Welcome to part 2 of the lawnmower series, a line of thought that hit me while mowing the lawn. It's been a month since part 1, but I've been busy.Last time (see the previous blog post), we examined the two primary political viewpoints in the US, and how each seems to contradict itself on the topic of freedom. The "conservative" side touts individual freedom when discussing property, but is quick to throw freedom under the bus when it comes to personal behavior. The "liberal" side touts individual freedom when discussing personal behavior, but is quick to throw freedom under the bus when it comes to property. These seemingly contradictory stances derive from the basic worldview of the adherents.
The question for today is if one of these viewpoints is more correct than the other.
Let's start with a postulate: Life requires work. Whether you believe that God created Adam and Eve or that some random explosion of particles created the universe, there can be no denying that human life requires effort. Not only does it require effort, but it requires specific efforts to obtain food, water, and shelter. A person who wished to do nothing but lie under a shady tree will soon starve to death or die of dehydration. At some point, every person is compelled to do SOMETHING in order to continue living.
It follows that some actions are more conducive to living than others. Playing soccer, for example (this is a sports blog, right?), is a fun activity with some positive health benefits, but it really does nothing to put food on the table. (BTW, this is a good time to point out that while I'll be touching on some general economic theory, I am not going to dive into much detail. I know perfectly well that lots of people around the world "put food on the table" by playing soccer. The key is that they're paid for it with money, which they use to purchase food from others who have spent their time growing/acquiring food. Everyone gets that concept, and that's as much as I'll discuss it.) Conversely, digging in the dirt to plant potatoes and turnips is not a lot of fun, but it is necessary to get food to eat. Somebody has to do it.
So where does that leave our two competing worldviews? Let's start with the "conservative" view. In the conservative's world, a person must work and provide for his/her own life. That's where the rules restricting behavior come into play. Conservatives acknowledge the need for "work" by suggesting and enforcing rules for people that ensure they behave in a manner conducive to life. The payoff for living "correctly" is that you get stuff with which you can do what you please.
So now can we take away the "rules" and keep a focus on freedom of property? The answer is yes. Personal behavior (not including obvious criminal activity such as murder and theft that no political group outside of anarchists support) that is completely unrestrained has no conflict with personal property freedom. People that make good choices with their personal behavior will live, and those who make poor choices will suffer. If a "successful" person CHOOSES to give stuff to another person that is suffering, that's still freedom.
If property rights and freedoms are maintained, there really is no need for legislating personal behavior, as nature itself will enforce these rules. True, it is a very harsh justice, and we may not like it, but it is there nonetheless. Total freedom of property rights is compatible with freedom of personal behavior, with the caveat that poor personal behavior is harshly punished by nature.
What of the liberal view? In the liberal world, people may do whatever they want with their own persons. To acknowledge the truism that people must "work" for life, the liberal view demands that work and its resulting property be shared among all. So can we take away the "restrictions" on property use and still have total freedom when it comes to personal behavior?
The answer is no. As mentioned above, nature itself has "rules" and enforces them ruthlessly. People who ignore these rules MUST have assistance from others, or else they will perish. In other words, the liberal emphasis of personal behavior freedom requires a restriction of property freedom. Otherwise, nature itself will defeat it. This is in direct contrast to the conservative emphasis of property freedom, which can still survive (in some form) when freedom is given to personal behavior.
To sum it up, total freedom of personal behavior is an impossible goal. Nature requires that people work, which restricts freedom. Logically speaking, this makes the "conservative" viewpoint more legitimate in my opinion than the "liberal" one. The liberal viewpoint is a hopeless struggle against the laws of nature itself. If you enforce behavioral rules, everyone can have some property with which they can do as they please. If you allow any and all behavior, you must take property from some to give to others. But since property is (at some level) derived from personal behavior, you must also enforce some type of behavior on some people in order to have property to share. This is why socialist/communist governments around the world always start with an ideal of "share and share alike," but quickly devolve into corrupt oligarchies, as a few politically powerful people decide who has to work and who gets to play.
So in this line of thought, I've established that the conservative view is more compatible with true freedom. You CAN have total freedom of property. In the next installment, I'll look and see if we can add more personal behavior freedom to the conservative view without turning the world into the "harsh justice" scene we envisioned earlier.
SAH
