Flashback: Freedom in Black and White | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's note: The article below appeared in John Hood's daily column in his publication, the Carolina Journal, which, because of Author / Publisher Hood, is inextricably linked to the John Locke Foundation.

    This is the last of my 2006 series of columns discussing the founding principles of the John Locke Foundation -- and of America, in fact. You can read them all here.

    RALEIGH     One of the very first magazine articles I wrote for pay, appearing in The Freeman magazine, had the colorfully oleaginous title of "Gray Markets and Greased Pigs." The news hook was the attempt by Boston and other cities to limit the number of taxicabs doing business, so as to increase the earnings of politically generous cab companies (though the official line, believe it or not, was that consumers benefit when there are not as many competing cars cluttering up the place). But the real subject of the piece mirrored some of what I wrote about in yesterday's column on the free market: because market behavior is endemic to human nature, regulation can mutate but not extinguish it. As I wrote back then:

    Markets are resilient. Try as they might, government and the special interests they protect (in this case, the cab companies) can't completely suppress the forces of competition. By limiting one particular choice, they only direct enterprising people toward others. The result is either a black market, in which completely illegal transactions occur, or what might be called a "gray" market, in which firms substitute legal options for banned one - either with the tacit acceptance of authorities or without their knowledge - thus defeating the intent of regulation.

    I bring up the concept of gray markets not to begin another discussion of economics but to point to a problem of categorization. Is freedom ever a matter of black and white? As is evident from exercises such as annual surveys of freedom from Freedom House and the Economic Freedom Network, the graph of liberty contains few steep cliffs. It shows a gently sloping line (which points, inevitably, to parts of Africa and the Islamic World, much to their unmitigated sorrow). Even in countries termed "free" in their political or economic institutions, there is always plenty of room for improvement - and for boisterous, vociferous complaint. From the time we rise in the morning until the moment we stumble back into the bed in the evening, North Carolinians face unnecessary restrictions on our freedoms imposed by local, state, national, and even foreign governments.

    And yet, properly, we can say, as the John Locke Foundation's fourth statement of principle puts it, that "we are a free society where citizens solve social problems not only through government but also by working together in families, neighborhoods, churches, charities, and other private, voluntary organizations." I think we can say that not because the state sufficiently respects our liberties, but because most of us still spend most of our lives thinking about how we can work voluntarily with our families, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and co-religionists to solve our collective problems. We don't think coercive government is the answer to most of the questions we think it critical to ask ourselves each day.

    This outlook on life is, unfortunately, distinctive. Some social scientists have called it "American Exceptionalism," though I would observe that a (precious) few other countries on the globe also share it. It is no accident that these free societies are also among the most optimistic, generous, inventive, spiritual, and fulfilled societies on Earth (for example, in a 2003 Harris survey, 57 percent of Americans said they were "very satisfied with their lives," compared to an average of only 21 percent of Europeans).

    These sentiments are all bundled up together. If you believe you are a responsible moral agent living in a free society - free to choose and to work together with family, friends, and others to solve your short- and long-term problems - you do not perceive yourself to be a powerless victim of impersonal forces or inexorable fate. When you finish a task or accomplish a goal, your confidence and optimism grow. When you fall short, you feel responsible for learning from the mistake and doing better next time. Because you feel this way, you expect others you encounter to feel the same. Individualism and freedom lead to more rather than less sympathy and philanthropy, in part because personal involvement in social causes is more meaningful and rewarding than simply paying your taxes and in part because in free societies the state does not seek to supplant the role of religion in giving meaning to your life. In motivating good works, God works better than guns any day of the week.

    Both liberals and conservatives underemphasize the extent to which the welfare state weakens traditional family relationships and responsibilities. In a series of fascinating surveys back in the late 1990s, Europeans were far more likely than Americans to say government was responsible for taking care of children and the elderly. For example, 44 percent of Americans agreed that "government should be responsible for making sure . . . [that] older people have enough money so they can maintain their standard of living in retirement." A majority, in other words (though not an overwhelming one), remembered that individuals should be responsible enough to plan ahead for their own retirement, and that children and close friends are primarily and morally responsible for the care of sick or indigent seniors. But large majorities of Europeans, including 65 percent in France and 81 percent in Spain, said government was primarily responsible for this function. Similarly, when asked if "people like me should be entirely responsible for providing food, clothes, and housing for their children under 18," 82 percent of Americans agreed with this straightforward definition of the responsibilities of parenthood. The percentages dropped below 60 percent in Spain, Italy, and Britain, with only 50 percent of Germans agreeing.

    Spin whatever fantastic tales you wish about how European-style social democracy is more compassionate (as thousands of elderly Parisians, neglected by their long-vacationing children, perish in the summer heat), or how socialist states such as Cuba take better care of their citizens' daily needs (of course, health care and education are always "free" in prison). For the vast majority of citizens, no one will ever love or care for them more than their parents and children do. It verges on the demented to suggest otherwise. And there can be no greater power to alter the course of a troubled young person's life, or ease the suffering of a lonely older person, than the personal attention of a free, responsible, and loving human being - whether that attention is expressed in a visit, a helping hand, a gift, a communal prayer, or something larger-scale and more permanent.

    None of which is to suggest that government doesn't have a critical role to play in addressing social ills. Of course it does. Some of these ills are due to government malfeasance or intrusion, and thus must be alleviated at least by ending bad public policy and often by corrective government action. Other social ills inevitably impinge on the government's ability to perform its core functions, and become the legitimate subject of public policy as a result.

    For example, while their families should primarily be responsible for the care of the addicted, the destitute, and the mentally ill, not all shoulder their responsibilities - or are in the position to do so. Even with spirited volunteer and philanthropic efforts, history has demonstrated that many of these troubled individuals will end up as wards in the state, clogging the jails and prisons that should be reserved for predatory criminals. Thus policymakers recognized long ago that the state had to make provision to house and treat the poorest and most desperate of these individuals - though how to do that most effectively remains the subject of intense debate. The point is that such public policies aren't motivated by compassion, which motivates private charity and cannot be coerced. They are motivated by the government's duty to protect individual rights and secure true public goods, which can be obstructed by vagrancy and disorder.

    With regard to schooling, I believe that state taxpayers are morally required to pay for efforts to ensure that children of modest means are afforded the opportunity to acquire a sound, basic education (which also happens to be the settled law in North Carolina, though that doesn't make it necessarily true). As explained elsewhere, I don't justify this government function on economic grounds. Rather, I believe that public education is a civil right, created when you expand the voting franchise to every adult, without regard to background, wealth, or literacy. Of course, it can be ensured through the proper tax treatment of educational investment plus means-tested assistance for lower-income students to attend the school of their choice, choosing within a largely private education industry, which is to say that a government function need not be carried out by government agencies or employees.

    To say that America, and North Carolina in particular, can simultaneously be referred to as a land of liberty, a constitutional republic, a free market, and a free society is not to settle all political disputes. Far from it. As I've said many times, JLF folks disagree with each other on a variety of issues of practical application. But we do agree that political discourse is best begun by a "recurrence to fundamental principles," as the constitution of North Carolina puts it, and our fundamental principles of competition, innovation, personal freedom and personal responsibility are shared and timeless.