“I should be able to do whatever I want.”
Aside from being a point-of-view most
four-year-old children hold, the statement in part forms the basis of populist conservative and
corporatist conservative ideology.
The statement has a libertarian feel to it without the constraint every
serious libertarian thinker would concede must be placed on it, which can be
reduced to the dependent clause “so long as it doesn’t harm others.” The dependent clause is typically the problem
with libertarian perspectives because it is an equivocation subject to
interpretation regarding both its meaning and enforcement.
Even the staunchest libertarian accepts that some behavior
is criminal and that the state has a right to impose punishment for criminal
behavior. The easiest category of
behavior for which the state has the right to punish transgression is injury to
another’s person. Hence, nobody
seriously doubts the legitimacy of laws proscribing murder, battery, and
assault. The problem with the
libertarian perspective is that its proponents do not give serious
consideration of the consequences of the actions that they propose to decouple
from government regulation and whether the consequences harm others.
We know that corporatist conservatives especially decry
government regulation. It is a constant
refrain that government should let markets be free. The apparent subtext is that businesses should be able to harm people without government
intervention. This is the logic of the
position that government should let markets be free from any constraints or regulation. This perspective contravenes any coherent and serious form of libertarianism. The question from a libertarian perspective
should be: but what do we do when a
business harms a person or a group of persons?
Libertarianism does not allow unfettered behaviors or actions that harm others.
A classic example is pollution. If a business emits a carcinogen into the
environment, the business will harm persons that come into contact with the
carcinogen. The libertarian rule is that
the business is free to emit whatever it wants into the environment so long as
it doesn’t harm others. A carcinogen
harms others; hence, a business is not free to emit a carcinogen into the
environment.
In truth, libertarian principles do not support the idea of a market in which actors are free to produce and sell any product regardless of the cost to human health. According to libertarian principles, producing something that injures another is no less subject to government intervention and oversight than would be physical behavior that injures another. A company that emits a carcinogen into the environment commits an industrial battery. The state is amply justified in regulating such behavior in the same way the state is justified in regulating injurious physical behavior.
The problem with any point-of-view that does not accept the "as the behavior does not harm others" part of the libertarian position is that it abrogates personal responsibility. Of course we should be free to act consistent with our desires, so long as we do not harm others. If we harm others, we bear responsibility for the harm. This should be true of pollution, segregation, and any other behavior, economic or otherwise, that harms others. I am in favor of a market economy. I am also in favor of economic actors being held responsible for harm they cause to others. The two positions are compatible.
