Joiner Flourishing Pathway Blog Nine - Liberalism

In this blog we explore JFP Principle 9 – Liberalism is a political philosophy that has focused on individualism and self-sufficiency, influencing us to adopt such principles. I have previously outlined research showing how certain nurturing behaviours are essential to infants’ optimal development (see JFP Blogs 2 – Nurturing, 3 – Mothers and Fathers, 4 Childcare) and revealed flourishing (JFP Blog 8) as something we wish our children and other citizens to have. What has been left unresolved is how we might satisfy an infants need to flourish and our own need for autonomy as they appear to be oppositional. Given we live in a liberalist democratic society, I will examine what ideas we have absorbed from liberalism which impact our parenting decisions and how they are manifest in society. Firstly however, I will briefly look at what obligations' liberalist governments have toward children.

Although the term parens patriae, which literally means “parent of the fatherland” was in use from the sixteenth century, it pertained to citizens rather than children. Children were not specified in British or American law until ‘the end of the nineteenth century’ and prior to that, ‘the first prosecution for child cruelty … had to be brought under laws protecting animals, since none existed specifically for the protection of children’ (Archard 2015, p. 175). From that time on, governments have generally approached children with the attitude of a reluctant parent, only acting when parents fail at all or some duties, including feeding children adequately, seeking medical assistance when they are clearly ailing, clothing them with weather conditions in mind, and sending them to school to be educated. Governments recognise that these kinds of duties represent essential requirements for children to grow into healthy citizens, and that such activities heavily influence the kind of person children will become.

Recently in Australia, emotional and social development have been routinely measured along with physical, language, and communication skills when children begin their first year of full-time school (Australian-Government 2016a). The recognition that it is now important to collect this kind of data is extremely important, particularly as one in four, 5 year olds have been measured in the Australian Early Development Census 2015 as being either developmentally at risk or developmentally vulnerable on social and emotional scores (Australian-Government 2016b, p. 15).

Yet, such troubling statistics have not motivated the Australian government to enact any specific program to provide all parents with best practice nurturing information which would better equip them to parent in their child's early years. So, we need to ask why governments do not provide such information to parents. I suggest that the answer lies, in part, to a long-standing liberalist attitude that governments should not interfere in what is seen as the ‘private sphere’ (or personal life), which comes from the political idea that persons are autonomous and should conduct their own lives without government interference.

In part this came from early liberalists thinkers such as Immanuel Kant who famously argued in 1700’s that actions are intrinsically morally right or wrong and morality was to be found individually using the rational mind, so did not require governmental directives. The rational mind (and sorry ladies this didn’t include you - more about this in JFP Blogs 11 & 12) when unencumbered by experience and emotions, supposedly enabled men to access what he believed was ‘pure reason’ (p. 58) and thus conduct themselves well.

However, another highly influential liberal philosopher, John Stuart Mill, argued that political decisions needed to be made in line with what would enable the greatest happiness for the most persons. The individual, Mill promoted, was one who saw themselves as intimately connected to others, with a collective persona and attitude. Mill's ideas have been keenly and often positively discussed within political philosophy: however, their egalitarian focus is less and less evident in today's attitudes and social policies, largely because individualistic notions have taken precedence. Consequently, the ideas that we are part of a large collective of citizens who are ultimately served best through our collective wellbeing has faded.

This is in part due to influential philosophers such as Robert Nozick, who neither advocated for happiness nor morality. Rather, he argued that the state’s role should be ‘limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, and enforcement of contracts’ as anything more would violate and disrespect individuals (p. ix). This has become known as libertarianism (a belief system former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard advocated). Nozick’s overarching concern was that persons may be compelled to be part of a redistributive justice system, for which another philosopher John Rawls (1992) had famously promoted as a way to secure social and economic equality.

Nozick’s (1974) argument went like this: if a person chose to work longer hours to earn more than he needed, while another chose not to work longer hours, it would be wrong for the one working longer, to pay more taxes to give to the ‘needy’, while the one working less had more leisure time; equating he said to ‘forced labor’ (p. 170).

Nozick seemed to greatly oversimplify the issues surrounding tax collection. He did not include factors such as inheritance, or whether one is paid $16 per hour and the other $500, or whether they have a choice to work longer hours, or had young children and wanted to be home for them, forgoing the possibility of earning more. If the second man did not work longer hours so he could coach a child’s sporting team for instance, is this really leisure? It may be considered leisure by one, but others may see it as a public service which has broad benefits within the community. Can such a thing be measured in dollar terms? Nozick appeared to be preoccupied with the idea that tax collection would unfairly redistribute money to the needy, not mentioning roads, hospitals, schools, aged care and myriad of other public services paid for by taxes which support all citizens; indeed, something Nozick may need to utilise in old age. While discussing a possible philanthropic scenario, Nozick says a man

… might feel that only “suckers” or “saps” make special sacrifices when others are “getting away” with not making any; or he might be upset by the worsening of his position relative to those who don’t contribute; or this worsening of relative position might put him in worse competitive position (relative to these others) (p. 267).

In my view, Nozick’s discussion sounds paranoid, petty, and unhealthy. Yet, it is an attitude which I suggest is more and more pervasive in Western culture. In a recent report released by the Community Council of Australia, the authors stated there had been a reduction in the generosity of the Australian population at large, saying ‘We volunteer less and give less as a percentage of our income than we did five years ago’ (Crosbie & Marjolin 2016, p. 9).

Given authors of the report argue this reduction is not related to decreases in income, all we can really ask is why such a reduction in civic philanthropy is occurring. Are we becoming more selfish? Are we more consumed than ever with the need to accumulate our own individual wealth dismissing the wellbeing of others? Nozick may not have thought his views advocated selfishness, yet his emphasis on extreme individualism and promotion of ideas, such as unfairness of providing for the ‘needy’, discourages ideas of community and interdependence; things that support emotional wellbeing.

Fortunately, Western democracies do not commonly take a Nozickian position on taxation. Systems generally acknowledge that some can afford to give more, while others require greater support. So, while this seems to be evidence that most governments have not adopted a Nozickian outlook, I suggest that his attitude holds increasing traction, particularly when we see such high levels of tax evasion at the corporate level.

When it was revealed by the media during the 2016 US Presidential election that the then Republican candidate, Donald Trump, had not paid tax for many years despite his lavish lifestyle and owning a large business empire, rather than being remorseful, he said, ‘that makes me smart’ (Sorkin 04/10/2016). A subsequent study showed that many companies ‘have managed to shelter trillions of dollars in profits offshore from being taxed’ (Sorkin 04/10/2016). While it seems this kind of tax evasion is not illegal, if it were practised by all, or even by the majority, there would be little money to build or sustain public infrastructure, social services, or education initiatives, to name but a few.

Yet we find governments are redistributing less. The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) report on poverty stated 'Australia has outperformed other OECD economies by achieving 25 consecutive years of positive economic growth’ yet 13% of the Australian population live below the internationally accepted poverty line (ACOSS 2016, p. 6).

A retraction from caring for citizens, along with the kind of thinking that enables the likes of Trump to openly brag about tax evasion, promotes individualism and self-interest. It enshrines the idea we are separate from others. Have we bought into the idea that we must doggedly forge our own self-interested path, in the mistaken idea that this is where happiness is found? Having established in JFP Blog 8 that flourishing is enabled in companionship, empathetic connection, and a feeling of oneness with others; Nozick’s stance must be viewed as the antithesis of flourishing.

And despite the Australian government knowing there are emotional deficits in the very young, they can be said to be failing to provide vital infant based data to parents from which children could greatly benefit. They are also failing to provide, acknowledge, and fund structures that we now know support families in their communities. Where does all this leave parents? Hopefully, with greater awareness of what has contributed to their views and priorities on work and child caring arrangements. I also hope parents realise and support the need for new public policies, that better support families.

In the next blog, we explore the evidence in relation to JFP Principle 10 – Capitalism. While not viewed by philosophers as an aspect of liberalism, capitalism has expanded and developed unchecked by utilising liberalist ideas. We have been seduced into thinking consuming and wealth creation will bring us happiness, yet evidence shows focusing on wealth creation fosters greed and alienates us from each other, depleting wellbeing and happiness.

Bibliography

ACOSS 2016, Poverty in Australia 2016, Australian Council of Social Services.

Archard, D 2015, Children: Rights and childhood, Routledge, London.

Australian-Government 2016a, 'Australian Early Development Census', Education and Training, <http://www.aedc.gov.au/communities/findings-from-the-aedc>.

2016b, Australian Early Development Census Report 2015 A Snapshot of Early Childhood Development in Australia, by ——, Commonwealth of Australia.

Crosbie, D & Marjolin, A 2016, The Australia We Want: First Report, Community Council for Australia, Canberra.

Kant, I 1785, The moral law ; or, Kant's Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals H. J. Panton (translator), Taylor & Francis, 2008, London.

Nozick, R 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books, New York.

Rawls, J 1992, 'A Theory of Justice', in J Arthur & WH Shaw (eds), Social and Political Philosophy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 542-563.

Sorkin, AR 04/10/2016, 'When It Comes to Tax Avoidance, Donald Trump's Just a Small Fry ', New York Times, <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/when-it-comes-to-tax-avoidance-donald-trumps-just-a-small-fry.html?_r=0>.