Learn Liberty

Category Archive: Classical Liberalism

  1. Is Katniss a Modern-Day Spartacus?

    13 Comments

    Literature and legend often reflect their culture. Some themes, like that of rulers imposing coercive power, or of individuals rising up against tyrants, are as relevant today as they were in antiquity. Suzanne Collins drew on Greek mythology’s story of the Minotaur and on the legend of Spartacus in ancient Rome as she created the Hunger Games series. Her hero, like the heroes in these stories, does not seek her own power or profit but is standing up against a violent and tyrannical government. “People everywhere yearn for the freedom to pursue their own goals and dreams,” says Prof. Amy Sturgis. Even though the themes are ancient, stories like the Hunger Games resonate with readers because the anxieties and fears they portray are real and relevant. “These stories aren’t just entertainment,” Sturgis says. “They are reflections of who and what we are.” Do the themes in these stories resonate with you? Why?

  2. This Prof. will Challenge your Perspective on Free Speech

    12 Comments

    Everybody loves free speech, right? It’s in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But Prof. Deirdre McCloskey complicates the picture of free speech by associating it with the Greek word for persuasion: rhetoric. Free speech and advertising go hand in hand. Advertisements and rhetoric both have a negative connotation, but they are essential to the functioning of a free society. The only alternative to persuasion by speech is persuasion by violence. Clearly speech is a safer and superior alternative. And perhaps advertising plays a helpful role in society. What better way is there to make decisions about what to buy or what to believe except by people trying to charm us? What do you think about the role of advertising in a free society? Should advertising fall under the first amendment protections? How do you like to be persuaded about things?

  3. Why Are So Many Violent Criminals Walking Free?

    13 Comments

    In 2011, fewer than half of all violent crimes found any resolution. An alarming 59 percent of rape cases and 36.2 percent of murders in the United States are never solved. Why are so many violent criminals walking free? Prof. Alex Kreit suggests that perhaps U.S. police forces have their priorities out of order.

    We would save $41.3 billion every year by ending the war on drugs. Prof. Kreit argues that those resources could be better used trying to solve violent crimes and prosecute criminals who leave victims in their wake. Millions of people who are under correctional supervision in the United States never restrained, assaulted, killed, or abused another person but are in prison for simple possession of a drug. Despite all of the money and time spent, it has never been easier to buy drugs.

    Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs for personal use 12 years ago, offers an alternative that is working. Drug use in Portugal has dropped, along with other measures, like the number of drug-related HIV cases and drug use among children. We should be directing more resources to investigating murders and rapes—not drug use. Whatever your stance on the legal status of drugs, shouldn’t we make a guarantee to help victims first? Prof. Kreit asks, “Who are the real victims of the government’s war on drugs?”

  4. What Surfing Can Teach You about Ownership

    9 Comments

    To understand about ownership, it helps to understand something about surfing. Surfers employ a system of ownership over waves so that everyone gets a turn. Prof. Dan Russell describes a scenario in which three friends are surfing but none wants to be selfish. As a result, the good waves pass by and no one has a good time. If they had prescribed a system of ownership instead, they would all have their turn to the waves. Among people who are not friends, a lack of ownership often leads to pushing and shoving. People who want peace need to instead determine whose wave is whose—or who owns property.

    Although many people conflate ownership with selfishness, this is not accurate. Ownership plays an important role in a functional society for several reasons:

    -          Ownership allows for more creativity and enables us to do the things we want to do.

    -          Ownership puts a check on selfishness and greed because it gives the owner the right to say no. This also makes conservation possible.

    -          Ownership fosters greater civility and fairness. Respecting ownership is a way to respect each other, and when ownership isn’t protected, the most vulnerable people usually suffer most for it. As Prof. Russell says, “If we care about fairness for everyone, we have to care about ownership.”

  5. Freedom Requires Whistleblowers: The Importance of Transparency

    13 Comments

    Are you concerned about the activities government agencies are engaging in? Does it bother you to think the government is spying on you? If you not, what reason do you have to be complacent? Professor James Otteson says we may feel secure today because we know we haven’t done anything wrong. But this is short-sighted.

    The powers we give to the people in office today will transfer to the people who are elected tomorrow. Maybe you trust, support, or voted for the current president. But what if the next president were someone you couldn’t agree with? Would you still want that leader to have the same powers?

    The government should have to get permission from citizens for everything it does, not the other way around. The government must be accountable to citizens, transparent, and unable to act in ways the citizenry would not condone. This is why we need whistleblowers. We need people to take a stand and point out when the government in not acting in the people’s interest. We need the government to answer to us.

  6. No Means No: The NSA, Edward Snowden, and Privacy

    6 Comments

    When Edward Snowden revealed to the world that the National Security Agency (NSA) and other agencies were looking into the lives of every American, many people were shocked. While claiming to protect us from crime and terrorism, says Professor James Otteson, the government has been recording every digital transmission we make. They are keeping a record of every email, tweet, phone call, Facebook post, and online purchase. Things we may have thought were private are not safe from the government’s watch.

    Should we be alarmed? Some say they don’t care that the government is spying on them because they haven’t done anything illegal. Prof. Otteson disagrees. He says the reason we should worry about these invasions of privacy is because they rob us of the right to say no. When we are able to say no—when a slave can say no to the slave-holder or a serf can say no to a lord, or a child can say no to a bully–we establish a boundary of freedom. This is why privacy is important.

    Have you thought much about how you value your privacy from the government? Did Snowden’s revelation cause you to think differently about what the government is doing? Is privacy a bigger priority for you today than it was before Snowden’s revelation? Why or why not?

  7. A Professor’s Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

    11 Comments

    Should same-sex couples be permitted to marry? Are civil unions or domestic partnerships sufficient? What kind of effect does same-sex marriage have on heterosexual marriage? Do the children of same-sex couples face undue challenges because of their parents?

    These questions have all been raised in the ongoing debate about gay marriage. Professor Dale Carpenter makes a compelling argument in favor of same-sex marriage from a philosophical, rights-based perspective while presenting data to answer these questions and others.

    Marriage imposes obligations and confers rights on a couple. It does this from a legal standpoint, but even more in the sense of social expectations. Every person has a fundamental right to marry, says Prof. Carpenter. And marriage is good for families and for society—whether a couple is straight or homosexual.

  8. Capitalism Is NOT Imperialism

    4 Comments

    Many people believe capitalism and imperialism are the same thing or at least closely related. Professor Stephen Davies explains that this is not the case. While capitalism is based on voluntary exchange that benefits all parties involved, imperialism is based on exploitation and the exercise of political power, generally backed by a military force.

    We can see that capitalism and imperialism differ by looking at the history of empire in the world and examining trade patterns. Empires have existed for the whole of human history, long before the development of capitalism. Imperialism has led to the impoverishment of people and bears the blame for terrible famines, especially during the Victorian period in India. Under capitalism, we would expect to see global free trade between many countries, not just from world powers to less-developed countries, but also between less-developed countries. This does not happen under imperialism.

    While capitalism and imperialism have been closely linked in the minds of many, the truth is that the two systems are at odds with one another. Where one system flourishes, the other cannot. Many negative things, such as political corruption, the exploitation of the poor, and mass famines, have been blamed on capitalism, but that blame is misplaced. Real capitalism should work to improve circumstances for the poor by voluntary exchange, but imperialism hurts the poor by political or military domination that enables countries or government-backed businesses to profit at others’ expense.

  9. Choice in Schools or Choice in Education?

    16 Comments

    We hear a lot about school choice. And while that would probably improve the U.S. education system, what we really need is choice in education. When most people think about education, they think of traditional schools. But Professor Stephen Davies says we are seeing a revolution in the delivery of education, both in the United States and abroad.

    Private institutions, which are prevalent in many parts of the world, have more flexibility than traditional schools and do not necessarily conform to the traditional ideas of what a school is. Similarly, the homeschooling movement in the United States has become a major social movement for which all kinds of educational forms are developing. Parents’ cooperatives, learning centers, and all kinds of learning providers are now delivering education to homeschooled students in a more flexible, home-centered but not totally home-based, way than ever before.

    What has caused these revolutionary changes in education? Professor Davies says the Internet and other technologies are one main source of the changes. The main reason, however, is social transformation. New forms of education reflect the goals and desires of parents and pupils rather than those of governments, large firms, or political movements of any kind. These changes indicate that we’re heading for a radical transformation in the way education is delivered. Professor Davies says, “This can only be an enormous change for the better.”

  10. What’s So Great about Economic Freedom?

    7 Comments

    Economic freedom is about the freedom to buy and sell things, says Professor Antony Davies, but it’s also about the freedom to interact with people, to converse with others, to travel, and to say what we want to say. Evidence shows that economic freedom is associated with many positive things in society. This holds true among states in the United States and across the countries of the world.
    Countries that have more economic freedom also tend to have higher GDP per capita. They tend to take better care of the environment. They also tend to have less child labor and more gender equality. Prof. Davies examines the data on these factors and several of the arguments people have raised about the data to show the many benefits of economic freedom. Economic freedom is about being free to make your own choices. It allows us to:
    - Do what we love
    - Create wealth
    - Protect the environment
    - Improve equality
    - End child poverty

  11. What’s Right about Social Justice?

    13 Comments

    What if libertarians and classical liberals were wrong and the free-market system actually did make the rich richer and the poor poorer? Would that change their support of those ideas? Professor Matt Zwolinski expects that it would. This implies that most proponents view how the poor fare under free-markets as more than just an attractive selling point for the free-market system. It is a crucial element in justifying market-based policies.

    Who ends up with what in terms of money, jobs, or opportunities is affected by the legal and social rules under which people operate. We have rules defining and enforcing property rights, rules of contract, taxation, and so on. Prof. Zwolinski says, “Rules like these don’t determine exactly how any particular person in society will fare compared to anyone else, but they do affect the overall patterns of distribution in society.”

    The famous egalitarian John Rawls said that “a just society’s rules tend to work to the maximum advantage of the least well off classes.” Prof. Zwolinski argues that while we may disagree on the means to achieve this end, free-market proponents can agree with this statement. We can embrace a theory of social justice without believing the state has to do anything to directly promote the welfare of the least well off. Prof. Zwolinski believes that when it comes to social justice, supporters of a traditional concept of social justice and free-market proponents have much to learn from one another.

  12. Social Justice and Its Critics

    1 Comment

    Many argue that we should do more for the poor as a matter of social justice. In some cases, they mean we should use our own time and resources to assist those in need, but more often they mean the government should enact policies that try to help the poor in various ways. Meanwhile, many classical liberals and libertarians reject the idea of social justice, finding it immoral, impractical, or even, as Professor Matt Zwolinski discusses, conceptually confused.

    The term social justice typically refers to a moral assessment of the way wealth, jobs, opportunities, and other goods are distributed in society. Some may think wealth should be distributed equally; others may argue that it is more important for opportunities to be equally distributed. Unfortunately, there is no central distributor in a free society able to enforce this type of equality.

    In fact, Prof. Zwolinski argues, we are all distributors. When we make decisions, like which grocer to buy from, what to study in school, or where to live, we affect the distribution of resources. None of those decisions is inherently just or unjust. As Prof. Zwolinski says, “If there’s no [single] agent responsible for the distribution of wealth in society, then how can that distribution be just or unjust?” For libertarians and classical liberals, the only meaningful concept of social justice is one focused on the legal and economic rules of societies. Many think this focus is incompatible with the political left’s concept of social justice. Stay tuned to the next LearnLiberty video by Prof. Zwolinski to find out why he disagrees.