person nonetheless to protect the harm their rejection might cause to others who might be affected or suffer similar treatment. That is because my commitments are not independent of each other. They are collective. For example, I cannot commit to one of my sons without the other because to do so would harm them both, and their relationship, and, of course me. It would also harm their mother and my relationship with her. I do not in that case have the freedom to reject one relationship without considering its impact upon another if I am truly to be free in all my commitments. The pain of rejection is, then, a necessary part of this freedom to commit and to be accepted as part of it.
As important though is the situation where the rejection does not arise from the choice of the individual, but from constraint on their capacity to make that choice. Suppose they are so economically oppressed they feel unable to reciprocate my commitment. Or suppose they could not do so because of ill health. Or because they did not have a necessary skill that had been denied to them but which they had the necessary inherent ability to master. Or suppose that others imposed on them a constraint that prevented their reciprocation without good reason. What then? Do I have the right to walk away from my commitment in those cases?
I do not think that possible, any more than I think it possible to live at present without making commitments to those to whom some such constraints might apply. That's the consequence of living in any society, which as a matter of fact we all do. But in that case we have to accept it is a matter of nothing more than chance that to a very large (but not sole) degree determines where we find ourselves and what constraints might be imposed upon us.
So, it was accident of birth that once gave a few the prerogative of education. It appears that this might be coming true again within the UK, whilst around the world it is an accident of the location of a person's birth that still determines this for many, as a matter of fact.
The same is, of course, true of healthcare.
And for freedom of expression.
And for economic well being.
And for all basic human rights.
The freedom to reciprocate the choice of commitment that I want to make is to some degree constrained. For a great many it is, I am well aware, considerably more constrained in a great many ways.
Does the fact that others suffer more constraint than I do give me the right to ignore their constraint and reappraise their relationship with me? I do not think so. I cannot but live in community with these people. As a matter of fact the people around me, and ultimately all the people in this world, are my community. If they are constrained, and that is a constraint that I can have impact upon, then I do not have the right to turn my back on that other person who us suffering that constraint. My commitment to them, willingly made by the reality of being in community with them, requires that I seek the freedom for them that by accident or endeavour (and it does not matter which) I, at least, enjoy. If I do not my own freedom is constrained because they cannot reciprocate to me.
My duty goes further though. If I am aware that the constraint another faces arises not by chance but as a consequence of the deliberate action of another, whether intentional as to its outcome or not, then I have both a duty to advise that person of the consequences of their actions and to seek to get them to change their behaviour. That duty to seek change is not unconditional, of course. To seek change from the oppressor that would then impose constraint on their capacity to choose would clearly be unacceptable. That wrong could not compensate their own mistake.
But in that case there is clearly a minimum required conduct that the freedom to commit demands. This is a recognition that this freedom can only be truly enjoyed when all can participate in it. So, for example, there is no religious freedom unless all can commit to their religion of choice. And there is no freedom to commit to a relationship unless all can commit to their relationsips of choice. And the right to work is constrained unless all have the opportunity to do so. It is even true that the right to self employment and to manage your own fortune is constrained unless all have that right: the free access to capital that is a condition of the effective operation of markets is a requirement if there is to be freedom to commit to entrepreneurship.
This, then, requires a universalist approach and yet one that is dependent upon the right actions of each individual. There is quite clearly an ethic within the individual freedom to commit that renders it meaningless unless all have the means to reciprocate. When they don't there is a demand for action. Until the freedom to reciprocate is delivered there is a duty to compensate, but that is insufficient of itself to relieve the obligation to deliver on the promise of freedom to commit for all. The requirement is to deliver that right; compensation can never be enough.
The consequence is that this philosophy of freedom demands change until all are free. It can never be satisfied because someone is free if another is not. And that is where it starkly contrasts with the right wing libertarian view. And that is why those who subscribe to that view are bound to find me irritating. There is in what I think and the way I act a direct challenge to the egotistic, self centred approach of the libertarian who sees their freedom as existing independently of the constraints it may impose on other's freedom to commit. I am not worried by being that cause of irritation. I think I have a moral obligation to irritate them in that way. I think their acts are wrong in that they would, if allowed, constrain others freedom to commit by denying them the necessary foundations of well-being that permit them to do so.
But that does not mean I am not committed to freedom. It does not even mean I am not committed to freedom to choose. I am committed to both. But that is the precise point. It is in my commitment that I am made free, and not by the absence of constraint that I am liberated.
You have the right to choose, of course. But I will tell you now that your choice is not unconditional, whether you like it or not. It will impact on others, inevitably. And that is why your choice can also be right, or wrong. Do I need to spell out that libertarians have got it wrong? I would have thought not. But then, it is my obligation to say so, because in the process I seek to remove the constraint they choose to place on the freedom of others to commit as they think appropriate.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Spot on Richard. Well said.
Thanks
In a previous post about a choice of where to live, I pointed out that according to Mouseprice, you live in the most expensive house amongst the 45 properties in your postcode. From house number 14 on the list onwards, the properties are less than half the value of yours according to the most recent prices published.
From Rightmove today, I looked to see what £380k gets you in your town. Some big, impressive properties.
When I raised this, you told me it was a private matter between you and your wife, and that it was nobody else’s business. You also told me that someone has to live in that property — it may as well be you.
This is the response I would have expected from someone from the Adam Smith Institute, and does not appear at all consistent with what you have written above. Can you kindly explain?
I am not bothered where you live – it is none of my business. But you have made your personal conduct an issue in this post, and therefore you have publicly made it fair game.
I have to say I find your logic baffling, and even spurious
I own a house that is at the higher end of prices in my town, I agree, but this is a town where affordability is pretty good, thankfully. That is one of its attractions
Now tell me what I am denying others on the logic I have outlined? Are you sure you have not fundamentally missed some point? Are you really trying to say to be ethical I must have a house that costs below average and that by definition all those who have houses that cost more than average are unethical? If so, nothing I have written can support that view.
I think that in fact you are clinging to straws to offer personal abuse, and if you are you will only have one shot at an answer, if you are lucky, so stick to the ethics please and not your favoured ad hominems
Thanks for your reply:
1. This ‘research’ took me barely 30 seconds! Public domain stuff. Mouseprice + Rightmove. And I haven’t had to look far to find out where you live. It is on this site!
2. The post back in January was about the ethics of choosing where you live. If you are going to ask the question of others, it is only fair the question be asked of you. It is a subject you raised, but you got prickly about the subject when the question was asked of you.
3. I don’t see any ethical or unethical dimension of the choice of where to live. Anywhere you like is fine, as long as you’re not harming others.
4. But the subject of my comment yesterday isn’t about where you live, but rather, your reply to me when the subject was raised.
5. Your reply to me then was that the choice of where to live was a matter for you and your wife and nobody else’s business.
6. That’s fine — no problems with that.
7. However, that reply looks like it comes from Chapter 1 of the Libertarian Handbook.
8. And your comments policy (‘this is my blog, I can do what I want’) also has a very libertarian feel to it.
9. I don’t disagree with your right to these positions, or regard them as unethical. All I am suggesting is: call a spade a spade. It doesn’t look consistent with what you’ve written above, but you are welcome to explain how it can be reconciled.
10. It is unfair for you to suggest this comment is ad hominem. An ad hominem reply would be one where your conduct is irrelevant to the subject being discussed. However, you have raised your own conduct in this post. Therefore, it is fair game.
11. Ian Stevenson’s comment (is it tongue in cheek?) suggests that you and your wife have some entitlement to a better standard of housing for no reason other than that you are ‘professionals’. Is this a code word for ‘elite’? Ian may wish to comment.
For the record, I am not libertarian though I am happy to live and let live. I would describe myself as working class, from a northern city, old Labour to my boot straps. Have worked hard all my life.
However, like a lot of people I know, I am suspicious of urban professionals who condescendingly claim to speak for the ‘poor’ (as if it is one group) but when it comes to themselves, they are really part of the establishment who still like all the trappings. And they get defensive about it. Look how quickly Ivan jumped to your defence.
These urban professionals have hijacked the Labour party. No wonder they struggle up here. They only get seats because there is no alternative.
I suspect this reply will not get published.
Let’s deal with your last point first. You have been published
Then let’s ask the question of whether I am a member of an elite or not. The answer depends on perspective. I am well aware of my own rather humble family background – and my granny’s tin bath, still used when I was a child
Equally, I have a degree and a professional qualification and have earned at what may be considered normal levels for a practicing chartered accountant until taking up my current activity. I am married to a GP – often considered p[art of the economic elite – although that would hardly describe her family background either
So is a person precluded from social conscience or recognising their family background because they become a professional person? It’s a self defeating argument for the left if true.
As to my choices – of home or blogging policy – the reason why I do not think it an issue here is that I am not, as far as I can see denying anyone else the chance to commit. As I have said many times, if the only place a person could comment on the web was here I would find it hard to delete comments. But it isn’t, so I restrict no one’s chance as a result of my policy. I suggest that’s exactly true also as a result of living in the house I do – which is hardly an abnormal choice or exceptional in its nature (you can and no doubt have looked on Google)
So as far as I can see I am wholly walking my talk. Your accusations remain very strange in that context
But Richard, you don’t understand the way people like Georgia think. They will only tolerate opinions opposed to their wealthy mates, if they are poor, disenfranchised and without a voice. Everone else is a hypocrite. Furthermore, you must be a class traitor, which is intolerable to them, like the inverted trotskyists they are.
People like Georgia cannot bear that anyone else should raise an opinion different to theirs. I can’t imagine why you bothered to publish what she wrote. It’s all just Daily Mail style stuff. I personally would suspect that Georgia is just a troll and nothing she says can be taken at face value.
You may say that
I couldn’t possible comment
🙂
PS I did wonder whether to delete but replying showed how absurd she is
Georgia, what about your conduct? Richard Murphy and his wife are both professionally qualified people whom we might expect to live in more expensive housing-and they will not be occupying houses which the less well can afford. I am sure Richard could earn more if was a full time chartered accountant rather than giving time to campaigning.
What is the point of your comment except to create innuendo? It reminds me of those who suggest that those who care about the poor should give them some of their money but don’t ask them. It is often followed by an accusation of he ‘politics of envy’ , a comment which usually says something about the politics of those who make accusations i.e. they follow the politics of greed.
Your comment about my earnings is, I can assure you, true
And the value of my house is not that extraordinary – which Georgia has bothered to research, I note
Ian, well said.
And Richard, I read Georgia’s comment earlier today and found it rather creepy – or at the very least, odd. I find the personal conduct of quite a few people to be an issue but I’ve yet to feel the need to track down where they live and ascertain the value of their house relative to other properties and people. Still, I notice that Georgia got one more “like” than “dislike” (4 to 3 at the time I wrote this comment), so I’m assuming in certain sections of the blogsphere and twittersphere that kind of personalised “research” (character assassination?) is more acceptable than not.
As the subject of such research I also find it creepy
I’d love to see the response from the tweeter. In fact I’d like to know if he/she followed his/her own advice and read all this. Please let us know.
Well expressed post, Richard.
As a Quaker Christian I would add that only from a place of our own powerlessness can human relationships really grow. As soon as I exercise will to power over someone things get very distorted. The history of banking is largely about wanting power over currency, we know where it has got us. Likewise, commerce unchecked causes huge harm socially and environmentally. If we were able to act rationally, almost all commercial activity would have an ‘externalities check’ before it was undertaken. Many of our economic problems are the result of hasty money making without due diligence to social and environmental costs.
The libertarian thinks all endeavours in self interest (so called) result in a sort of collective good. We know this is nonsense. In fact, as Richard hints at, it begs the question of what is true self-interest. The Libertarian also says: ‘ if we create appalling work conditions in underdeveloped countries, no problem because the wealth will eventually lead to them evolving better conditions.’ This does not hold water either because it is NOW that people must be treated with dignity and worth. Replicating the struggles of 19th century industrial nations all over the world (think of the leather tanning factories of banglaDesh!) is absurd.
Greater rationality would probably slow things down as decision making processes would take time but the reward would be each citizen feeling part of their society rather than slaves pulled around by forces they cannot see or understand and that no politician has the will to explain.
So interesting but might I ask you to develop one point which could benefit from closer definition?
You write “Does the fact that others suffer more constraint than I do give me the right to ignore their constraint and reappraise their relationship with me? I do not think so.
To what degree do you feel that not being entitled to ignore the constraints of others requires more than recognition of such constraints and actually requires your involvement in removing or easing the constraints? Further would it justify enlisting the support of others and possibly the State in attenuating any imbalance in constraints that you have perceived?
Isn’t it obvious that I am saying that if there are such constraints then we all have a duty to do what we can to remove them?
That can be individually, of course, but seeking collective action via the state is also essential, I think
Why not? How else are most constraints removed?
Thank you for elucidating and I think this resonates with what you have written elsewhere.
Intriguingly my awareness of constraints and that of a third party might not always be identical because as you point out we all exist under our own set of constraints.
That being so and triggered by my perception of the world, would not collective action via the State, impose a new constraint on that third party by involving him in collective action against a constraint that he does not recognise and is unaware of?
By engaging a third party or the State or both in mitigating or lifting such a constraint based on my world view, there is the tantalising possibility that the liberty of that third party is being compromised.
Some people need their ability to commit to be compromised
One of the duties of the state is to decide when that is appropriate
You are surely not arguing that such situation does not arise and that in such cases constraint is not justified?
@drkeithredmond
Thank you, it’s useful to have another rebuttal of Libertarianism; and yours comes from an interesting perspective – were you not a Quaker, I would call it a Humanist essay, and one ofthe best I’ve read.
It is, of course, wasted on Libertarians; their views on economics, personal morality, and the reciprocal responsibility of citizens in our society have drifted beyond an intellectual ‘event horizon’, an abysmal space wherein all nonlibertarian opinion is wrong by definition; risible, ridiculous, a source of folly that the rising libertard presents as proof among his peers that he and they are our superiors.
You are going to find their logic somewhat… interesting: be thankful that the comment pages on your blog have suffered a far milder infestation than some other places I could name.
Meanwhile, see if you can find out who’s funding all those Libertarian think tanks, speaker tours, and the movement’s unrestricted access to the media. Some of those foundations with ‘freedom’ in the name are funded by latter-day feudalists who would have the freedoms of a mediaeval baron, for themselves, and leave rest of use the ‘free choice’ of taking what they offer or starvation. Or both, given the wages they impose; we are fortunate, so far, that food stamps and food banks can take up the slack and subsidise their labour practices.
I agree with all you say
As for the suggestion of humanism – I make it clear if I was offered the choice of faith some ‘churches’ offer and humanism then I have no doubt which side I am on.
Bishop David Jenkins did, of course agree, using atheism as his alternative
“I agree with all you say”
That’s surprising and disappointing. Language like “libertard”[1] might be par for the course in certain other economics blogs, but I would have imagined that it would not get past moderation here, let alone meet with approval.
[1] A portmanteau of ‘libertarian’ and ‘retard’, an offensive derogatory term for learning disability.
I do not mix in the murky world where abuse is normal – and confess I did not recognise the world for what it was
I accept your interpretation of it is correct
I do not endorse it or the implication
Those of libertarian persuasion are not retarded. They do however appear to lack empathy and understanding of human nature. Their behaviour is also far too often profoundly immature. But these are, I think, choices
And Adam Smith would turn in his grave at some of the stuff Libertarians spout.
Indeed!
I agree wholeheartedly with all that you say, apart from one sentence which I don’t understand: “That wrong could not current their own mistake.” I mentally replaced current with correct, but if that isn’t what you meant, I’m stuck, frankly.
I see others have said that your views are similar to theirs as Quakers, and that you are yourself a Quaker. I don’t know very much about Quakerism, though I do know that it’s a non-conformist type of Christianity. For myself as a Buddhist, I would say that your views are also consistent with that faith.
I think the right word was compensate
Now changed
Thanks
I have corrected
The correct word was ‘compensated’
Thanks
Richard, I count myself as one of the libertarians you annoy but I think this is a thoughtful and interesting post. I would make two comments (which aren’t criticisms as such , more observations).
First I think your argument is actually rather Burkean as well as being old style social democrat. Isn’t it the case that since roughly the 1970s the left in this and other countries has also embraced a politics of free individual choice and self realisation as a personal and self directed activity? To simplify things, the ‘right’ tends to emphasise choice in matters economic, the ‘left’ in matters of lifestyle but both nowadays are really espousing the same way of thinking that you criticise here, one where the choices of individuals are what is primary rather than commitments or obligations.
Second, there’s two slightly different arguments in your piece. The first is that real freedom consists of chosen commitments that bind and constrain the choser and that this is what actual freedom involves (this is a classic Christian argument of course, as I’m sure you are well aware). The second is that there are a whole number of constraints and consequent obligations that are not chosen but arise from contingent circumstances and the realities of the context we find ourselves in at any given time and place. How do you see these two things as being connected? becuase you imply (as I understand you) that they are really aspects of the same thing, but I don’t see that myself, even in the terms of your own argument.
Let me muse on that
I accept your first two arguments – and i am implicitly rejecting ‘modern social democracy’ in making this argument
I am not sure I get your third point – what I think you are not seeing is my argument that the obligation when another is subject to a constraint not chosen is that this creates an obligation to act to remove that constraint (if it is just to do so and another is not harmed) amongst those themselves not directly impacted. This is a philosophy of empathic behaviour in that sense
I certainly would not argue that the State – in the form of its elected legislators – should not ineluctably place or remove constraints on individuals.
What I am perhaps a little more cautious about is allowing the possibility that my own subjective view of society might be conflated with the State’s obligation to legislate, unless I have misconstrued an apparent segue in your thinking here.
And if, as you suggest, some people do indeed need to have their ability to commit compromised, then wouldn’t you agree that we have to be quite careful in establishing which people we mean and why we have chosen them?
One of the duties of the state is to decide when that is appropriate
You are surely not arguing that such situation does not arise and that in such cases constraint is not justified?
– See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/08/03/irritating-libertarians-or-a-philosophy-of-real-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-696447
We all have a right to seek influence in a democracy
What is wrong with that?
First of all let me apologise for my previous clumsy cut & paste – I had wanted to get your response into the ‘reply box’ in order to address your points but failed to tidy up properly.
I’m not certain that we have a right to seek influence in a democracy because that sounds a little bit like trying to stack the deck but there can be no question that we are entitled to seek to influence a democracy by making our views known or by campaigning.
If this was the tenor of your piece then I apologise again for having misunderstood you. I had mistakenly thought you to be saying that my (or even your) appreciation of the constraints exerted upon others was a sound basis for engaging the State’s process and that this might justifiably impact on a certain type of person.
It requires no huge leap of imagination to get from that mindset to the Wannsee Conference so apologies again for having tentatively fumbled my way to the wrong end of the stick.
Another workable (although obviously unpopular) freedom ethic would be for equality of constraint in terms of every physical reality and human interaction applied equally to everyone with no exceptions.
Obviously most rational people wouldn’t support such an ethic since it would result in the loss of things already achieved like enjoyable jobs, attractive partners, great friends, nice cars, big houses, tasty food, fun holidays, adequate leisure time, and generally pleasurable lifestyles. More importantly it would rule out the hope of ever having these things which is, at the end of the day, what makes the human world go round.
Respectfully, that is an absurd argument and I am certain you know it is
Why not try honest debate?
Another workable (and obviously popular) freedom ethic would be for equality of constraint in terms of every physical reality and human interaction applied equally to everyone with no exceptions.
Obviously most rational people would support such an ethic since it would result in access to things some have already achieved like enjoyable jobs, attractive partners, great friends, nice cars, big houses, tasty food, fun holidays, adequate leisure time, and generally pleasurable lifestyles. More importantly it would ensure that the hope of ever having these things was realised by all, which is, at the end of the day, what makes the human world go round.
You optimist
But we can dream
It was more to do with turning tomsmith’s argument back on itself, Richard, and demonstrating the nonsense of the tired old argument about equality/equity always being about leveling down rather than up.
I realised
What, so anyone can use my house or drive my car without asking me, eat the dinner I’ve just cooked, or kick me out of bed with my wife and jump in instead without asking me (or, more importantly, her)?
I’m not sure many people would want to live in that world, it’d be pure anarchy.
Apart from anything else, my nose would be constantly broken from people swinging fists around recklessly.
I will leave Ivan to respond
   “Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them has our decision moral value. We are neither entitled to be unselfish at someone else’s expense nor is there any merit in being unselfish if we have no choice. The members of a society who in all respects are made to do the good thing have no title to praise.”
That is a charlatan’s argument – the sort that is used to justify the argument to destroy the welfare state and to substitute charity
We all know what happens then
It also ignores the existence of society and we all know who argued that
i think the first thing to say about freedom is that no-one is absolutely free; we are all subject to outside influences that are beyond our control. and as these outside forces shape us, it can be said that we perfectly formed products of our environment. as Samuel Beckett wrote in his novel Molloy:
“Man is no more free than a slave crawling east on the deck of a ship heading west”.
but it’s obviously fair to say that some people are seen to enjoy far greater freedom than others. it’s just worth recognising that even people who seem entirely irrational have perfectly rational reasons for believing what they do. i don’t view Neoliberals as bad people, just seriously misguided in thinking money can buy freedom. arseholes can’t help being arseholes, it’s just the way god made them.
the reason i don’t think money can ever buy freedom is because getting it invariably involves making compromises in other areas of your life. as Richard says he makes commitments to his family, work on tax justice, colleagues, the place he lives, a faith, etc. and each of these impact on his ability to attain wealth. but with it comes greater freedom in other areas; the freedom to enjoy a loving family, appreciation of those who’s values he respects. his actions are really just as selfish as those of a banker piling up wealth in a tax haven.
there’s nothing wrong with self-interest. it’s just some people are fortunate enough to realise it’s in their interest to help others and some aren’t. people who worship money and power will never find satisfaction, hence why they never have enough. they’re victims – addicts – and so we should take action to help them even if they don’t like it. left to it’s own devices a child will eat nothing but ice cream, and money worshipers won’t stop til the planet’s destroyed and the pitchforks are at the door. only then would they realise that their actions have not been in their best interest.
if each and every human being sacrificed all that they owned, earned and did to helping others, imagine the potential for the human race. that would be liberating.
Ivan: so when you turn tomsmith’s argument back on itself you get an absurdity, thus demonstrating that his argument makes sense?
Seems a bit of a redundant comment, but hey ho 🙂
Right Wing Libertarian’s view on life can be summarised as follows :-
Freedom for me, but chains for thee..
Anarchy is about not needing laws because everyone behaves correctly.
Obviously not relevant to banks!
Free market libertarians mask their contrarian position that freedom for them does not equate to freedom for all e.g. UK public sector workers’ Twitter and email accounts are currently being trawled by specialist software tools and teams of ‘special employees’. Staff in sectors currently undergoing privatisation bids are receiving official warnings and threats of dismissal for any ‘negative’ comments or observations on their work and conditions of employment. Is this freedom? George Monibot, Martin Wolf and other journalists have reported the wave of mental health illness related to working conditions to meet the requirements of free market libertarianism [1]. We’ll give you freedom but leave you powerless. MIT reported that 42% of its’ graduands reported suffering mental health issues during their study — how will this translate [amplify] when they enter the workplace. These are the effects of free market libertarianism on the many. One of the biggest successes of such ideology has been the isolation of the worker; alone with weak union respresentation has seen a worsening of wages and conditions. Large sections of the population simply function for work rather than work to live.
I read this thread with interest whilst arguments developed. RM’s case was well constructed. To ‘commit’ is to ‘interact’; almost all of our total understanding of physical reality is obtained by investigating ‘interactions’, you get little or nothing studying an entity in isolation [in freedom]. Scientific advances have all been made by studying the interactions of entities whether they be atomic particles or biological molecules or cells or animals. Not even an emptied universe, a total vacuum, is not ‘free’ [2]. Economic and social interactions are not governed by physical laws of nature, nevertheless it is the ‘interactions’ [commitments] that give understanding and awareness. Social and economic scientists that commit to evidence based study are rigorous; their work can be validated and predictive.
A theory or concept such as ‘free market Libertarianism’ should be more than idle speculation or an idea, together with its concepts a theory should be capable of making predictions to describe and make sense of our world. If not, it is no better than a belief or faith based system of thought, with concomitant consequences. As Ivan Horrocks states ‘the nonsense of the tired old argument about equality/equity always being about leveling down rather than up’.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/05/neoliberalism-mental-health-rich-poverty-economy
[2] http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/theories-and-vacua/
Thanks Tony
As a matter of fact, almost everything of interest in accountancy happens on a boundary i.e. where interactions take place. The theory is based in part on that understanding applied rather more widely