Over at the LearnLiberty youtube channel, Matt Zwolinski (of Bleeding Heart Libertarian fame) has two characteristically well done videos on the intersection of social justice and libertarianism. I don't really have that much to add to Zwolinski's philosophical analysis, but I have noticed a pattern with libertarian conversations on social justice. There is a tendency to equate social justice with distributive justice. I can think of a few reasons why this might be. 1) Libertarian social theory (in all social sciences) is largely based on economics and the logic of economics. 2) Those seeking to bridge the gap between social justice and libertarian thought are philosophers, not social scientists who operate from a different (though compatible) definition of social justice.
To expand briefly on that last point, the definitions of social justice used on the BHL website and in Free Market Fairness are focused entirely on the poor. I don't really know enough about the development of social justice as a concept to say why that is. The definition of social justice I've been introduced to in my social work programs concerns itself with groups facing discrimination or marginalization. The union between these two definitions is obvious, as what group fits the latter definition better than the poor? However, the intense focus on the poor in the former definition excludes much of social justice analysis that focuses on the experiences of minorities: feminism, racial or ethnic perspectives, LGBT theory, decolonization.
I have a few explanations for the lack of inclusion of these perspectives. Most obviously, libertarians are loath to instantiate group rights, which some of these perspectives attempt to do. Likewise, many perspectives propose activist government solutions to the problems they identify, problematic for an ideology that is skeptical of political solutions and increasing the scope and power of government. Finally, there is the epistemological grounding of Austrian economics in methodological individualism, which focuses all social explanations on the actions of individuals, not groups. This may bias libertarians against ideas that incorporate experiences of groups, rather than individuals.
As Zwolinski details very well in his first video, Hayek's dismissal of social justice is by far the most pervasive in the libertarian literature. Briefly, the kosmos (bottom-up) market process is built upon the free actions of individuals, whose exchanges are not unjust in any way. Therefore, how can the overall result be unjust as justice is not a property of unplanned, spontaneous orders?
While I understand the value of Hayek's analysis in defending the market process, I don't share his distaste for ends-based analysis. As Zwolinski demonstrates well in his second video, if the ends of the market process systematically lead to the deprivation of the poor, most libertarians would not continue to adhere to this philosophy. Ends-based analysis, which for the BHL guys means that the poor must be made better off over time, is congruent with the moral calculus of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.
In addition to Zwolinski's and Tomasi's ends-based analysis, there is a second group of libertarian scholars who disagree with Hayek's critique of social justice. In order to understand these philosophers better, we must evaluate Hayek's theory as either normative or idealist. A normative reading of Hayek serves to undergird the market forces currently in existence. Left-libertarianism (or Free Market Anti-Capitalism) as well as libertarianism in general disagree with this appropriation of an idealist Hayek to defend a market dominated by corporatism (open coordination between government and business) and cronyism (government serving the interests of the well-informed, well-connected few at the expense of the others). Hayek, to the left-libertarian, was appropriated by Chamber of Commerce-style Republicans in an effort to support big business and attack big government. Hayek's ideas of spontaneous order and a free market were much more radical than anything the conservatives would ever want--true competition without government privilege. The left-libertarians leave us with a resounding message that we do not live in a Hayekian utopia, and to the extent that there is a taxic, top-down order in society today, then there is ample room for social justice arguments.
So, having presented the ends-based and utopian arguments against Hayek's critique, we can use Austrian and Public Choice theories to construct an approach to social justice compatible with libertarian ideas. Let's start with distributive justice arguments, focused solely on economics. Roderick Long has argued convincingly that monetary inflation discriminates against the poor, as the new money flows into the coffers of banks, well-connected corporations, and the rich while not reaching the poor until after prices have inflated and with no overall raise in pay. This twist on a classic Austrian argument against currency manipulation exemplifies a concern for the least well-off.
A Public Choice analysis of federal (or state) government spending in general shows how powerful, easily-organized, and well-connected groups and corporations can exploit the defects in democracy to extract billions of dollars in rents from the government without providing any net benefit to society. These expenditures come at the expense of a minimal welfare state advocated for (or tolerated) by some libertarians. Moreover, as I have argued in previous posts, public choice also shows how marginalization and discrimination occur and persist, as many groups face collective action problems in organizing for social change. Groups such as the "future poor" or "drug users" have no advocates to press their interests nor any constituency to hold elected officials accountable. Thus, marginalized groups will continue to face significant obstacles within the political order towards securing their interests. Finally, an Austrian argument can be made that all the money spent on well-off groups and corporations is money that is deprived from market and charitable transactions. A public choice theory critique of welfare state institutions is also possible, showing manifest rent-seeking, gaming the system, and bureaucratic self-interest, but that is beyond my aim here.
All in all, these critiques point a direction for libertarian social justice advocates to change the rules of the game. Ending the Federal Reserve or allowing competing currency in Long's argument. Reducing the power and scope of the federal government, by for instance, not allowing the direct election of senators. Reinstating the Privileges and Immunities Clause to protect individuals and groups from violations of unenumerated rights. Removing corporate privilege such as PhARMA and the insurance lobby as well as the privilege granted to the AMA, which serve to restrict competition and raise costs for the least well-off (this applies equally to my profession of social work). This could also mean, in a more radical form, taking welfare out of the state by privatizing distribution of charitable donations or delegating that authority to the states, where individuals and service providers can have more influence over the process. These are not a carefully culled list, but simply the ones I have gathered over the past few weeks. It should be no secret that libertarians make social justice arguments, and it's about damn time we own up to that so we can get better at it!
Outside of the political process, I also feel there is a great amount of agreement between the Austrian focus on institutions and the social justice perspectives of minority groups. Both focus (not exclusively) on informal rules. Social justice advocates attempt to change these over time, and have succeeded in doing so over the past few decades. Libertarians, and in particular the Reason-oid cultural libertarians, applaud this progress and should work alongside these advocates as they work to change the cultural environment in which we live. Out of this union, we may sway them from their affinity for government action or their blind belief in the democratic process. They may sway us from our stubborn resistance to concepts such as white privilege. There is fertile ground here, and I hope to explore it.
No comments:
Post a Comment