John Stuart Mill by John Watkins 1865
Note: This is not really a post. These were some notes that I was saving to work on a post later. I had scheduled this to automatically publish in order to encourage myself to work on it instead of just leaving it as I do most drafts that I write. Unfortunately, I got really ill and forgot about it. So here are some notes for a post that I was going to tidy up and write later.
The other day I wrote about a 2005 list of the top-ten most harmful books from a conservative perspective. I described one of the things that I found odd about the list, namely the stance against critical thinking skills. Today I want to comment on a second thing that I find odd about the list: It has a strong illiberal streak. When I say it is illiberal, I don’t mean ‘liberal’ in the way this is sometimes contrasted with conservatism; I mean ‘liberal’ in the sense of liberty and freedom, two values that many conservatives claim to uphold and hold dear.
I’ve written in the past about some of the different ways to understand the concept of liberty of freedom, and how the Tea Party seems to reduce freedom to not paying taxes. I find it difficult to understand what exactly Republicans have in mind when they invoke the concept of freedom, and this post continues my attempt to uncover how conservatives use the concept of liberty and freedom.
One of the books that does not make the top ten, but gets honourable mention on the list is John Stewart Mill‘s On Liberty. I find it very strange that this book should make the list at all since in this text Mill provides some of what are widely considered the best defences of the liberties many Republicans claim to hold dear. Mill writes in defence of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of the individual.
Here again is a passage from Dewey’s Democracy and Education:
Dewey explains how without education workers don’t understand how their work contributes to the social good, and so their labour does not reflect their own ends, but instead the ends of their employers. This robs workers of their freedom. From Democracy and Education, page 249.
This also helps me understand, to an extent, the hostility to the Arts and Social Sciences (well, except for economics which is also a social science) that one sometimes finds in certain commenters on the right. For example, Margaret Wente is almost always deriding students who choose to take philosophy, English, sociology, or anthropology despite having an MA in English herself. (I wrote about Wente’s odd loathing of her own education in an earlier post).
“…to reduce freedom to not paying taxes. ….”
This statement is problematic on a number of levels. A less loaded way to phrase it might be:
“….to define freedom as not being violently coerced by a government into funding certain policies…”
Using threats and violence to coerce someone into having sex against their will is obviously wrong (assuming we accept that coercion and violence is not a legitimate way for someone to achieve their objectives).
To reject the use of violence and coercion in this way is NOT an overall rejection of the sexual act, it is just a rejection of being FORCED to have sex with certain individuals against your will.
A victim of rape might be very enthusiastic about having sex. She objects only to having her sex life (her body, her property) taken over by force and against her will.
Likewise, using threats and violence to coerce someone into funding specific policies, social programs, institutions, corporations etc against their will is obviously wrong (assuming we accept that coercion and violence is not a legitimate way for someone to achieve their objectives).
To reject the use of violence and coercion in this way is NOT an overall rejection of the idea of funding policies, social programs, institutions, corporations etc, it is just a rejection of being FORCED to fund certain groups against your will.
A victim of taxation might be very enthusiastic about funding all sorts of things in society. She objects only to having her earnings (her property) taken over by force and against her will.
The phrase “…to reduce freedom to not paying taxes….” is therefore no different to the phrase “…to reduce freedom to not being raped….”
Taxes = being forced to give up your wealth (your property)
Rape = being forced to give up your body (your property)
If YOU personally consent to something it doesn’t mean that everybody else also consents to it too. Therefore if someone else defines government taxation as ‘theft’, or if they define someone climbing into their bed as ‘being raped’ you cannot logically argue that they are wrong just because for YOU these things happen to be consensual (ie you don’t object to them).
In other words, you cannot automatically overrule other people’s definitions of ‘freedom’ with your own definition of ‘freedom’.
It is better to use an objective definition of freedom, such as “we experience freedom is when nobody is initiating force against us or stealing our property”
That is as good a definition as any.
The collection of ‘taxes’ is backed up by coercion and violence. This is a fact. If you don’t pay up then men in blue costumes will come and kidnap you and lock you up in a cage. The initiation of force is what distinguishes taxation from charity or commerce. Whenever force is initiated against someone their freedom is compromised.
Therefore you can certainly argue why you think the government’s tactic of using coercion and violence, limiting people’s freedom and violating their property rights is a good idea.
But you can’t *logically* argue or imply that taxation is not all of those things.
By definition not being forced to pay taxes = freedom.