Classical Liberalism as a Voting Guide

Classical liberalism, as espoused by John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, was based on the concepts of individualism, liberty, and equal rights. Our Declaration of Independence was conceived upon those same values. This was heady stuff and freed uncounted millions from under the heavy boots of dukes and kings.

It wasn’t until many years later that liberalism became associated with statism, that is, using the power of the state to regulate the affairs of her citizens. A more topsy-turvy reversal could not be imagined.

The upcoming election, only five days hence, offers some befuddling choices. Let’s take a look at it through the lens of classical liberalism, the very values upon which our country was founded.

Massachusetts ballot question one, expanded slot-machine gaming, is an easy start. Who are you to tell your neighbor that she can’t start a slot-machine business? Or order her potential customers to not gamble in any case? How Stalinist, Hitlerian. You have the free choice of not gambling nor supporting such an enterprise, but what business is it of yours to order others not to do so?

Now you’re beginning to get the hang of classical liberalism.

On to question two, charter school expansion. Public charter schools are subject to long waiting lists of parents anxious to get their children into them. Are they all deluded? Do they breathe noxious fumes? Nay, they anticipate a better outcome for dear Billy Joe than if he were to attend a district school. We need not question that belief, only recognize that it exists. Who are you to tell Billy that he can’t attend the school of his choice?

Competition is the natural adjudicator of such contests. If district schools demonstrate better results, then the charters will wither. Let this process play itself out.

Question three, conditions for farm animals, has many weepy supporters who seem fixated on feces. But perhaps, instead of mandating husbandry standards from folks who don’t even know what husbandry is, we take a different tack. The question, perhaps, should ask farm producers to report the conditions under which their animals were husbanded. This information would follow the animal products to the supermarkets, and shoppers could make their choices based on their family budget vs. highly held principles.

Another clear “no” for the classical liberal. You are getting the idea now.

And then there is question four, the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. This question is a bit more complex, and the classical liberal would vote “yes, but…”

The “yes” is clearly based on liberal principles – the freedom of the individual to choose. However the “but” is related to unintended consequences that would arise therefrom.  Human nature being what it is, once marijuana is legalized, the drug cartels will find some other way to make money. In January 2015, the Washington Post published a report entitled “Losing marijuana business, Mexican cartels push heroin and meth.” These guys aren’t stupid, and finding that marijuana was no longer profitable, they simply shifted to other drugs.

So the classical liberal would vote yes on question four, but would ask that we prepare for a flood of replacement illegal drugs. Perhaps the long term fix is to legalize them as well, a kind-of Swiss model.

And then finally to the presidential election.

What a farce. The Democratic candidate is a grifter, grown enormously wealthy through “public service.” The Republican candidate is a complete whack-a-doodle, adolescent, emotionally volatile.

What is a classical liberal to do?

First let’s recognize the growth of the regulatory state over the last fifty years. The inertia of the FRB, FDA, FCC, FDA, EPA, FTC, NLRB, OSHA, and SEC will be scarcely influenced by whomever wins the next election. It is a sad fact that the bureaucratic, unelected mass of the federal regulatory apparatus is little affected by whoever is president.

But we do need to recognize the importance of Supreme Court nominations. The court can reinterpret our constitution at will, and, as classical liberals, we would hope that that interpretation would favor individualism, liberty, and equal rights.

In the end, our choice as classical liberals must be to defend the rights of the individual citizen. Take a big gulp, cross yourselves, and vote for Mr. Trump.

God knows we have the best intentions at heart.  Fingers crossed. 

Our wonderful gift of liberty

Statue of Liberty, 1901, Library of Congress

Two hundred and thirty six years ago, a new nation appeared on the face of the Earth, unlike any other. At its heart, with this core tenet, the Declaration of Independence was radical:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…

Equality was extremely rare on the planet.  The English had their Kings, the Catholics, their popes, the Egyptians, their Pharaohs.  But here was a new country dedicated to the principle that we are all created equal.  The individual freedom flowing from that simple principle has made us the greatest nation in the world.

All men are created equal – no one can tell you what religion to practice, or not practice, or which words you may utter, or print, or with whom you may associate.

All men are created equal – your property is yours, no one may confiscate or use it without your permission or fair compensation.

All men are created equal – the government has no divine right and serves only with the consent of the governed, the people, who have the right “to alter or abolish it.”

It is important to note that we imperfect humans have not perfectly implemented this equality, but have striven to achieve it, driven by bedrock principle, over many years.  Witness the Civil War, the 13^th amendment (slavery abolished), the 19^th amendment (women’s right to vote), the Civil Rights Act, Title IX… the list goes on as we continue to perfect this belief in equality. But to be clear, the individual liberty recognized by our social covenant does not guarantee equal outcomes, rather it affords equal opportunity. 

The results have been very encouraging.  President Barack Obama, billionaire businesswoman Oprah Winfrey, former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall (died 1993) are just the tip of the iceberg.  How about Meg Whitman, CEO of Hewlett Packard, or Stanley O’Neal, former CEO and chairman of Merrill Lynch. The incidence of successful, powerful, minorities and women continues to escalate, all to our mutual benefit as their ingenuity and drive contributes mightily to our collective success and well being.

Our founding fathers have given us a wonderful gift and our military has sacrificed mightily to help us keep it.  But whether we keep or squander it is up to us.  We can easily vote it away while chasing a mirage of equal outcomes.  Because with individual liberty comes choice and responsibility - the freedom to make choices and then being responsible for the outcome.  If you want equality of outcomes, then we must, perforce, yield up our liberty, forgo our choices.

Here is a better way.  Studies of census data have correlated individual behaviors to poverty over the past 60 years, and some simple relationships have emerged.  Ron Haskins of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institute, recently testifying before Congress, made the following observation:

“… young people can virtually assure that they and their families will avoid poverty if they follow three elementary rules for success – complete at least a high school education, work full time, and wait until age 21 and get married before having a baby.”

Haskins went on to say that young people following those rules would almost certainly join the middle class and those who did not, would not.

Three simple rules.  Individual responsibility.  The outcome is your own doing, for better or for worse.  This is the cost, and the opportunity, of freedom.