Week 11 - The individual and the State

This week we've been studying the political philosophies of ninteenth century philosphers John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx.

John Stuart Mill, much like present day libertarians, promoted the philosophy that preserving the rights of the individual is the most important factor in producing the best, happiest society overall. He thought that government should regulate far less and have very limited power to exert it's will on our personal lives. He was concerned that the individual be adequately protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Karl Marx in contrast believed that a collectivist style of government which ensured the rights of all workers, eliminated class divisions and curtailed the individual's right to accumulate great wealth for himself at the expense of others, would result in the the most freedom for society. Marx was concerned that the working class proletariat should be adequately protected from the tyranny of the bourgeois capitalist.

I wouldn't consider myself absolutely in agreement with either philosopher, although both had valuable things to say. It's fascinating that their ideas about government seemed so diametrically opposed to each other - Mill arguing for less government control and Marx arguing for stronger government control. We continue to see these basic arguments being played out in current political campaigns.

While I agree with the classical liberal idea that we must guard against too much government intrusion into our personal lives and the importance of preserving free speech and expression, I can't agree that merely being free to make your own choices makes for the ideal society.

Our discussion about Mill reminds me of one of the recent Republican presidential candidate debates. The Republican audience cheered as the moderator asked libertarian Ron Paul if he'd be willing to let a young man die who had not purchased health insurance. As I remember, Paul, sounding very influenced by John Stuart Mill, said that the man had the right to make his own risky decision not to have health insurance and that the government should not be involved in either forcing him to have insurance or paying for his treatment. Paul says that he longs for the days when people just took care of each other instead of relying on government assistance. I think this sentiment is really naive and could have catastrophic effects if implemented as policy.

Due to our population's size and complexity, and the fact that all of us don't have really good friends or family members who can take care of us, requires that we maintain a social safety net administered by government. The current cost of health care means that you would need a small city's worth of good friends to take care of you if you end up needing help with a severe illness and hospitalization. Many don't have health insurance even though they are working full time.  I think it is the government's role to step in sometimes when necessary to enforce regulations or provide assistance. Social security was established back in the 1930s because there were a lot of destitute elderly people who didn't have anyone to help them. While this might seem paternalistic to a classical liberal, I think it is essential to a civilized, compassionate society.

Marx's view of capitalism as a system which inevitably results in exploitation with the capitalist doing everything to make a profit at the expense of the individual makes a lot of sense. However, I think that there is no system devised by human beings which does not avoid some kind of class or caste system. I think it would be naive to believe in a communist utopia in which all individuals are equals and no one is exploited. Finding a way to implement some form of Marx's ideas, particularly when it comes to providing free (or at least affordable) education and medical care for all would make a lot of people's lives much better.

Marx's quote from the "Communist Manifesto"  that "private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; it's existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths." could not be a more timely idea. One can't help thinking of the Occupy Wall Street movement's slogan proclaiming "we are the 99 percent"  The sentiment is eerily similar as protesters express their outrage at being exploited by the weatlthy.

I think the best solution is some mix of individual freedom and government protection and regulation. There is inevitable tension between these two concepts as we continually try to figure out what works and what is best for our society.