Freedom

(from an economics discussion group)

But if I start with the philosophical angle first, Kant points out that for morality to be possible, free-will is a prerequisite. If we were merely (sophisticated) automata, having deterministic reactions to our environment, then we cannot be credited for doing good nor condemned for doing bad. It is only because we can make a choice that moral good and bad have any meaning at all. Kant's opening statement in the "Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of Morals" is quite direct: "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will."

This ties in with the theological angle, in which we are sent to this life to be tested, and learn to choose between good and evil. "That by tasting the bitter, they may learn to choose the sweet." In order for the test or experience to be valid, God does not constrain our actions, but leaves us free to choose to be as good or as bad as we will, hopefully to eventually learn that choosing good brings happiness, and choosing bad makes us unhappy. (Another good scripture: "And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.")

I know a lot people have trouble accepting a God who would allow so much suffering to occur in the world. But we must realize that the suffering is caused my men, not by God. He is actively inspiring us to do good, though our conscience, but it is up to us to choose to do good things. God wants us to be happy, do good, and help each other, but he works through our choices, not by forcing us to do good. (Alan's anti-war activism and Arthur's work to bring different sides together are good examples.) 

So, the libertarian angle, is that in order to get satisfactory results, people must freely choose to go in that direction. If they are forced to do something against their will, they will do it at best reluctantly, and at worst try to sabotage the goal. 

Economically, Robert Lucas won a nobel prize for pointing out that "people act rationally" to achieve their individual goals. Many monetary policies will be completely ineffective because people will act rationally to achieve what they want in spite of them, and reduce their effects. "Shifts in economic policy often produce a completely different outcome if the agents adapt their expectations to the new policy stance." For example, we have an inflationary monetary policy to try to reduce the effects of periodic deflations (they become periods of lack of inflation instead), but people have reacted rationally to the policy, and demand yearly cost-of-living pay increases which equalize their pay with the inflationary policy. (He also wrote about inflation: "Inflation does not 'quicken the diligence of every individual.' It is a kind of tax that deadens diligence by reducing its real return.")

So, to conclude on "why does freedom come before social justice": if people choose social justice, they can make it happen. But if they choose self-gratification, they can make that happen, regardless of any laws or policies to promote social justice. The choice always happens first, so freedom comes before social justice. This means that education and activism will have a much better chance at achieving or improving social justice than laws and policies.