Some weeks ago, I settled with the idea that liberty is a mean to an end. This is a contrarian position vis-Ã -vis mainstream libertarianism. Further, I accept that the end is happiness whereas happiness is defined as the fulfillment of wants and needs. Despite coming up with the rationale, I am rather uncomfortable with the conclusion because such reasoning would affect my perception on the state, for better or for worse.
I felt I had not explored the issue with necessary depth. In effort to vanquish my uncertainty, I explored the premise further to see whether it stays true beyond individual level. Through mental exercise, I arrived at a result that places liberty as the highest political end, whenever the observed level is beyond individual level; more precisely, governance of human interaction. For my own convenience, I shall name such governance as the social contract or the state, interchangeably. I wish to demonstrate that liberty must reign supreme over happiness as far as the state is concerned.
I define social contract is an agreement that sets a minimum threshold of acceptable behavior between parties of the contract.
In the last entry on liberty and happiness, there was an implicit assumption that I failed to state. Such failure did not originate from forgetfulness but rather, it was caused by a leap in my thought process. The unstated assumption is that my mind was working on individual level. With that realization, I am now able to realign, justify and rationalize my libertarian stance on the state, as I seek to share here now.
Firstly, I want to make clear why happiness is the end of a person.
On personal level, a level within an individual itself, a person’s own happiness is of greater than anything else. The term happiness itself covers a gamut of concepts and it may include liberty itself. Happiness may contain anything, everything or nothing. It is the most general measure of a person well being. It is exactly because of happiness is the most general measure is why happiness is the end of a person. Liberty cannot be the end unless liberty is part of happiness itself. On whether liberty is part of happiness, that is up each and every one of us to decide because only we ourselves — with respect to determinist factors — could determine our preferences.
As in economics, a person has his or her own preference and it is up to the person to decide what his or her preference is. Through the preference, the person may consume whatever bundle of goods that fits his or her preference profile.
Similar premise is not applicable to the state for the following reason: the state is not an individual. The state is tool for individuals to achieve each and everyone’s end: happiness. As such, promotion of a person’s happiness is the foundation of the social contract, the state.
Individuals derive happiness from a myriad of sources. Along with that, two people may share the same interest. Siamese twins might actually share the exact preferences. For some others, preference differences cannot be overemphasized.
The variation of preferences is in effect, a variation in paths to happiness. With respect to social contract or the state, this begs a question: is happiness the end of the contract? If it is, then whose happiness should the contract take as the end?
If happiness is the end of the contract, then a state — a product of the social contract — is established by its citizens to promote the happiness of its citizens.
The latter question might be answered by democracy. A democratic system may provide a mean or median happiness — mean or median joint utility function — and the state may take that as the state’s happiness. If a state decides to place happiness as its end, in which that happiness the joint utility function as decided through democratic processes is the state’s happiness, remember that there is a variation of happiness among individuals. Different preferences lead to different path of happiness while the end happiness itself would differ from person to person.
A joint utility function — I will call it joint happiness for the sake of simplicity — fails in a way that it does not represent non-centrists’ view or in this case, happiness, which is always the unfortunate flaw of democracy. The farther a person’s utility function away from the joint happiness, the less happy a person would be.
Some may even find happiness through active deprivation of others’ happiness. Some may achieve happiness but unknowingly through the deprivation of others’ happiness. What if that those people’s preferences have majority weight and make up the joint utility function?
Regardless the answer, the joint happiness itself violates the happy social contract; no pun intended. The violation is the dis-promotion of happiness of some citizens that established the state even while promoting average happiness of parties of the contract. If a person is made worse off by the contract, the rationale for the contract evaporates.
On individual level, happiness is the end because happiness is such a general term that it could comprise of practically everything. On state level, because happiness is general, it is impossible to make happiness as the end of the state — promotion of other happiness or even joint happiness might lead to dis-promotion of others’ happiness.
Unless of course, it is possible to have a minimum happiness for all coupled with non-aggression axiom, just like how libertarianism advocates a minimum but fundamental liberties for all, supported by non-aggression axiom. Non-aggression axiom states that a person may do whatever the person wishes with his or her person or property (collectively, rights) as long as he or her does not transgress other’s same rights.
If that concept is applied to happiness, then it would be: a person may pursue happiness as long as such pursue does not stop other person from pursuing his or her happiness. I have a feeling that “happiness non-aggression axiom” is an impossible concept and if it is possible at all, it is ultimately stifling to the human spirit.
A person derives happiness from consumption of a bundle of goods, be it tangible or intangible. All it takes to stifle all parties to the contract is to have a very primitive conservative person with very broad bundle of goods related to his or her preference as part of the contract. Reductio ad absurdum: say, this person derives happiness from simply knowing others cannot read. Through non-aggression principle, then everybody must not read in order not to violate the person’s happiness.
Perhaps, in order to make the happiness non-aggression axiom works, we need to categorize positive and negative happiness, as liberty could be broken into positive and negative liberties.
Positive liberty is a type of liberty which obliges a person to do something for another person with positive rights. For instance, if a person has a right to employment, then it is an obligation by somebody to provide employment for the person with the right to employment. This kind of right is usually advocated by social liberals.
Negative liberty is the other type which obliges a person to refrain from interfering with other person’s activities. For instance, a person cannot eliminate other person’s access to free speech. This form is essentially classical liberals, i.e. libertarianism.
Is it possible to have positive and negative happiness? Is it meaningful in the first place?
Coming back to the happiness non-aggression axiom and its consequences, I feel such categorization is impossible, unless happiness is liberty itself. Or unless, if we could dictate everyone’s happiness.
In short, a state that tries to promote a joint happiness will inevitably violate some if not most of the parties to the contract happiness. Thus, the end of a state cannot be happiness or even if it is, it is impossible to reach that happy end. It is impractical to have happiness as an end of the state.
What a social contract can do to promote individual’s happiness, instead of community or society happiness as reflected in joint happiness concept, is to provide a tool towards that the happy end. That tool is negative liberty.
With negative liberty, a person may do whatever he or she wishes to achieve his or her end, as long as he or she does not transgress other’s equal rights. The state’s only duty is to ensure no transgression of individual liberty. The state is a neutral umpire, not a player. For if a state is a player, transgression by the state is guaranteed.
Hence, in classical liberalism sense, liberty is the highest political end, of a state.