Liberty, Rights, and Libertarianism

Abstract

Many people have a passionate commitment to individual liberty or freedom (which we here take to be the same thing). Some object to paternalistic laws (such as those requiring the use of seat belts) as infringements on freedom, regardless of whether these laws increase human welfare. Many favor protecting the freedom of those with unusual lifestyles or unpopular religious convictions even if doing so diminishes welfare. Social deliberation often treats protecting freedom and enhancing welfare as independent goals. It is ironic that normative economics focuses exclusively on welfare, because most economists value individual freedom very highly. When leading economists criticized socialism, for example, they not only questioned whether it is efficient but also argued that economic and political power must be kept separate in order to protect individual liberty (Friedman 1962, ch. 1; Hayek 1944). Economists also value the prosaic liberties that are part of market life such as the freedom to change jobs, to start a business, or to move from place to place within a country. They worry about measures that increase the power of the state. Consider that many economists favor taxes or exchangeable emission rights over direct state regulation of pollution not only because the taxes or exchangeable emission rights are purportedly Pareto superior to the regulation but also because state regulation limits freedom directly rather than via prices and property rights. By increasing the reach of government, such regulations may also threaten freedom indirectly. Similarly, economists often favor cash over in-kind transfers both because cash transfers are more efficient and because they leave the recipients with more choices. The efficiency case has been a part of “scientific” welfare economics because it has appeared to rely only on uncontroversial moral premises, while the argument in terms of freedom usually has been reserved for “unscientific” essays because its moral premises have appeared to be controversial. The focus on efficiency has also been fostered by a belief that Pareto efficiency itself promotes liberty, because it values outcomes that fully accommodate the voluntary choices of individuals. But the link between efficiency and liberty is tenuous. For example, consider a problem such as homelessness.