Libertarianism as Communitarianism; D.B. Klein

It is therefore no surprise that so many alarmed voices now fret about the break down of cultural value. One sure marker of Dr. Klein is Assistant Professor ofEconomics at the University of California, Irvine. this trend is the rise of an intellectual move ment known as communitarianism. Led by George Washington University sociologist Amitai Etzioni, the communitarians have gained prominence by means of projects like the quarterly journal The Responsive Community and the immensely popular Society for the Advancement of Socio Economics. The Communitarians Although the rapid rise of communitari anism is apparent, the same cannot be said of its fundamental message. Its major, if somewhat insipid, chord is that cultural values are crucial to the proper functioning of society, and that these values are born and bred in healthy community living. A favorite method among communitarians for adumbrating this message is to chide' 'main stream" economics for viewing individuals as atomistic agents with preferences that are mysteriously' 'given. "

As for politics, the communitarians are rather squishy. Given their intellectual base in sociology and their emphasis on commu nity norms, it isn't surprising that few com munitarians regard capitalism as the un known ideal. Laissez-faire capitalism is sometimes fingered as a source of our prob lems. Indeed, government is often held up as the agent of social betterment. Etzioni' s The 685 686 THE FREEMAN • DECEMBER 1994 Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibili ties and the Communitarian Agenda (1993) is replete with specific suggestions for gov ernment action and regulation. But don't write offthe communitarians as a bunch of closet statists. On the question of the state, Etzioni, like communitarians in general, runs hot and cold. In a recent issue of The Public Interest, he writes: [A] strong case can be made that it is precisely the bonding together of commu nity members that enables us to remain independent of the state. The anchoring of individuals in viable families, webs of friendships, communities of faith, and neighborhoods-in short, in communi ties-best sustains their ability to resist the pressures of the state. The absence of these social foundations opens isolated individuals to totalitarian pressures.

Indeed, Etzioni recognizes the potential compatibility of libertarianism and commu nitarianism: "One can be as opposed to state intervention and regulation as a die hard libertarian and still see a great deal of merit in people encouraging one another to do what is right." Another communitarian, Thomas Spra gens, wrote a two-part article, "The Limits of Libertarianism," in The Responsive Community. He says that libertarians dog matically invoke "inalienable rights," often lose sight of how liberty interacts with other human values, evade tough cases like secu rity and national defense, and "fail to con ceive the crucial social purpose to be cre ating and protecting personal autonomy, rather than. . . treating market outcomes as morally sacrosanct." In all this I applaud Spragens. But Spragens sees libertarianism in false caricature. He sees libertarian policies as indifferent or even inimical to his cherished goals of personal autonomy and the sense of community. Libertarianism grants "its greatest privilege . . . to mere appetite,"

"the bonfire of the vanities," and the "loos ening of social constraints on sexual con duct. " It reduces social relations to "the cash nexus," "using each other as stepping stones, " and fosters the ethic of' 'those with the most toys wins." It promotes "robber barons, company towns, [and] corporate domination"-Lions and tigers and bears" ohmy! Whereas Etzioni sees a potential compat ibility between libertarianism and commu nitarianism, Spragens seems to find a nec essary incompatibility. I am much more inclined to agree with Etzioni. Nay, I go further: The policy agenda of the libertari ans is necessary for achieving the social goals of the communitarians. Understanding the Communitarian Cycle The communitarians long for members of society to be raised in stable, functioning communities with constructive goals and civil ways. Individuals raised in such com munities would then internalize the values, habits of mind, and ways of interacting. This process gives the individual a moral foun dation from which to find his own path in the world. It gives him an enduring sense of purpose, and, in consequence, self-worth.

From there he can go on to meet the world in his own way and, like a salmon returning to its spawningwaters, contribute to society his own developments and refinements in community ways. The ideal communitarian cycle is for the individual to be reared in healthy communities, to internalize coher ent and constructive values, to achieve a responsible personal autonomy, to meet the outer world, and to contribute to the devel opment of current communities that influ ence others anew. The process is sensible, but the central question is: How is it achieved? Here the communitarians would do wellto learn more free-market economics. I don't mean the arid exercises of graduate-school econom ics. Rather, I mean Adam Smith and his true intellectual progeny. The communitarians should give more consideration to the In visible Hand, that is, to the beneficial de centralized processes whereby individuals and families choose voluntarily for them selves.

LIBERTARIANISM AS COMMUNITARIANISM 687 Liberty and Community In making a success of the communitarian cycle, it is crucial that our community val ues and practices be meaningful. The com munity activities must reach inside our soul and move us in some manner. We must want to be part of the community, and learn gratitude for what it gives to us. To achieve this our communities must exercise our powers and speak to our soul. But each of us-even as a youngster has a different set of powers and a different soul. Lumping people together arbitrarily is not going to make for a meaningful commu nity. The meaning must come from the proper mixing of aspirations, attitudes, and talents. The surest way to make this happen is to let people sort themselves into com munity activities. Suppose that in a neighborhood there are 16 youngsters who love to make music. But their interests differ. Four are hot on jazz, four love rock and roll, four love Bach, and four love marching music. If we leave them free to follow their bliss they will sort themselves into four separate quartets in which each individual finds community ex perience highly meaningful and rewarding.

If instead we somehow corralled all 16 into one ensemble, none would find the same spiritual and social edification. Sup pose it were decided that the program of the large ensemble would be just jazz. Then twelve of the members would be stuck playing a style that didn't suit their souls, and even the four who lovejazz would suffer because their community would be spiritu ally diluted by the lackluster participation of the others. Besides the happy coincidence of interest that is achieved when communities are formed by voluntary participation, the vol untary process itself also has a definite value. Besides neatly collating individuals into groups, the voluntary process imbues the groups with a sense of ours-ness.This is our project. We decided to come together to form this group. The bottom-up sense of enterprise gives a personal meaning and dignity to the participants, a meaning that top-down approaches to group formation invariably fail to give.

Although libertarians are not known for their "touchy-feeliness," we can find com munitarian themes in both the classical lib erals and modern-day intellectuals who fa vor voluntarism. The State Against Community Alexis de Tocqueville made a searching study of how early Americans vigorously participated in all sorts of voluntary associ ations. Voluntary initiative saw to nearly every form of "public" service-schools, libraries, highways, bridges, fire fighting, crime prevention, hospitals, and so on. "Local freedom," Tocqueville says, "leads a great number of citizens to value the affection of their neighbors and of their kindred, [and] perpetually brings men to gether and forces them to help one anoth er." As for the state, "the more it stands in the place of associations, the more will individuals, losing the notion of combining together, require its assistance." Community depends on involvement in institutions that bring lives together. What better device to promote that goal than school choice? Parents would choose the school that fits their interests and values, and schools would attend to those needs; they would evolve from the community for the community, rather than be imposed from without. In PublicandPrivateHigh Schools: The Impact of Communities (1987), sociolo gists James Coleman and Thomas Hoffer credit the role of community and "social capital" for the exceptional performance of the private Catholic schools. Political scien tists John Chubb and Terry Moe, in Politics, Markets and America's Schools (1990), give a hard-hitting account of the failure of gov ernment schools to create an esprit des corps and a personally edifying community experience. Inner-city neighborhoods are most eager for-and most in need of school choice, to enhance learning as well as a sense of community.

Another area where the mighty state might usefully withdraw is poor relief and 688 THE FREEMAN • DECEMBER 1994 social insurance. Historian David Beito has written about America's fraternal societies. During the 1920s their members reportedly amounted to 30 percent of the adult male population, and they were strong among blacks and immigrants. Mutual aid was based on voluntary participation, reciproc ity, deservingness, and gratitude. What bet ter way, in Spragens' words "to express compassion for fellow citizens?" The rise of the welfare state was one of the reasons for the system's decline. Charles Murray has discussed how many welfare-state programs undermine meaningful community values and practices. One potentially rich setting for the devel opment of community activities is the work place, which enjoys logistic advantages and a hardy stock of social capital. It would make a lot of sense to have schools, social clubs, recreation, charity, and prayer sprout up around the workplace. But such sponta neous associations are blocked by numer ous regulations of the firm and its employ ees. Laws that block the fluid adaptation of voluntary activity from commercial to non commercial action include anti-discrimina tion laws, workers' compensation laws, zoning laws, safety regulations, licensing restrictions, union restrictions, Social Se curity taxes, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and the corporate tax code. The libertarian favors repeal of all of these ob stacles to voluntary association.

Personal Autonomy as a Reason for Liberty The value of personal autonomy, which Spragens accuses the libertarians of neglect ing, was the centerpiece of the libertarian manifesto written by Wilhelm von Hum boldt in 1791, The Limits of State Action. "Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice. . . does not enter into his being, but still remains alien to his true nature." In On Libertya rather libertarian docu ment-J ohn Stuart Mill emphasizes per sonal autonomy and pays high tribute to Humboldt. Thomas Szasz, a passionate and penetrating student of personal autonomy, is a thoroughgoing libertarian. Community in Modern Society In today's society it must be recognized that, while the family remains the cradle of identity, community is no longer only about neighborhoods. It is no longer strictly a matter of propinquity, as faraway places become less far with each passing year. Also, community is no longer unified. As Rick Henderson recently wrote in Reason magazine, "A person can simultaneously be a Presbyterian, a softball player, a par ent, a weekend auto mechanic, and a mys tery reader." It may be that with each role comes a distinct circle of companions.

Rather than seeing this as a tragic col lapse, we should celebrate it as a great liberation. In her recent book, In Defense of Modernity: Role Complexity and Individual Autonomy, Rose Coser tells of the greedy and stultifying side of community, and how modernity frees us from it. Thanks to mod ern communications and transportation, adults can choose the community that suits them best. We can better find a circle of friends who share our aspirations and ap preciate our contributions. Communitarians must keep in mind that airplanes, telephone signals, and computer screens are some times the conduits of close community ties. To some extent commerce disposes of com munity-thank heavens-but to some ex tent it only recasts it in ways that make it hard to spot. The expanding wealth of the free econ omy affords everyone the means of pursuing personal interest amongst a circle of friends and associates. A community that gives one both social bonds and gratification of his individuated aspirations is a luxury that most people of the world simply cannot afford. The laissez-faire economy offers the richest menu of personal growth.

Towards a Libertarian Communitarianism Is there any fundamental conflictbetween communitarian goals and libertarian poli cies? There may be a conflict in one respect: Sometimes it seems that communitarians crave a common social experience, an exLIBERTARIANISM AS COMMUNITARIANISM 689 perience that bonds the individual not just to some community but to the community. It is here, perhaps, that we understand why communitarians have balked at the idea of school choice. To libertarians, a plan for a universal experience sounds like a recipe for statist oppression. The only universal social values that ought to be upheld by the state are respect for just laws. That, I would argue, is the best way, the only way, of serving communitarian goals and maintain ing common decency in this Age of Irreverence. 0 The Officers and Directors of the Atlas Economic Research Foundations of the United States and the United Kingdom are pleased to announce the winners of the 1994 SIR ANTONY FISHER INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL AWARDS 1st Prize of $10,000 each to THE SOCIAL AFFAIRS UNIT (Lon don, UK) for The Loss of Virtue edited by Digby Anderson; and THE LOCKE INSTITUTE (Fairfax, VA) for Property Rights and the Limits of Democracy edited by Charles K. Rowley 2nd Prize of $10,000 to THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (London, UK) for Federalism and Free Trade by Jean-Luc Migue 3rd Prize of $2,500 each to PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE (San Francisco, CA) for Grand Theft and Petit Larceny: Property Rights in America by Mark Pollot; and INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE (Oakland, CA) for Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth Century America by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway The winning entries were judged to have made the greatest contributions to the understanding of the free economy during the past two years.

The prize money goes to the general operating funds of the independent public policy research institutes responsible for the publication of the books. The Atlas Economic Research Foundation was established in 1981 to aid in the formation and development of independent public policy re search institutes that work to enhance under standing of the free economy. For more informa tion, or to make a contribution to the Fisher Award Fund, write the foundation at 4084 University Drive, Suite 103, Fairfax, VA22030, USA. Phone: 703/934-6969, Fax: 703/352-7530. Atlas USA is a nonprofit, tax-exempt entity under Section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.