Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Liberty, and Over the Precipice
“…He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. ” – Samuel
Several weeks ago, I got a call that a young lady had died of a drug overdose. The case is closed, and the young lady was an adult, so the event passed without much comment and no official discussion. I was not sad, in the sense of one who would feel a personal loss; not really any more than had I read about a drug overdose in the newspaper. But I do remember sitting with this young lady in a hospital several years ago when I probably would have referred to her as a little girl. She sat up in bed, looking at her phone, not paying much attention to me as I tried to figure out some way to convey the seriousness of her situation. And why would she listen to me, a near-perfect stranger? The only conversations she ever really had with me were always disappointing from her perspective. No, emancipation is likely not an option for you, and here is why. Yes, I’m afraid you must continue with these things the court has ordered you to do, and no, I cannot go back to the court with the same request that was denied last week. This was a failed suicide attempt, and she was content to relish the attention while posting to her friends on social media the pictures of herself donning a gown and an IV; no words from me were ever going to shift her perspective in any meaningful way. She would kill herself one way or another, and not because she wanted to die, but because she lacked any real motivation to live.
Not long after, I sat outside the courtroom with another young lady – not quite so young as the first, but younger than me. She was crying. I told her that I’ve known her for a few years, that I know what kind of person she is and what kind of person she can be; I told her that her son loves her and wants her back. That her brother loves her and wants her back. That her family loves her. I don’t think I had ever really known this woman before her problems started to compound into something unsustainable, but I had known her during a time when the side of her that wanted to break out of the snowball that was bounding downhill, to love her children and (at the time) her foster children – I had seen when that side was the more visible, and when her demons were mostly confined to the inside, only occasionally to peek their heads out in ways that were likely obvious and undeniable to those willing to see them, but stifled enough to give hope that the even more obvious light would win out in the end.
The last time I saw that woman was just last week. A guard was holding a computer screen facing a small rectangular hole that looked like an oversized mail slot in a heavy steel door, just low enough that she had to bend even in her seat, and cock her head sideways to see through. Her arm was through the hole, pointed at the camera and shaking, and she was beet-red, screaming a non-stop string of sentences that nobody but the guard could hear. She was on mute. She did make me sad. Because she looked almost exactly like someone who used to be quite different, and who I am not at all sure will ever make it back.
Dr. Fredrickson sat in my office; a damp room with paint over bare concrete walls, made to look like drywall, but hard enough that no picture could be hung. The office was on the 3rd floor of an otherwise beautiful brick building that was already quite old when the crews lined walked up and down the streets with shovels and wheelbarrows, filling truckloads of ash from the late-May snowstorm provided by Mount St. Helens. It held the memories of a hundred years from a city that grew up on orchards, which changed its face over years of shifting demographics from Indian reservations, migrant labor, and yet a sense of being isolated and still vaguely rural. It holds the memories of a miserable job that I couldn’t leave soon enough or put far enough behind me, but it held myself and Dr. Fredrickson for a conversation about methamphetamines and mental health. What he held was an unlit cigar, a thick mustache that was white on the sides and tobacco-colored in the middle, and an understanding of the permanent damage that can be done by certain drugs. He explained a client of mine in a manner that I hadn’t thought quite possible, and he described what it really means to fry one’s brain.
* * * * *
For as much as we have historically attempted to define the difference between “liberal” and “conservative,” another sort of spectrum is far more useful when it comes to actual politics, and that is a line with Coercion on one end, and Liberty on the other.
Sometimes these lines seem a bit more like circles. Liberals like to define historical totalitarian regimes – like the Nazis – as “far right,” presumably because they are able to analyze no further than “worst thing ever,” while far-left organizations, like the (intentionally?) ironically named “antifa” and the just as ironically named “black lives matter” seem to closely mirror the dictionary definition of fascist. But these circles exist everywhere. A few years ago, we might think it commonplace to witness an argument between a Libertarian and a Conservative, on the topic of drugs, wherein the Libertarian employed what he refers to as “the harm principle.” Somewhat nonsensically put: “your freedom to swing your fist ends at the point where it meets my nose.” In other words, liberty is very important – so much so that it is incorporated into the very name! Though, perhaps it is not quite as important as safety.
I am amazed with the Libertarian in the age of Covid. Not because I disagreed with him in a prior era, but because of the extent to which I really did agree with him. When we argued about drugs, I would often point to a career of dealing with the impacts of drugs; the many ways in which the idea of “victimless crime” is more commonly a myth; the wide-ranging harms caused by the abuse of certain drugs, and the massive costs imposed on society. Most importantly, though, I would argue that these are extremely complex problems that cannot be explained away either by pretending that “the war on drugs” is alone responsible for all harms associated with drugs, or that drugs themselves are the root of a problem that often begins with mental health and societal decay. I would argue that the decision to abuse drugs is often very far from merely a personal decision, and is one with a great many negative impacts, both seen and unseen, on a great many people. I would argue that the harm principle is only useful inasmuch as you are able to distill an issue down to some single harm, rather than a complex net of interrelated, and often mutually exclusive, harms. And that is virtually always impossible.
So we are left with this spectrum between coercion and liberty – or, you might rather describe it as a battle between the two. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the moment it strikes my nose; sounds great. But in what way do we impair your freedom to strike my nose? The harm principle leads right back around to coercion, which is the evil we sought to avoid in the first place – and as we’ve seen during 2020 and 2021, it can be stretched to any extent necessary when it comes to the justification of outright coercion over liberty. An economist who wishes to use his credentials as a bully-stick rather than a persuasive tool might throw out the word “externalities,” which is just another way of saying “harm principle.” And applied to COVID, as a bully-stick it has done quite well.
All else being equal, it seems fairly non-controversial to suggest that people ought to be free to look after their own physical health in the manner that best suits them. If they wish to wear a mask, they should be free to do so, correct? If they wish to take a vaccine, they should be free to do so, correct? If they wish to take one certain prescription drug over another, they should be free to do so, correct? And surely, if people believe something to be true, they should be free to express that; and if they believe someone to be right they should be free to listen to that person, correct? Liberty is something we value – not simply as a good in itself, but because we understand the many and indescribable benefits that flow from liberty. We understand that knowledge comes from experimentation, and that experimentation is largely based on trial and error. We understand that individual value judgments send market signals, which collectively lead to the most efficient allocation of resources. Or did we only used to understand these things? Perhaps it was only a belief… A belief contingent on comfort.
A person might with some insight suggest that the Medieval Church’s stifling of inquiry and banning of ideas may have rather slowed scientific advancement; yet that same person often feels no sense of irony as he bows before the altar of Fauci and the CDC. And the person who claims to be listening to doctors and experts is the first to respond to any dissenting expert with calls to burn the heretic, rather than invitations to debate. When called on this contradiction, or asked to explain why suddenly this one is different enough that the above values no longer hold, the libertarian says “harm principle!” while the economist shouts “externalities!”
Because if I make the choice to not wear a mask – and if you are right about the value and use of masks (but we cannot argue about that) – then it is not a personal choice. It is a choice I am making for everybody who comes within a certain distance of me. If I make a choice to not inject myself with an experimental vaccine – and if you are right about the value and use of vaccines (but we must not argue about that!) – I increase the likelihood of my getting sick, which increases the likelihood of my infecting you (doesn’t that contradict the universal making thing?), and which also imposes an externality, a cost on society, when I end up in the hospital due to my obstinance. And likewise, when I make the choice to pursue alternate medicines, to listen to dissenting experts, to vocalize my concerns about facts, or to amplify the voices of others – I create an externality. I undermine the truth (and it would be far too dangerous to argue about that) that is being presented by official sources (who put them in charge? Don’t argue!), I sew distrust and confusion, I lead others astray and I cause them to also remove their masks and skip their injections – the system collapses because in order for one person to be successful, all people must be successful; because I have no liberty when it comes to externalities. Every move I make, I encounter your nose.
Never mind the fact that externalities everywhere exist, and that it is impossible to do no harm. Heart attacks are the number 1 cause of death in the United States, and my decision to eat that slab of bacon with scrambled eggs and cheese (if you are right about the value and effect of cholesterol on the human body) creates the same externality as my decision not to get vaccinated. What does that teach my children and my friends about diet? Should a hospital be required to take me when I’ve so obstinately ignored the advice of experts? Why should any automobile move out of the way of the ambulance – how many commuters made late for work, how many kids late for school, how many potential car accidents because of my “liberty?”
So we move to coercion, and there is no limit to the externalities and harms that justify its use. There are fists and noses literally everywhere because most everyone carries both around with them at all times. My use of plastic – if you’re right about fossil fuels and their effect on climate (but the science is settled!) – causes oceans to rise, devaluing coastal properties, unbalancing habitats, killing countless lives both animal and human. Your celebration of a holiday, your expression of humor, your interactions with your peers, your interest in mathematics and classical knowledge; all create insecurities and perpetuate systems of inequality (to question that conclusion would be racist!), leading to a society where the pot does not allow for any melting, where people cannot blend, because, after all, people are uncomfortable being so close to one another.
Your pursuit of happiness is a whole host of externalities.
That is because life isn’t as easy and as simple as “harm principle” or “externalities” require to be valuable justifications for anything. Rather, they constitute little more than an end-run around the incredibly high bar that should be cleared before any one action is forced at the expense of all others. Because I am afraid? Because I do not wish to determine the truth and arrive at the best course of action, especially if that truth exposes my own powerlessness! Especially if the next course of action is to admit that I can do nothing at all. Through fear, I turn to coercion – I demand a king. If we give him the power to do so, the king forces the issue. He silences any voices that raise concern about the costs imposed by his actions, just as he bans the exploration of whether those actions provide any meaningful benefits. The king elevates one single consideration above all others. You hope that the king will elevate your concerns above all others, and that he will force me to comply. But Samuel warns us what happens when we demand a king.
The alternative is scary. It means that we live in a broken world where nothing is ever going to be perfect, where there are no easy solutions, and where there are never going to be any universal solutions. It means that sometimes we will need to live with our fears, and that sometimes we will need to address those fears by seeking information or even by adjusting our own lives as necessary. It means that when we are confronted by opposing viewpoints, by skeptics, by experts who have come to different conclusions, we cannot silence those voices; we either persuade them, or be persuaded ourselves. Most of all, it sometimes leads us to the acknowledgment of our own powerlessness – and exposes the lie that is our delusion: that we can solve our problem of powerlessness through the sheer exercise of power.
* * * * *
If we could go back to a simpler and happier time, when one could sit down with another libertarian and argue about the interplay between freedom and drugs, I might prefer to approach the question with a few agreed-upon understandings, and perhaps an emphasis that has been shifted over the past couple of years. We could surely agree that coercion is an undesirable outcome, and is likely to have unintended consequences – and that it is foolish to use externalities to justify actions that bring only a different set of externalities. Rather, it is necessary to balance harms, and to do so with a great amount of caution, and with deference toward humility. There is a reason why I reacted to the overdose of my former client the way I did. Absent a shift of perspective that could not be forced on her by anyone in the world, she was intent on killing herself one way or another. That is a harm that emanates from the state of this world – from the presence of evil in the world, if you choose to look at it like that – and it is a harm that has been with us throughout history and will be with us until the end of time. That harm is beyond our control. We can seek to mend individual lives, but we cannot target only that which is a symptom of the problem and expect that problem to be solved. On the other hand – there are drugs of another sort altogether, which do unintended damage, and which do at least merit consideration among those few issues that can be addressed at a societal level. And to give credit to my libertarian friends, these issues are rarer by far; and the mitigations still carry unintended consequences that need to be weighed.
I hope that we could at least come to this conclusion: that the existence of externalities, the mere existence of harm, cannot alone be used to justify the elimination of liberty, because there will always be someone with a problem whose only solution is the imposition of his will over yours, and there will always be someone willing to grant that wish if we allow it. There may be some kings who claim to be benevolent, who claim to simply be guided by expert opinion, who rely on “the science” to do what is best for you; and if that sort of king does not become a tyrant right away, what will he do when someone comes along with a different view, a different “science,” a different opinion?
Every totalitarian regime justifies its existence through the fears of its people, while its people cling to the promise of safety to rationalize their own subjugation. We are on a precipice right now, if we have not already plunged over; we run the risk of finding ourselves in history books, listed along all other peoples who allowed themselves to be crippled by fear; people who demanded a king, and who were given one.
Published in General
Those are fantastic quotes. Thank you!
Hammer, thinking about the opening to your article, two thoughts. The Israelites didn’t just want a king, they wanted to do away with God and His leadership. God said at the time that they wanted to replace God, their King, with another king, an earthly king.
When 0bama was running for election in 2008, he adoringly was called by bystanders as his caravan rolled by “Look! The messiah!” This was a clear reference to Jesus Christ, the God King. People knew of Christ, but wanted to replace him with an earthly king, a human king. They were tired of Christ and Christianity.
It occurs to me know that at 0bama’s inauguration, that faux Greek building behind him was not a forum, but a temple. 0bama was accepting the role of a god. He even said he would stop the rise of the oceans. This didn’t sell well and 0bama’s status was reduced to that of a king. He even held out a cell phone and a pen as an orb and a sceptre, the symbols of his power and authority.
During 0bama’s reign he would rule with edicts, or executive orders. And I remember thinking that people were wanting and asking for a king. And they reelected him as a king. And many times I remembered the verses you cite here, and that earthly kings are on balance not particularly good things. 0bama was the good king in the people’s minds. But Biden is the bad king. That’s why the commoners shout out as he passes, Let’s go, Brandon!
But I think they are still looking for a god to worship.
But people thought he was the Antichrist. ??
He’ll accept the role of a god too.
Obama certainly thought himself a king, as did his supporters. That is why they were so upset when Trump was elected, because they viewed that as a coming of the “bad king.” Of course, even the worst excesses of Trump did not even come anywhere close to the totalitarian tendencies of Obama and Biden, but that doesn’t matter to the left… they really don’t care about executive power, even if it is limitless, just so long as it’s their king. Funny, I recently read an article by Bryan Caplan (of all people) who claimed that Trump, by questioning the 2020 election, was attempting to become “president for life,” and a major threat to democracy, which is supported by literally nothing and is nothing more than a reflection of his dislike for the man himself. Funny, he fails to mention the 4 years of “russian collusion” and Hillary/Dems still claiming that 2016 was stolen. My point is not that either side is right, but only that the definitions change depending on whether you like the person doing it.
Both Obama and Biden were/are bad kings, fwiw.
If you accept that the antichrist is real, and that God is real, you should also accept that only God knows when an “antichrist” will be successful. My dad put it this way to me, once… “there may well have been many attempts at raising an antichrist, and if it is not the right time, he will not succeed.” I do not like the idea of Christians making guesses at the specifics of God’s plan and throwing out terminology like that. It is irresponsible and it makes us look silly most of the time. But it isn’t theologically crazy, even if it is unwise.
Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.
— Matthew 24:42-44
Yabut Obama coming like a thief in the night? It’s like Liberace coming like a thief in the night.
Obama isn’t the Anti-christ. Obama is a two-bit grifter who hit it big.
Did you? That’s a first. I don’t know anyone who did.
Actually, I did think of alluding to Hillary as the Red Queen, but thought it too off-point.
I think a lot of Christians I knew thought he was almost that bad, but I don’t recall any of us thinking he was the Antichrist.
I was surprised. Who expected the Antichrist to be Kenyan?
What, were you expecting the Antichrist to be someone you expected?
The Kenyan thing is on point, I guess, if you think about it. Totally unexpected!
Until we learn to expect the unexpected. Then Satan will have to give us some fiendish white guy from New York or California, just like we expected all along.
Maybe we can think outside the box? What if it’s Facebook?
Not unlikely.
Yup, rule it out, just like that.
Lol, it is definitely Facebook. If it isn’t Twitter, that is.
I think people are right to be somewhat wary, though, with the advent of vaccine passports, without which, in many connects, you cannot buy and sell. The technology is certainly there. As my dad says: “Satan may raise up as many antichrists as he wishes, but it isn’t for him to decide.”
John says something like “Little children, you’ve heard of Antichrist, but many Antichrists have already come into the world. Antichrist is the heretic who denies that the Messiah has come in the flesh.”
You are saying that you thought that 0bama was both the anti-Christ and a Kenyan? You are either pulling my leg, or you are unjustifiably creating an exaggerated a fallacious fantasy of your own. Much like you accused Christian bakers of spitting on your cake, and Christian landlords of cooking crack.
Well wasn’t he?
That settles it, I reckon.
Obviously you two have had a conversation I want privy to. I think Obama was a terrible president. Biden is worse, but in a much different way. That’s about as far as I go.
As far as bakers are concerned, it’s a good thing there are enough of them in this lovely free market of ours, a person can get just about anything he wants… If he seeks, so shall be find.
That was kind of misleading. If the question was “could he be”, Obama hit the marker on getting multiple groups to think he was great, one side treated him like a literal messiah, and his questionable juxtaposition of Christianity and Islam, while being very reckless with his brand of Christianity, set himself up nicely TO BE ONE. Not that he was.
Currently, I’m betting on Argentinian.
Or is he Venezuelan? I think he’s Argentinian…
I should probably mention that in younger days I wondered if it was Bill Clinton.
There are certain things we are looking for and to be on guard means we will consider the possibility of anyone.
It’s a target-rich environment.