Wednesday, March 8
Freedom of choice
The socialist vs. the liberal view
First of all, allow me to introduce myself: I am Nikodemos, co-blogger of Social Dynamism, socialist economist (in training), proponent of collectivism and solidarity, and outspoken opponent of liberalism, libertarianism, and all varieties of individualism that ultimately result in misery for the great majority of individuals.
While browsing rather aimlessly around the web last night, I came upon a libertarian blog whose author had recently made a post fiercely advocating the legalization (and deregulation) of selling one's organs. The argument he put forward can essentially be boiled down to the following: A person wishing to sell an organ - for example, a kidney - must be in a desperate situation. You would only choose to sell an organ if you considered the alternative(s) to be worse; for instance, if you had a choice between selling a kidney and starving to death. Thus, the libertarian claims, since a person would only choose to sell their organs if this was the best (or least bad) alternative available to them, it follows that no harm can come from creating a legal organ market. On the contrary, it would help some of the poor by giving them the option of selling a kidney rather than starving.
This is an extreme example of the broader liberal view on freedom of choice: In any situation, if given a number of choices, a person will always choose the option they consider to be best. Thus, only good can ever come from giving people more choices. If the new choices are worse than previously existing ones, people will not choose them and nothing will change. If the new choices are better than previously existing ones, people will take advantage of them to improve their well-being. Most importantly, liberals believe that the value of each choice is subjective: different people have different preferences, such that one man's best choice is another man's worst, and vice versa.
Unfortunately, as with most liberal ideas, this one assumes that individuals live in a vacuum, that they are completely unaffected by social pressures and that their initial situation is a given which cannot be changed. In addition, the concept that the value of each choice is subjective and that no option is inherently better than another leads the liberal to conclude that the number of choices is the only thing that matters. This extreme form of relativism can produce some very inhumane results.
While it is true that most individuals will tend to choose the best option among those given to them, the catchphrase here is "among those given to them". Freedom of choice means little if all the choices you have are bad. You will choose the lesser evil, of course, but it may still be quite evil. The liberal outlook cares only for the number of choices with no regard for the quality of choices, because liberals believe quality to be inherently relative and dependent on each individual's preferences. But if a man sentenced to death is given a choice between being hanged, shot, drowned, or a thousand other methods of execution, I doubt he will be particularly thankful for his wonderful freedom to choose. He would much rather have just two choices, along the lines of "get shot or go free". The choice "go free" is far superior in quality to a thousand choices between different methods of execution. In matters of freedom of choice, quality trumps quantity. And the quality of choices, despite liberal claims to the contrary, is often objective rather than subjective.
The narrow liberal focus on the quantity of choices leads liberals to proclaim every new choice - no matter how bad - as an increase in freedom. Thus, the man who has a choice between starving and selling a kidney is more "free" (in the liberal sense) than the man who simply has to starve.
The socialist outlook, on the other hand, focuses on the intrinsic quality of choices. In addition, socialists look beyond the unrealistic case of a single isolated individual and take into account the social consequences of every action or policy. Selling a kidney to feed yourself isn't much better than starving (especially since you'll end up starving anyway if nothing changes in your financial situation). Thus the legalization of organ selling would not do much good at all. On the contrary, it may in fact cause great harm through its social effects. Increasing numbers of people in desperate situations would resort to selling their organs to keep themselves alive. The fact that selling a kidney is a relatively simple and quick way of getting a large sum of money would cause many of the poor to turn to this solution instead of options that demand greater effort and promise a lower income spread out over a longer period of time. In brief, the organ business would carve out a market for itself and destroy innumerable lives in the process.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, socialists ask a question that never occurs to liberals. Namely, "how did people end up in such desperate poverty in the first place?" Liberals consider the initial situation (in this case, poverty) as a given. And then they look to the number of choices available to people in that situation. Socialists look the quality of the choices instead - and, at the same time, try to understand what caused the initial situation and what can be done about it.
Thus, the fundamental difference between the liberal and the socialist can be summed up in the questions they would ask when faced with a starving man who is prohibited from selling a kidney to buy bread. The liberal will ask, "why don't you allow the man to sell his kidney?" The socialist will ask, "why is that man on the brink of starvation in the first place?"
The socialist vs. the liberal view
First of all, allow me to introduce myself: I am Nikodemos, co-blogger of Social Dynamism, socialist economist (in training), proponent of collectivism and solidarity, and outspoken opponent of liberalism, libertarianism, and all varieties of individualism that ultimately result in misery for the great majority of individuals.
While browsing rather aimlessly around the web last night, I came upon a libertarian blog whose author had recently made a post fiercely advocating the legalization (and deregulation) of selling one's organs. The argument he put forward can essentially be boiled down to the following: A person wishing to sell an organ - for example, a kidney - must be in a desperate situation. You would only choose to sell an organ if you considered the alternative(s) to be worse; for instance, if you had a choice between selling a kidney and starving to death. Thus, the libertarian claims, since a person would only choose to sell their organs if this was the best (or least bad) alternative available to them, it follows that no harm can come from creating a legal organ market. On the contrary, it would help some of the poor by giving them the option of selling a kidney rather than starving.
This is an extreme example of the broader liberal view on freedom of choice: In any situation, if given a number of choices, a person will always choose the option they consider to be best. Thus, only good can ever come from giving people more choices. If the new choices are worse than previously existing ones, people will not choose them and nothing will change. If the new choices are better than previously existing ones, people will take advantage of them to improve their well-being. Most importantly, liberals believe that the value of each choice is subjective: different people have different preferences, such that one man's best choice is another man's worst, and vice versa.
Unfortunately, as with most liberal ideas, this one assumes that individuals live in a vacuum, that they are completely unaffected by social pressures and that their initial situation is a given which cannot be changed. In addition, the concept that the value of each choice is subjective and that no option is inherently better than another leads the liberal to conclude that the number of choices is the only thing that matters. This extreme form of relativism can produce some very inhumane results.
While it is true that most individuals will tend to choose the best option among those given to them, the catchphrase here is "among those given to them". Freedom of choice means little if all the choices you have are bad. You will choose the lesser evil, of course, but it may still be quite evil. The liberal outlook cares only for the number of choices with no regard for the quality of choices, because liberals believe quality to be inherently relative and dependent on each individual's preferences. But if a man sentenced to death is given a choice between being hanged, shot, drowned, or a thousand other methods of execution, I doubt he will be particularly thankful for his wonderful freedom to choose. He would much rather have just two choices, along the lines of "get shot or go free". The choice "go free" is far superior in quality to a thousand choices between different methods of execution. In matters of freedom of choice, quality trumps quantity. And the quality of choices, despite liberal claims to the contrary, is often objective rather than subjective.
The narrow liberal focus on the quantity of choices leads liberals to proclaim every new choice - no matter how bad - as an increase in freedom. Thus, the man who has a choice between starving and selling a kidney is more "free" (in the liberal sense) than the man who simply has to starve.
The socialist outlook, on the other hand, focuses on the intrinsic quality of choices. In addition, socialists look beyond the unrealistic case of a single isolated individual and take into account the social consequences of every action or policy. Selling a kidney to feed yourself isn't much better than starving (especially since you'll end up starving anyway if nothing changes in your financial situation). Thus the legalization of organ selling would not do much good at all. On the contrary, it may in fact cause great harm through its social effects. Increasing numbers of people in desperate situations would resort to selling their organs to keep themselves alive. The fact that selling a kidney is a relatively simple and quick way of getting a large sum of money would cause many of the poor to turn to this solution instead of options that demand greater effort and promise a lower income spread out over a longer period of time. In brief, the organ business would carve out a market for itself and destroy innumerable lives in the process.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, socialists ask a question that never occurs to liberals. Namely, "how did people end up in such desperate poverty in the first place?" Liberals consider the initial situation (in this case, poverty) as a given. And then they look to the number of choices available to people in that situation. Socialists look the quality of the choices instead - and, at the same time, try to understand what caused the initial situation and what can be done about it.
Thus, the fundamental difference between the liberal and the socialist can be summed up in the questions they would ask when faced with a starving man who is prohibited from selling a kidney to buy bread. The liberal will ask, "why don't you allow the man to sell his kidney?" The socialist will ask, "why is that man on the brink of starvation in the first place?"
# posted by Veshgard @ 03:31 
