The Freeman 1989 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

36 THE FREEMAN. JANUARY 1989where people face persecution, oppression, andliquidation from the state if they try to remedytheir circumstances by individual initiative (includingforming economic alliances), for a societyin which no such political limits to libertyare sanctioned, the judgment comes to littlemore than either stressing the exceptions or demeaninghuman ability.The "freedom" Preston thinks people mightenjoy involves what people could benefit fromin their relationship to others, namely, greateraccess to information, better conditions for deliberation,etc. For example, they might be bettereducated, they might possess more wealth,etc. This is, of course, not political freedom buta better standard of living. To obscure the differenceis dangerous.Making the Most of Our LivesWhen Marxists say that we lack freedom orliberty under capitalism, they don't make clearthat what they have in mind is something weprobably would lack far more under any othersystem-the ability and opportunity to make themost ofour lives. And that is perhaps because ifput this way, it becomes clear that at least undercapitalism everyone has his or her political liberty-freedomfrom other people's forcible intrusioninto one's life-and in the main thisprovides most with a good chance of attaining ahigh standard of living. While capitalism is notpreoccupied with the equal distribution ofwealth-or, rather, poverty-it is a system underwhich those who make a good try have thechance of reaching considerable economic success.(Nor does capitalism assume that everyonewould, or even should, want this!)The Marxist position sees persons as we dotrees or flowers that grow not from their owndetermination but are spurred on by the naturalenvironment. And if there are deficiencies inthis environment, there will be impedimentsstanding in the way of growth.As Preston puts it, "We now realize that theexchanges of capitalism generally do not representagreements in which both (or all) participantsare better off if 'better off' is viewed asgaining access to the resources needed to exercisefreedom. ,,11 Once Preston has defined"free choice" as, in effect, "the best possiblechoice one could make, " it is no wonder that heviews capitalist exchanges as not being''free. "It may not be immediately obvious that Prestonand this entire tradition hold this conception of"freedom," but it becomes so, once it is clearthat here the objective is to ensure human perfection,the full emancipation of human beings-notmerely their freedom to do what theychoose to do, regardless of the outcome. Preston,like others in this tradition, in effect identifieshuman freedom with human success.Without that identification, human freedom orliberty simply have no value to him.The liberal tradition, however, sees humanfreedom (from aggression by others) as valuablein itself, because it is a constituent part ofhuman goodness-without the freedom tochoose one's conduct, one is not the agent ofwhatever good behavior one might engage in.This is not always clearly put in the liberal tradition,but it is there, nevertheless.In the liberal tradition, government aims atprotecting the individual's role as the agent ofhis own conduct. That is why it stresses individualliberty and rights. Once persons enjoythis protection, they will then do what theychoose, well or badly. Society is not perfect,but it is politically best if it secures for everyonea sphere ofjurisdiction or personal sovereignty.The rest is in the hands of individuals.In contrast, for the Preston/Marx position theprimary task of good government-of thosewho understand and have the power to upgradethe species-is to free human beings from impedimentsto growth. This is clearly not accomplishedsimply by protecting people against theaggressive intrusion of other human beings.No, they need total "liberation"-the preventionof all intrusions such as poverty, disease,ignorance, illness, and even sin. Thus Prestonholds that "Physical force need not always beeither morally objectionable or a denial of freedom.Efforts physically to restrain drug addictsfrom gaining access to drugs may be done formoral reasons and in the interest of freedomtoenhance the addicts' ability to make deliberatechoices." 12This is a convenient example for Preston, becauseeven in contemporary near-capitalist societiespeople are not granted the right to con-