John Locke: Trading Freedom to for Freedom from

John Locke is as good a place as any to start a discussion of democracy. In his first Treatise on Government he refutes the divine right of kings and in the second he lays out the rationale for democratic governments.  He was a powerful influence on Jefferson who had his portrait in his study along with Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, and Galileo.

In the Second Treatise on Government, he makes the case that man in his natural state is free and equal to every other man. Locke states “ men are naturally in . . . a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit . . .”[1] that is in the state of nature they have perfect Freedom To.

Locke then asks, “If man in the state of nature be so free . . . absolute lord of his own person and possessions . . . why will he part with his freedom?”[2]

His answer is “. . . that though in the state of nature he hath such rights, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others. For all being kings, as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure.”[3]

So men form political unions, “for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”[4]

Since he has entered this contract as an equal he has an equal say in the matters of governing and since he entered it voluntarily if he is not getting the protection for his property that the contract promises he can opt out at any time. Thus the process is democratic.

However, I want to clarify what exactly he gives up and what exactly he gets with this arrangement.

The function of government is to preserve property; but Locke has a pretty broad definition of what he calls property.  In addition to the physical chattels we customarily call property he adds life and liberty (time). It is the expenditure of his property in all these forms that he gives up to enjoy the security of the group. If he defends his tribe against the tribe across the river he gives over his time, his physical resources (weapons perhaps), and possibly his life. He trades his Freedom To use, however he sees fit, this property, in all its forms, and gives it over to the collective for Freedom From the threat of the enemy host which he is not able to deal with on his own.

So Locke presents to us another continuum for us to consider, and consider we have.

Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor is a parable on the subject. Roosevelt’s four freedoms split down the middle, two freedom to’s (Speech and Religion) and two freedom from’s (Want and Fear). In high school a classmate who was a member of the John Birch Society said there is no such thing as Freedom From.

This in fact, I would maintain, is the fundamental continuum upon which liberals and libertarians/conservatives disagree. It is the central political argument of our age.

So I am going to leave it for now and give you a chance to consider how you think and perhaps more importantly feel about it.

In the next post I will look at the freedom to/freedom from continuum in the context of context of the make/buy continuum.

---

[1] John Locke Second Treatise on Government Chapter II - Of the State of Nature

[2] John Locke Second Treatise on Government Chapter IX - Of the Ends of Political Society and Government

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

The division of labor; THE fundamental principle of capitalism

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations starts the book with defining and promulgating the importance of the division of labor. I would maintain it is more than that; it is a sine qua non of any economic system.  If there is no division of labor then everyone is wholly self-sufficient and therefore there is no meaningful exchange of goods or services and no economy exist.

He gives the following example of how in a primitive society the division of labor might arise.

“In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison, than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows and arrows grows to be

his chief business, and he becomes a sort of armourer. Another excels in making the frames and covers of their little huts or moveable houses. He is accustomed to be of use in this way to his neighbours, who reward him in the same manner with cattle and with venison, till at last he finds it his interest to dedicate himself entirely to this employment, and to become a sort of house-carpenter. In the same manner a third becomes a smith or a brazier; a fourth a tanner or dresser of hides or skins, the principal part of the clothing of savages. And thus the certainty of being able to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he may have occasion for, encourages every man to apply himself to a particular occupation, and to cultivate and bring to perfection whatever talent or genius he may possess for that particular species of business.”[1]

The result of this division of labor is that everyone becomes a producer/consumer and as a result is left with a make/buy choice. In the primitive society, do I make my arrows, build my hut, tan my hides or do I trade my cattle, venison, corn for someone else’s skill set? In modern society do I grow my food, build my house, repair my car or do I contract with the grocer, builder, or mechanic to do those things for me?

Make/buy then is a continuum around which we all make choices and to some degree speaks to a core belief we have about ourselves. The more independent among us is inclined to have a garden, fix the faucet or check under the hood before calling the mechanic. Others from a lack of talent (me) or inclination can’t wait to hand the problem off to someone more capable than us. I have a great deal of respect and even envy for those who “look under the hood” before they pick up the phone. Being a core belief it shades the way we look at not just the specific problem but the world as well.

However, no matter how independent we think we are, certainly everyone who is reading this earns the vast majority of their capital pursuing a singular task (doctoring, lawyering, architecting etc.) and trading that capital for virtually everything we need to survive.  And that capital we buy is the work of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. In the opening chapter of The Wealth of Nations Smith uses the example of pin makers, and notes that ten can collectively make 48,000 pins in a day compared to the not more than 20 one untrained person might make.  However, that is still ten people who just make the pin. (And it doesn’t include the people who make the wire from which the pin is made.) If ten people make a pin, how many make a rug, or a book, or a chair, or a computer?

Thus, as with dogma where we believes a million things on the faith of other people, we buy most everything produced by a million other people, because it materially “allows (us) to make a good use of freedom.” Thus from the dawn of economic history, as with dogma, we willingly submit ourselves to a “salutary servitude” because we buy the goods and services of others way more than we produce for ourselves.

The fact that almost all of our choices are buy in the make/buy paradigm perhaps has implications for our happiness but it also has implications for how we view how we govern ourselves.

As a final aside Smith says the division arises out of man’s propensity to barter and trade.  This may be a part of it and the “modern shop till you drop” mentality is a testament to this idea. However, at the inception as he describes it I think it is a quest for efficiency. (My perspective of efficiency as a paramount core belief, of course, shades this opinion.) The arrow maker feels he can get more out of his time from doing something he is good at. This is what motivates him, not the “art of the deal”.

In summary, the division of labor gives rise to economic activity.  The division of labor gives rise to the make/buy continuum.  Where we see ourselves on this continuum is a reflection of certain core beliefs we have. The fact that overwhelmingly we buy rather than make is another form of salutary servitude that we accept to operate in the world.  How we perceive these choices has implications for how we make decisions about how we govern ourselves and perhaps implications for our happiness.

---

[1] Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations Book I chapter 2 Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour