I’ve been thinking of how to answer the question “What is liberty?” but I realize that I haven’t been trying to answer from the right foundation. As I have spoken of elsewhere, a thing is known by that which is its intent, or telos. If I know a thing’s end, I know the thing. I believe this can include concepts, e.g. the purpose of set theory is to provide a description and system of abstract setwise relations.
If I want to answer what liberty is, then, I must answer it’s purpose. What is the purpose of liberty? What does society gain if we allow people their freedom to act as they will within the confines of property, without any encumbrances of statism?
I think we can begin to see the answer if we look at what people lose with statism. Wherever the burden of the state falls on people, a penalty is applied to the accumulation of some form of wealth, be that material, intellectual, leisurely, and so on. After all, to put it plainly and in a way that people seem to forget, a tax taxes: synonyms for tax are strain, pressure, imposition, and burden. Why do we punish crime with fines and imprisonment? Because this is an imposition meant to be costly to the individual to make them reconsider their actions. The effect of the confiscation of time and wealth is the same, whether it is applied for criminal wrongdoing or merely for the accident of having an income. What is taxed, you have less of.
In the modern state, what tends to get taxed? Higher incomes by individuals and corporations. There is, I daresay, a correlation of human excellence with higher income. After all, what social problems the conservative (like myself) is concerned with are high rates of divorce, single motherhood, abortion, drug abuse, homosexuality, and so on, are all correlated with lower income. These problems affect those of higher income less. I would not argue that higher income is the cause of this (or vice versa, that lower income is the cause of these problems), but that these variables are dependent on the one and same value of the individual’s time preference. Time preference is how one tends to weigh the present against the future. Those who give up more present consumption in order to gain greater consumption in the future have a lower time preference. Low time preference is a prerequisite of high income and excellence. As such, when we tax the virtue of low time preference, we incentivize activities of higher time preference.
I believe, then, that liberty is conducive to, on one hand, higher incomes and excellence. Where the state punishes such excellence, a free society is in favor of no such thing. The excellent are free to pursue their excellencies.
There is another side to this as well. The modern state does not only tend to tax higher income more strenuously, but it also tends to subsidize and alleviate the cost of poverty. The same principle cuts in this instance: if penalizing (making the cost greater) an activity disincentivizes it, then subsidizing (making the cost lesser) an activity incentivizes it.
And low income is correlated to vice in the same way high income is to virtue. Low income is a product of high time preference; it comes about by the systematic preference of present consumption over greater future consumption in the future. If we incentivize high time preference, we incentivize vice.
Dare I say that rising rates of single motherhood may be explained, not so much by crumbling morals, but by our incentivizing of it by the alleviation of its costs? We punish virtue to subsidize vice. This is the modus operandi of the modern state, this is its means to the acquisition of power. (Why else do you think we give one person one vote? When voting what’s for dinner, there are two wolves for every sheep.)
This is why I am led to believe that the purpose of liberty is excellence. There will be no constraints on low time preferences, and as such no constraints on virtue. The great shall be allowed to be great, and the least shall be allowed to be least. I acknowledge this is an elitist position to take, but it is obvious that egalitarianism, the “cause of the poor,” has the cost of kneecapping society and precluding the great to rise to their positions. The poor will always be with us, but I do not see why we must take this as a reason to never let anyone have wealth, be it materially, intellectually, or artistically.
It seems you define excellence in monetary terms. At the very end you hint at “intellectual” and “artistic” as well, but the thrust of your argument has to do with money and property. Since you are a Catholic Christian, this surprises me, as the Church does not define excellence in this way. The Church founds itself on Jesus, who died penniless and was constantly surrounded by the poor and an opponent of the rich – unless the rich repented and used their wealth for helping the poor.
Further, building on Jesus as the Church’s definition of virtue and excellence, the Church has then canonized various saints as THE role models of virtue and excellence. Almost all of these died poor or modestly by monetary/property standards. The heroes of the Church, whether Francis or Mother Teresa or many many others championed virtue in the pattern of Jesus and not some kind of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Mark Zuckerberg definition of virtue and excellence.
A society obsessed with wealth and property as its standard of excellence and virtue is precisely the opposite of Jesus’ kingdom vision. None of this says anything about whether or not we should or should not have a state, thats not my point, rather my point is your starting foundation and definition have led you astray from the gospel of the Church. Instead you sound like a prosperity televangelist selling the lie that material wealth equates with what is excellent and virtuous. I can’t agree with much of anything that you’ve written.
I meant that there is a correlation of high income and excellence, which is why I pointed to lower rates of divorce, single motherhood, and abortion among those of high income. It is not that high income is the kind of excellence I am intent on (though I will admit it certainly qualifies as a material form of excellence, and is, all other things held equal, preferable to poverty), it is merely the correlation between high income and excellence stemming from low time preference, which I consider a virtue. Low time preference might also be called prudence.
I would not agree to define low time preference as prudence. Given this definition Jesus (and aforementioned saints) were imprudent, as they were give-it-away people. Following in the way of our Master, it is not excellent to store all one’s mega wealth into barns and even bigger barns. “You fool!” He says, “your very life is demanded of you tonight!”
Likewise in another parable a rich man refuses to share with suffering poor Lazarus (no doubt being a “wise” low time preference rich man – he knows full well if he subsidizes Lazarus, that Lazarus will not only live but may bring friend beggars with him! They will multiply! oh no!). Yet in his stubborn low time preference with his money – saving and not sharing with the poor – he winds up suffering in flames as Lazarus is whisked up to be with Abraham.
I would define prudence as wise stewardship and frugality – defined on Jesus’ terms, not the terms of economists. You cannot serve both masters Bryce. If material wealth were truly equated with excellence, then Jesus was dead wrong in all He said and did regarding the rich and the poor, about wealth and generosity. It is excellent to have material wealth only to the extent that one use it generously to help people. Otherwise it is not a blessing or excellent. Instead its a curse. One where it is easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle.
I think your interpretation of the parable concerning the rich man who stores up his wealth is shallow, especially if we consider the praise he heaps on the low time preference demonstrated by the servant in the parable of the talents. Perhaps “Plan for the future, but be ready to go now” would be more apt. Seems that virtue requires low time preference, since it involves giving up present pleasures for greater rewards at a later time (or was Jesus wrong to say “store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven?”).
“Wise stewardship and frugality”–so you mean prudence, right?
I said material wealth is one form of excellence, but clearly my emphasis is on intellectual, artistic, and moral forms. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wealth, or else being banished from the Garden wouldn’t have been a punishment.
- we’re going to have to agree to disagree on interpretations of Jesus’ parables regarding money it seems
- and in that vein, it appears we disagree on how to interpret “store up treasures in heaven” – you seem to interpret this eschatologically. I interpret it presently. That is in present tense imperative: store up your treasures in heaven. Well what (or WHO) is in heaven? God. The people’s treasure is God, not money. Hence in the context they cannot serve God and mammon. I don’t see this as eschatological at all, but then I don’t believe in an eternal life in heaven, though that too is yet another area we no doubt disagree about.
- ” “Wise stewardship and frugality” – so you mean prudence, right?” Of course, but again on Jesus’ terms and not on economist/low time preference terms. Jesus’ definition is rich toward God, not toward self or one’s bank account. I think Mother Teresa for example was one of the wealthiest people on earth. I think Mark Zuckerberg is one of the most in poverty.
- “I said material wealth is one form of excellence, but clearly my emphasis is on intellectual, artistic, and moral forms.” In that case, I’d love to see you develop these other areas more in your philosophy and discuss them more. So often your blog revolves around money… this reader at least begins to think that IS your aim and focus.
- “There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wealth, or else being banished from the Garden wouldn’t have been a punishment.” EXCELLENT! Now we’re talking about TRUE wealth… being in God’s presence (not banished from Him), living in God’s will (not in defiance of it), living innocent of sin (not as rebels)… yes! Now you are talking true wealth, Bryce, excellent! In that definition, I have total agreement.
Where i don’t agree is mammon. There wasn’t any of that laying around in paradise. That was invented later. Perhaps with good intentions originally to make it easier to barter, fine, but it definitely became an idol to be worshipped and by Jesus’ time money worship was rampant. The rich were missing the kingdom of God while the poor were striding in. And to this day there is a correlation of financial wealth and atheism/agnosticism, so it seems that curse is still with humanity. True there is nothing inherently “wrong” with having lots of money – just use it how God wants ya to Jesus says. THAT is prudent.