|
Libertarianism
builds upon the self-ownership axiom. But why is self-ownership right (and
just)? How do we justify the self-ownership axiom?
Rothbard
stated the self-ownership axiom in this way: "...the basic axiom of
libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having
absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one
else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person."
Block
states the non-aggression axiom as follows: "It is illicit to initiate
or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned
property." More loosely, Thomas Jefferson argued that all men by their
nature have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These
several wordings amount to the same thing. To have self-ownership is to be
able to make one's own choices in all spheres of one's life. Self-ownership
amounts to an undiluted right to one's life and the liberty to pursue one's
happiness. If one has complete self-ownership, then one is not being
aggressed upon. And if one (or one's property) is not being aggressed upon,
then one is free to pursue one's own interests and one owns oneself.
Therefore, as Rothbard says, the non-aggression axiom is equivalent to the
self-ownership axiom.
The
economic content of (full) self-ownership for every person is that an
individual may make any desired choices as long as he does not initiate or
threaten violence against another person or his legitimately held property.
Economics
as a science has a two-fold role. First, it provides the proper logical basis
for understanding highly complex social, economic and political phenomena. A
good deal of headway can be made by the application of Austrian methods,
including a priori knowledge, deduction from basic axioms, a thorough
subjective approach, and so on. Some of this methodology overlaps
considerably with widely-used methods that all economists use, which adds to
its appeal.
Second,
economics provides the correct basis for evaluating and interpreting
historical data and experience. Many people judge the validity of the
non-aggression axiom based upon its anticipated consequences or effects as
human beings act and react. One cannot evaluate past causes and effects
properly without a firm understanding of economics, among other disciplines.
Let us
then pursue some economic argumentation concerning self-ownership.
First. A
simple but powerful argument goes as follows. Each person acts in order to
improve his condition prior to the act. If a person freely chooses among his
available perceived opportunities, the expected improvement is as great as it
can possibly be. In particular, if others impose constraints upon his
choices, the person is worse off because such constraints foreclose choosing
some acts of betterment that might otherwise have been selected. Better to
choose from 50 available opportunities than to be forced to choose from 20 of
these 50. With freedom, one might have chosen one of the 30 that have been
eliminated.
Second. What
a person chooses depends on how he values his opportunities. Since his
valuations are both subjective and unobservable to other people, the
decision-maker has superior knowledge about them. This enables him to make
better decisions for himself than anyone else can. If a dictator
"really" knew that a person would not like or benefit from 30 out
of the 50 opportunities, then by forcing the person to choose among the 20 remaining
ones, he might (other things equal) make the person better off. But the
dictator doesn't have this information. As a rule, another person, especially
a distant person, an acquaintance, or someone who does not keep in constant
touch with the decision-maker, cannot gauge the costs and benefits of that
person's acts as well as the person making the choices.
Furthermore,
when we realize that a great many of our acts connect with other acts of ours
and of other people in a web that extends out in space and backwards and
forwards in time, we see that it is practically impossible for someone else
to make us better off by making our decisions for us. For example, we might
have long-term plans to write the Great American novel. We decide to pass
time traveling around and meeting Americans in what seems to be an aimless
fashion. An outside observer cannot know what we are up to. Better to choose
from 50 available opportunities than have someone else who supposedly knows
better allow us to choose from 20 of these 50, or worse, select a choice for
us.
Third.
Freedom of choice has a value in and of itself. It might be that a person
makes errors of choice and that others recognize it at the time and might
like coercively to prevent the person making that choice. No matter. The
person may value making the choice himself. Better to make one's own mistakes
than have someone else make the right decisions for you.
Fourth.
Making one's own choices is an essential procedure in learning how to create
one's life. Human life is not simply a series of disconnected acts because we
possess memory, foresight, reason, and many other qualities. One may engage
in several series of decisions that build up skills, training, knowledge,
wealth, personal relationships, health, family, character, reputation,
spirituality, etc. One may engage in acts that provide entertainment, joy,
pleasure, satisfaction. One may develop creativity, imagination, kindness, or
many other traits. All of this is involved in saying that a person can only
flourish by making his own choices.
The
basic economic aspects of all this are that life involves complex decision
processes that occur over time, that there are an infinite number of possible
paths to navigate and choose among, that the processes are dynamic, and that
all of this occurs under uncertainty. As one proceeds through time, one
receives feedback from earlier decisions, analogous to receiving returns on
earlier investments. Feedback helps one learn. It helps us decide what new
decisions to make. Each individual decision involves evaluation of available
options, choice, implementing an option, and then monitoring the outcome; and
these individual decisions are connected with many others. In other words,
there are complex feedback loops involved.
This
argument says that a person cannot learn how to navigate and create his own
life without being free to choose because lack of freedom prevents learning
and interrupts the feedback loops. If others make choices, unimportant or
important, small or large, for a person, the person fails to gain experience
and eventually loses the will to learn how to run his own life. External
control interrupts the vital process of planning and overseeing the various
processes and their connections.
A
person cannot learn to drive a car if someone else takes the wheel. He cannot
learn to become a racer if someone else takes over on all the curves.
Fifth.
External control interrupts the processes of life themselves. Coercive
disturbances that affect one's life are not always stable or conveniently
timed. They can profoundly alter one's life and outlook or upset one's plans.
If the Fed creates inflation or a business cycle and one's livelihood is
affected, if war occurs and one's loved ones die or are injured, if the war
on drugs leads to gang warfare in one's neighborhood, then all sorts of
changes may occur in people who are affected by these events. Some may take
advantage, while others lose out.
Sixth. If
choice is choice among the available opportunities that a person perceives,
what determines these opportunities? In part imagination and knowledge do.
However, these depend on feedback from prior decisions. The sixth argument
for freedom of choice is that it enhances one's opportunity set. A person who
takes the wheel of a car and learns to drive enhances his opportunity to
become a race car driver or a pilot.
Seventh. Now
comes an important incentive effect. A slave who is told what work to do has
less reason to make effective work decisions than someone who stands to gain directly
from his decisions. The slave has less to gain from thinking ahead, learning,
or improving his work opportunities since the gains go to the master. By
contrast, the free individual is the main beneficiary of his own actions and
calculates their effects on himself. Since others are not the main
beneficiaries of a person's actions, the individual has a stronger incentive
to seek knowledge concerning his choices and his own values than others are.
The seventh effect is that freedom of choice enhances one's incentive to
learn and benefit from one's decisions. A slave is content to use a horse and
plow, while a free man will seek to invent a mechanized plow. To stifle
freedom of choice is to stifle the incentive to create and invent.
Up to
now, the arguments for freedom of choice have been at the individual level.
The last few arguments are at the social level.
Eighth.
Self-ownership is right because it controls conflict in society in a
progressive way, through peaceful competition and individual growth, through
secure property rights. This is an unambiguous rule, that each of us owns
himself and his justly acquired property. It draws a clear line. Stepping
over that line is wrong, and staying behind it is right.
Taking
away that standard brings chaotic conflict. If I can coerce you and you can
coerce me, it's a free-for-all. Property titles become insecure. The natural
limit beyond which we cannot go becomes the death of those coerced. The end
result of coercion is total control, slavery, and the power of life and
death. There is no obvious stopping point short of total control. However, no
society can survive with too much conflict. Therefore, when the
self-ownership rule is not used, society will control conflict by suppressing
it and/or creating arbitrary rules of property. The society will be one in
which one side controls and the other side is controlled.
Nine. When
freedom of choice is limited, without some other intervening structure or
rule, anything can and will happen. Planning becomes more difficult.
Stability disappears. Uncertainty increases. Whim rules. Life cannot flourish
as well under these circumstances. Without planning, investment declines
because the paybacks are less assured in the future. Wealth cannot rise as
easily. More wealth is expended on defense and holding on to what one has.
People search for escape. They attempt to substitute activities and values
that can't be taken by others for those that can. People are lost in dreams
of other worlds or worlds to come. Or perhaps they lose themselves in drugs,
sports, or other passions and activities.
Society
cannot survive this sort of chaos until it establishes some sort of
intervening rule, like a feudal system or an aristocracy-serf system. Life
will then grind on relentlessly until the bonds of servitude are broken.
Tenth. When
a society adopts the rule of self-ownership, then mankind as a group makes
headway faster and easier. This is not only because each individual can
flourish better as outlined earlier. It is also because such a rule is
consistent with free markets and cooperative behavior. In fact,
self-ownership and free markets are implied by each other. Given self-ownership,
we can expect free markets to occur given that people benefit from trade
because of specialization. Conversely, where markets are free, people are
able to exchange and produce freely, which means that they have
self-ownership. All of the many virtues of free markets and property rights,
detailed by many writers, are support for the axiom of self-ownership.
Mankind's
choice is clear: self-ownership or non-self-ownership. With self-ownership
comes individual flourishing, free markets, cooperation, and learning.
Without self-ownership comes suppression of the individual, controlled
exchange, greater conflict, and a dulled spirit. Without
self-ownership comes a regimented society.
Michael
S. Rozeff
Michael S. Rozeff is a retired Professor of Finance
living in East Amherst, New York. He publishes regularly his ideas and
analysis on www.LewRockwell.com .
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission
to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is
given.
| 
