In a recent challenge from a fellow Students For Liberty alum, Amol Kapila, we received some very well-structured critical commentary on our January 14 post,” Relief For Haiti: How Student Liberty Organizations Can Help.” His full critique may be found here: http://www.amolkapila.com/blog/?p=218
To clarify our purposes and elaborate on the role of students and libertarianism in the debate on private charity, we take on some of Amol’s great questions, which we have posted below.
What role could an economic and political ideology play in aiding Haiti, aside from indirect roles along the lines of “capitalism is what has allowed the US to produce the volume of wealth that enables it to aid Haiti”?
“…emotions run high in times like this, and libertarians risk drawing unfavorable attention to themselves if they scorn aid efforts…”
“…I don’t understand why libertarians make a big fuss over government involvement in natural disasters. If anything, I think that governments should funnel more resources into disaster preparation and the physical and organizational infrastructure that can help when disaster finally strikes…”
“Finally, regarding the individual rights argument, that the government is forcibly redistributing resources without people’s consent, I am not sure that such moral arguments apply in emergency situations like these. Everyday morality does not extend without qualification to all emergency situations.”
Capitalism has certainly allowed the U.S to generate the necessary wealth that allows Americans to provide support to Haiti. This is an extremely important practical implication of having (for the most part) a free market. But the role of libertarianism in charity and disaster relief is the essential backbone to our rationale in this discussion. The philosophy of human freedom is what makes free trade and capitalism so important in the realm of practical public policy. An economic system based on the exchange of free goods and services is one that naturally creates a society in which individuals must keep the well-being of others in consideration if they want to be treated in a respectful manner and show a profit in their particular business or vocation. From this philosophy, a society rises on the pillars of peace and prosperity, wherein people respect one another, trust one another, and help one another when in need. Acknowledging these implications, wrapped in this foundation is one of SFL’s three core principles: Economic freedom to choose how to provide for one’s life.
Understandably, many individuals believe that libertarians will once again draw fire toward themselves by appearing to scorn aid efforts. Yet this was not the case in the post on Haiti. Our main purpose was simply to give students ideas to put into action the spirit of voluntary aid between human beings at such a tragic time, given the foundations of the libertarian philosophy. It is only in cases of massive government aid that we come to a crossroads not only with our foundational principles, but also in the academic atmosphere on most modern university campuses. It is therefore important that we provide information and support for students who want to oppose extensive federal aid for Haiti on campuses that may be hostile to the principles of liberty.
From a more practical point of view, one may easily assert that the free market ideal and voluntary charity is a mere utopia that libertarians can never hope to realize in reality, especially with regard to massive natural disasters. Sometimes, when “emotions run high,” the “risks seem high,” and panic leaves people helpless, principles are the first to go; it becomes easy to succumb to the mainstream conclusion that human beings are incapable of helping one another, and that a larger state institution can do the job better, even if the potential waste, corruption, and mismanagement adds up in the long run. Such has been our sore experience with Hurricane Katrina. But this political rationale comes as no surprise to many of us. It is the usual short cut in almost all publicly touted crises, be they recessions, earthquakes, asteroids or severe winds (which government has on occasion deemed disastrous for the sake of creating its own utility). The truth is, given the long economic history of the United States, a free market approach once did exist, except that people did not have the federal government as a default answer to every problem or natural disaster that occurred.
In the previous post on Haiti, one of the recommended articles, entitled “Government and Disaster Relief” by Lawrence Reed beautifully captures much of the current discussion. With the help of historian Burton Folsom, he uncovers the case study of the 1881 Michigan fire, which destroyed over one million acres of land in that state. It proved to be an extraordinary example of spontaneous mutual support and voluntary community involvement in relief efforts. Mr. Reed writes, “they became the most generous people on earth, partly because they knew government had nothing to give except what it taxed away in the first place, and partly because they saw it as a personal responsibility to help their fellow citizens in need.” It was at that time that Clara Barton launched the first massive Red Cross relief effort. People left work and manually rebuilt their homes and towns. At that time, people did not have the mentality that their share was already contributed in the form of state or federal taxes; the federal government was a negligible actor. Moreover, the article mentions that in 1881 the federal budget had a $100 million surplus as opposed to our current abominable deficit.
Following the path of government intervention throughout the twentieth century, it is no wonder that in 2010 we may believe that only the state is capable of fixing terrible situations. The individual initiative and human compassion that once existed under the scope of a more expansive free market is now greatly diminished. In this sense, we may think about Frederick Bastiat and the overwhelming implications of the broken window fallacy in today’s relief efforts in Haiti. We might ask ourselves, were it not for the enormous government investment (which President Obama has recently committed to a “long-term” promise) in rebuilding an entire nation, what could we have done in terms of private aid instead? What would our incentives be if the state were not such an overbearing actor in our daily lives? In the long run, how quickly would Haiti rebuild if it were not entirely dependent on aid and welfare from other nations?
Questions like these are meant to challenge much of the current academic rhetoric on foreign aid. And given the fact that government aid is such a big part of reality today, we certainly do not advocate pulling out all government aid right now. With today’s circumstances, Haiti does need all the help it can get. We simply want to bring back into the debate the question of how aid can be different. In our post on Haiti, we stood by the principles of a free market and strove to help students bring libertarianism into the circles of discussion on their campuses during this tragedy in Haiti so that we may continue to strive for a free, peaceful, and prosperous world — regardless of the short run benefits of government aid. There is no easy way to respond to Amol’s statement that “Everyday morality does not extend without qualification to all emergency situations.” The philosophy of liberty is a guiding principle for many students, and for SFL. How can one tell when to keep and when to abandon one’s foundational morals and principles? Ultimately, we choose to stand by social, economic, and academic freedoms even when times are tough.
For further reading,
“Government And Disaster Relief” by Lawrence Reed is here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/government-and-disaster-relief/#
“Haiti and the Broken-Window Fallacy” by Sandy Ikeda is here: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/haiti-broken-window/?utm_source=The+Freeman&utm_campaign=126e06267b-In_brief_1_8_2010&utm_medium=email
