According to the "free-market absolutist" faction of the falsely-labeled "conservatives" (henceforth, "regressives"), an optimal society emerges "naturally" and automatically out of an aggregate of individuals in exclusive pursuit of their personal self-interest. To the regressive, "the common good" and "public benefit" are myths. Indeed, so too is society itself -- in the words of Ronald Reagan's favorite Brit, Margaret Thatcher, "there is no such thing as society -- there are individual men and women and there are families." So-called "society" is merely an aggregate of private individuals, like a pile of sand grains, occupying contiguous space. And because "there is no such thing as society," there are no systemic social harms. It follows that those who are poor are not "victims" of society or the economy, they choose to be poor due to their personal moral failings.
In contrast, the progressive views society as more than the sum of its parts. In this sense society and its economy is like a computer, an engine, an ecosystem, a living language. If the system malfunctions, there are victims -- the poor, the oppressed, the addicted, the uneducated -- and the system is thus in need of adjustment or repair or even overhaul and redesign. And these are legitimate functions of government.
In the cultures of India and China, male children are much
preferred to female children. First of all, a girl born to a family incurs
the eventual financial burden of a dowry. But even more significantly,
perhaps, sons are cherished because they will carry on the family name.
For all time, the outcome of a pregnancy, a boy or a girl, has been a
lottery -- until now. With the advance of medical science, it is now
possible to know whether a fetus is male or female. Accordingly, it is
reported that to avoid the birth of a girl, many pregnancies are being
"terminated." In addition, of course, there is the more
ruthless option of female infanticide. If these practices of sex
selection were to become widespread, it is obvious that there would be
many more males than females in the coming generations.
Thus an intriguing paradox emerges. The attempt by each couple to produce
an heir that will "carry on the family name," results in fewer
potential wives in the population, and thus a decreased opportunity for
the sons to fulfill their filial duty.
The upshot: the ability of each couple to achieve the benefit of a
male child, diminishes the opportunity of all couples to have
grandchildren, and thus "carry on the family name." In sum: what
is good for each family is bad for all families.
An obvious solution would be to outlaw female feticide and infanticide, so that the sex ratio on the population would return to an approximately normal 50-50. Bad for each, good for all.
The paradox of "good for each, bad for all," and
its reciprocal "bad for each, good for all," far from being
accidental consequences of this bizarre case are arguably the very
foundation of social life and the fundamental justification of government.
Furthermore, the failure of the radical right -- libertarians, free-market
absolutists, self-described "conservatives" -- to acknowledge
this paradox, renders their doctrines politically untenable and morally
indefensible.
That will be the contention of this essay.
But first, consider some additional examples:
The voting paradox. Much easier to stay at home
and let others take the trouble of studying the issues and going to
the polls (good for each). But such apathy erodes the foundation of
democracy and leads to autocracy (bad for all -- except the autocrats,
of course). Conversely, it is the civic duty of each citizen to take
the trouble to study and vote (bad for each), if a democratic
government is to flourish (good for all).
The Wal-Mart Menace. Face it, Wal-Mart offers
the lowest prices in town, so it is to the advantage of each
individual to shop at Wal-Mart. But the terrible wages and working
conditions at Wal-Mart drive down the wages and working conditions at
competing stores, and, furthermore, the central business districts of
small towns throughout the country are being devastated. That which is
good for each shopper is bad for the community and for workers in
general. If, like me, you choose not to shop at Wal-Mart, you will
lose in cost and convenience -- bad for each. But if the
boycott is widespread, "the Wal-Mart plague" will be
contained, wages will rise, and "Mom and Pop" in the
downtown stores will thrive again -- good for all. One
solution, of course, is for the workers to organize and to act
collectively , (union dues are bad for each worker and good for all,
as they help to improve wages and working conditions.). Wal-Mart knows
this full well, which is why it ruthlessly suppresses union activity.
Antibiotics. The over-use of antibiotics "selects" resistant "super-bugs," decreasing the effectiveness of antibiotics for all. But just one more anti-biotic prescription for a trivial, "self-limiting" bronchial infection won't make a significant difference "in general," while it will clearly benefit the individual patient. But multiply that individual doctor's prescription by the millions, and we have a serious problem. "Good for each patient, bad for the general population."
These examples can be added to endlessly, and are in fact
formalized in "game theory" and elaborated through such moral
paradoxes as "the prisoners' dilemma."
The principle of "good for each, bad for all" was forcefully
brought to public attention in 1968 by Garrett
Hardin, in his essay "The
Tragedy of the Commons" -- which was for a while, the most
widely reprinted scientific essay of the time.
Hardin, a biologist, cites as an example, a pasture owned "in
common" by residents of a village. The pasture is at "carrying
capacity" -- the number of sheep is such that the villagers can, with
that number, use the pasture indefinitely without reducing the
productivity of the land. However, any additional sheep will degrade the
pasture and thus its capacity to support livestock.
It thus becomes immediately apparent, that any individual who adds a sheep
to his personal flock will gain in personal wealth, while, at the same
time, by degrading the common resource and the value of the other sheep,
he slightly decreases the wealth of every other villager. Each villager is
similarly situated. Absent common agreement and enforcement thereof, it is
"rational" for each individual to increase his personal flock,
even though, in Hardin's words, "ruin is the destination toward which
all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that
believes in the freedom of the commons."
In other words: "good for each, bad for all."
The solution? Hardin prescribes "Mutual coercion, mutually agreed
upon." In other words, the rule of law enforced by government. Each
individual agrees to a curtailment of liberty in behalf of the common good
-- bad for each, good for all.
These principles, "good for each, bad for all" and "bad for
each, good for all," resound throughout the history of political
thought -- from Aristotle, through Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Jefferson,
on to the present day. Indeed, the practical applications of these
principles are implicit in successful communities, from the present
extending far back into pre-history. They are the key to the survival of
communities of social insects such as bees and termites, and of social
animals such as wolf packs, wherein evolution, not argument, provides
their validation.
And yet, amazingly, those who presume to call themselves
"conservatives," reject these principles, in favor of another:
"good for each, good for all." This principle of the
political right, exemplified by "trickle-down economics" and the
assurance that "the rising [economic] tide raises all boats," is
immediately appealing. Who would not desire that collective
"goods" should result from the achievement of personal
well-being? And in fact, the progressive will readily admit that
many human endeavors that achieve individual benefits, also benefit
society at large.
The error of the Right resides in its embrace of the principle "good for each, good for all" as dogma, applied a priori to society and the economy, virtually without exception. By rejecting, implicitly, the principle of "good for each, bad for all" and vice versa, the Right recognizes no personal price that must be paid for the maintenance of a just social order, and pays no heed to the social costs of one's personal "pursuit of happiness."
For theirs is a radically reductive view of society.
According to the "free-market absolutist" faction of the
falsely-labeled "conservatives" (henceforth, "regressives"),
an optimal society emerges "naturally" and automatically out of
an aggregate of individuals in exclusive pursuit of their personal
self-interest. To the regressive, "the common good" and
"public benefit" are myths. Indeed, so too is society itself --
in the words of Ronald Reagan's favorite Brit, Margaret Thatcher,
"there is no such thing as society -- there are individual men and
women and there are families." So-called "society" is
merely an aggregate of private individuals, like a pile of sand grains,
occupying contiguous space. Ideally, all associations are strictly
voluntary. And because "there is no such thing as society,"
there are no systemic social harms. It follows that those who are poor are
not "victims" of society or the economy, they choose to be poor
due to their personal moral failings.
For the libertarian right, the only legitimate functions of government are
the protection of the three fundamental rights of life, liberty and
property. Hence, the only legitimate disbursement of tax revenues is for
the military (protection from foreign enemies), the "night
watchman" police (protection from domestic enemies), and the courts
(adjudication of property disputes). Because there are no "public
goods," compulsory tax payment for public education, research and
development of science and technology, medical care, museums, promotion of
the arts, public and national parks, etc., is the moral equivalent of theft.
(See the first three sections of my "With
Liberty for Some").
According to this account of human nature and society, with the exception
of the just noted protections of life, liberty and property, there is
nothing that government can accomplish that private initiative and the
free market cannot achieve with better results. As Ronald Reagan famously
said in his first inaugural address: "government is not the solution,
government is the problem." Milton Friedman concurs: "There is
nothing wrong with the United States that a dose of smaller and less
intrusive government would not cure." Note the uncompromising
absolutism of these remarks.
No regulation, no governmental functions beyond basic protection of life,
liberty and property, no taxes except to support these minimal functions.
Any governmental activity beyond this should, in Grover Norquist's words,
be "drowned in the bathtub."
Let the free market reign without constraint, allow all "capitalist
acts between consenting adults" (Robert Nozick). As each
individual, in Adam Smith's words, "intends only his own gain,"
then each individual will be "led by an invisible hand to promote ...
the public interest."
Good for each, good for all.
In contrast, the progressive views society as more than the sum of its
parts; it is what philosophers call an "emergent entity," with
properties and principles distinct from those of its components. In this
sense society and its economy is like a computer, an engine, an ecosystem,
a living language. If the system malfunctions, there are victims -- the
poor, the oppressed, the addicted, the uneducated -- and the system is
thus in need of adjustment or repair or even overhaul and redesign. And
these are legitimate functions of government.
The progressive is not a dogmatist; he is empirical and pragmatic. Thus he
does not completely reject free markets. That is the
fatal error of communism. Instead, Progressivism affirms that
markets should neither count for nothing nor count for everything. No
question, free enterprise has produced an abundance of beneficial goods
and services, and has won many individuals well-deserved fortunes. It
should be protected and cherished. But it should also be regulated.
For a marketplace involves more than voluntary transactions between buyers
and sellers. There are, in addition, "stakeholders" --
non-participating individuals who are involuntarily affected by private
transactions; for example, people who live downwind and downstream of
industries that spew out pollutants. Pollution is but one of many types of
"externality" resulting from private transactions that have
serious public consequences. And in a democratic society, the institution
specifically instituted to act in the public interest and by public
consent is the government. (Those who do not believe this should
re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the
Constitution of the United States).
Every complex game
requires a referee, beholden to no "side" but rather
functioning to regulate the activity and enforce the rules, to the
advantage all players in general, and none in particular. In the
"game" of commerce, the "referee" is the government.
For history has shown, time and again, that an unregulated "free
market" leads to monopoly. In other words, it contains within itself
the seeds of its own destruction. The remedy, of course, is anti-trust
legislation, which is to say, government. (See my "The
New Alchemy").
"Good for each, bad for all." "Bad for each, good for
all." The "referee function" of democratic government --
these are not original ideas. Quite the contrary, throughout the civilized
and industrialized world, they are commonplace and virtually axiomatic,
like gravity and the multiplication tables.
But not here in the United States. The free-market absolutism plus
libertarian anarchism proclaimed here by the right wing and accepted with
scant criticism by the corporate media, is regarded abroad as somewhat
insane. Unfortunately for us all, most Americans are immersed in this
insanity.
Why, then, is regressivism dominant in our society, despite its obvious
shortcomings?
Quite simply, because regressivism is what Nietzsche called a "master
morality" -- an ethos devised and promulgated by, and operating to
the advantage of, the wealthy and powerful. Regressivism, with its
precepts of "trickle down," "the sin of poverty,"
taxation as "theft," the unqualified superiority of privatism
over government, is essentially an elaborate justification of greed and an
institutionalization of privilege.
It is, in effect, a contemporary re-incarnation of the eighteenth century
dogma of "the divine right of kings."
We had to fight a revolution to rid ourselves of that dogma. Must we fight
another to free ourselves of the "master morality" of
regressivism?
If so, then let it be a bloodless, "velvet" revolution.
And let begin now, with the November election the first decisive step away
from this dark night of theocracy, lawlessness and despotism.
Copyright 2004 by Ernest Partridge
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org).
