"Freedom of Choice" - A contradiction in terms?

In pondering economic and political theory, recently, I have reminded myself that all theory is constrained by assumptions. Now, extreme libertarianism, or Anarchism, seems to me to assume that “freedom” is measured, at least in part, by the amount of “choice” an individual has available to them. For example, in a Stateless (Anarchist) Society, individuals would have the freedom to spend all of their income as they choose – not the case currently, as the State takes a considerable percentage of your income by force, in the form of taxation – which, inter alia, is what Anarchists find objectionable.

However, although, under the current regime, you and I are, indeed, denied many choices, in a Stateless one, we would be burdened with innumerable decisions about how best to allocate our financial resources. We would have a limited income and therefore a limited amount to spend (as we do currently) but the difference would be that we would have to make additional decisions about how much we could afford to avail ourselves of amenities, such as parks, waste collection, street lighting, policing, fire service, education and, (for those who aren’t in BUPA) health services, among others.

Going for a walk in a public park is, currently, free at the point of delivery – the decision has been made for you, by the State taking money from you by force (tax) and spending it on maintaining the park. I love going for a walk in the public parks near where I live and one of the great benefits of it is that I don’t have to make a decision as to whether, or not, I can afford it. Denied the option of not paying for it via taxation, I may be – but I am, thereby, relieved of the decision and associated stress.

In a Stateless society, such amenities would be privately owned, either by individuals, or collections or co-operatives thereof. Unless I own the park myself, or have a share in it, I have to pay a fee to use it. And how would such a fee be structured? A flat rate that allowed me access for a day? A pay-by-the-hour fee? Maybe a monthly or annual subscription that would allow me unlimited access? Whichever of those it is, I have the burden of a decision set in the context of all the other expense commitments I have, complicated further by the decision I have to make about which tariff is best.

The burden of such decisions may well serve as a sufficient deterrent from doing something I enjoy (and which doesn’t harm anyone else!) What was a healthy and worthwhile leisure activity, under The State, has, under Anarchism, now become an extravagance. Currently, I might consider ‘a walk in the park’ essential to my well-being; ironically, I would be coerced, in a Stateless Society, into considering that such an activity is a luxury.

Add to this, all the other expenditure decisions I am burdened with. For example, there would be no Police, only private security firms – I would have to decide how much “private security” I could afford and, maybe, whether or not, I could afford it at all, given other commitments. Again, currently, that decision is arrested (pardon the pun!) from me. Consider the implications for all the other services that are currently State provided, and you can see how “Freedom of Choice” may, indeed, be a contradiction in terms.

So, where have I been?

Where indeed? Over the last few years, I have taken the opportunity to re-evaluate where I stand, politically, and am happy to say that I firmly remain a Liberal – although probably not in the sense of the word that fits with mainstream politics. I will admit I have been wrong over certain issues but remain tenacious over others. The Political Compass Test identifies me as a left libertarian; however, one should remember this is only one method of classifying political thought.

Some of my views have changed or evolved and some of them remain the same. Like many who are have been appalled at the excesses of capitalism, over the last few decades, I made the mistake of allowing socialism and statism to get the better of me: regarding Government (or The State) as a force against the polarisation of wealth and a guardian of freedom against large corporations, when, in reality, The State, to varying extents over time, has been either been colluding with conglomerates to deprive the majority of aspects of independence and self-determination, or actually, doing it all by itself.

Hence, over more recent years I have been considering the concept of Anarchism, having been drawn to it by my friend and erstwhile Liberal Democrat colleague, Jock Coats. I should explain that anarchism is a belief in a stateless (not lawless) society and has nothing to do with throwing fire extinguishers through high street store windows. For reasons I may explain in a subsequent article, I have, however, not seen such a belief as a panacea to how people should live. Nevertheless, my contemplation of it, has proved very useful in re-igniting the libertarianism in me which was becoming all but extinguished as an angry reaction to economic and social events that took place over the last 30 years or so.

For now though, I just wanted to focus on one aspect of my opinion: part of which has remained firm and part of which has changed:

I have always been a passionate advocate of small businesses, which, by their very nature, are privately, rather than state-owned, and are a feature of a free market. Albeit rather unconsciously, I have, in the past struggled to reconcile this with an opposition to privatisation and a baulking at the idea of introducing market forces into state-supplied goods such as health and education. More recently, I think I have reached a reconciliation of such a dichotomy by drawing a very important distinction between the free market and capitalism.

Much of the prevailing political and economic opinion (on all sides) seems to assume that the free market and capitalism are synonymous. I maintain they are not. For me, the free market is (or at least should be) an opportunity for the majority of individuals to create wealth for themselves; capitalism is the means by which the majority is coerced into creating wealth, not for themselves, but for a few others. It is the latter that I find repellent – not absolutely, but to the extent that it has been “allowed” to prevail in the way it has.

The aggressive advance of unfettered capitalism has seen certain corporations grow, merge, and grow again, at alarming rates, stifling any competition. With State assistance capitalism cripples and destroys the lifeblood that is small business and, hence, erodes rather than promotes a free market, forcing the majority to pay ever increasing prices for ever deteriorating goods and services, facilitating a self-perpetuating (and very dangerous) polarisation of wealth.

Having made such a distinction and thereby, identifying a problem, one may be part way to suggesting a solution. I am not sure that I have yet, but aim to get there one day. However, I do not see the solution as the removal of The State altogether as I am convinced that capitalism is perfectly capable of thriving without any assistance from Government, notwithstanding that the latter has, indeed, been partly accountable.

This, I grant you, is a very brief overview of some very complex issues and will pose many questions and provide much food for thought. I hope, in future articles, to provide further critiques of “The State” and endeavour to explain why I favour its reform rather than its abolition.