The Public Interest and the Limits of Volunteerism
December 12, 2006
Adapted from Chapter 5 of “Conscience of a Progressive” – a book in progress. See the book for references and citations.
Libertarians often tell us that personal voluntary restraint and charitable contributions are morally preferable
solutions to social problems than government coercion and taxation. Ronald Reagan probably had this in mind when he said
in his first inaugural address that “government is not the solution – government is the problem.”
To be sure, personal self-control and charity are virtues, while political coercion and taxation are not.
The trouble is, in numerous and significant instances, volunteerism doesn’t work.
Example: The Catalytic Converter
Consider the catalytic converter as a solution to the problem of air pollution. (The numbers are “made up” as accuracy
is not important. This is a hypothetical “model” based roughly on generally known technology and demographics).
The catalytic converter is a device placed on a vehicle’s exhaust system which eliminates (let us assume) 90% of exhaust
pollution. Assume further that purchase and installation of the unit costs $200. In the Los Angeles airshed (near my
residence) are ten million vehicles.
Would I be willing to pay $200 to clean up the air in my neighborhood? In an LA minute! Will I clean up the air by
volunteering, all by myself, to install a catalytic converter? No way! If I install the device, I will reduce the
pollution by slightly less than one ten-millionth. In effect, no reduction at all. And I will be out $200. To put the
matter bluntly: in cases such as this, volunteerism is not only futile, it is irrational. The solution is obvious and
compelling: require that all vehicles have working catalytic converters. This has in fact been done in California. It's
the law. Result: the air pollution in LA has been dramatically reduced, to the relief of the vast majority of Angelinos,
and at an individual cost acceptable to that majority.
If a proposition to repeal the catalytic converter requirement were put on the ballot, it would be soundly defeated
(assuming the public was correctly informed). The solution is straightforward, rational and popular: “mutual coercion
mutually agreed upon,” as the late Garrett Hardin put it, imposed and enforced by “big government.”
This solution is a cost to the individual (“bad for each”), but the “social benefit” is well-worth it (“good for all”).
Example: The Support of Public Safety Agencies
Consider next the voluntary support of public safety agencies. Presumably, most of you have received phone calls from a
member of the local police and fire departments, asking for donations to assist them in their work. This is a recent
phenomenon, for which we can all thank the resurgent Right. I doubt that I ever received such a solicitation before
1981, when Ronald Reagan told us all that “government is the problem, not the solution.”
When I receive such a call, I agree to make a small donation. But then I ask, “Isn’t this the sort of thing that we pay
our taxes for?” Invariably the individual on the other end agrees and we commiserate about the shameful neglect of our
public safety institutions.
The solicitation of private contributions in support of public institutions amounts to an excise tax on charity and
civic responsibility. The individual citizen who declines to contribute is as safe from crime and as protected from fire
as those who contribute. (This is the well-known “free rider” problem, for which I have yet to hear a plausible reply
from the libertarians). Voluntary financing of public safety agencies is unjust on its face. Clearly, those who benefit
from these services should be required to support them, according to these individuals’ ability to pay. The method
devised to accomplish this purpose is well-known to us all. It’s call “taxation.”
Social Good and "The Commons"
Air quality, which is improved by mandatory use of catalytic converters, is what is known as a “common good,” or more
briefly, a “commons.” Other “material” or “resource” commons include, water, oceans, “open range” pastures, public
parks, etc. But there are also “non-material” commons that are equally, if not more important to the quality of social
life and the justice of a political order. These include the rule of law, the quality and level of education in the
community, trust in the government and the prevailing sense among the citizens of that government’s legitimacy, the
degree of civility and the “moral tone” extant in the society. When unscrupulous individuals act to their own advantage,
heedless of the consequences to others, they can degrade “the moral commons” – the mutual respect and constraint that is
implicit in every well ordered society. For example, when outlaws are unpunished, the rule of law suffers. Worse still,
when corrupt politicians and government officials put themselves above the law and betray the citizens by accepting
bribes from special interest and by violating the Constitutional protections of those citizens, they erode the trust that is essential to good government. And when there is reason to believe that the ballot has been compromised and there are no offsetting procedures to
assure the accuracy of the ballot, the very legitimacy of the government and of legislation is diminished.
In a just political order, based on the principles of our founding documents, government and the rule of law are the
common “property” of the citizens at large, and of no class or faction in particular. This principle is stated
explicitly in the Declaration of our Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The libertarian Right insists that so-called “public goods” and “public interest” are nothing more than simple
summations of private goods and interests. Indeed, as Ayn Rand put it, “there is no such entity as ‘society,’ since
society is only a number of individual men... The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and
undefinable concept..." (“The Virtue of Selfishness”).
Good for Each, Bad for All
In fact, and contrary to libertarian dogma, in numerous identifiable cases (which I discuss in “Conscience of a Progressive”), the individual pursuit of optimum personal freedom and benefit can be detrimental to society at large – “good for
each, bad for all.” Conversely, constraints upon individuals may result in benefits for the society – “bad for each,
good for all.” For example, consider the case of antibiotics which medical practice has clearly demonstrated lose their
potency the more they are prescribed. The widespread use of antibiotics, while clearly to the advantage of each patient,
results in loss of potency which is to the disadvantage of all patients. Thus it is “in the public interest” to
discourage the use of antibiotics by non-critical patients. And as we saw in our opening example, because it is to the
advantage of all citizens (i.e., in "the public interest") to breathe clean air, each citizen is justly required to have
a catalytic converter on his vehicle. Clean air is thus a “public good” which can be enhanced through the imposition of
“personal bads” -- the cost of mandatory catalytic converters. Clearly “the public interest” and “public goods” are in
these cases, as well as many others, distinguishable from the summation of private interests and goods.
The coordinate principles, "good for each, bad for all" and "bad for each, good for all," resound throughout the history
of political thought -- from Aristotle, through Thomas Hobbes, Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson, on to
the present day. Indeed, the practical applications of these principles are implicit in successful communities, from the
present extending far back into pre-history. They are the key to the survival of communities of social insects such as
bees and termites, and of social animals such as wolf packs, wherein evolution, not rational deliberation, provides
their validation.
And yet, amazingly, those who presume to call themselves "conservatives," reject these principles, in favor of another:
"good for each, good for all." This principle of the political right, exemplified by "trickle-down economics" and the
assurance that "the rising [economic] tide raises all boats," is immediately appealing. Who would not desire that
collective "goods" should result from the achievement of personal well-being? And in fact, the progressive will readily
admit that many human endeavors that achieve individual benefits, also benefit society at large. “Good for each, good
for all” is true in particular and identifiable cases, such as artistic creation, technological invention, and yes,
business entrepreneurship.
Is there a simple and unfailing means to distinguish "the invisible hand" (good for each, good for all), from "the back
of the invisible hand" (e.g. the tragedy of the commons, "good for each, bad for all")? When I posed that question to my
late friend, Garrett Hardin, he replied "that is a Nobel Prize winning question." Until that Nobel Prize winning genius
comes along, we must continue to do what the empirical and pragmatic progressives have routinely done: experiment. If
individual behavior appears to have socially destructive results, try out a meliorative policy or law, and if it "works"
for society -- if we find a device that benefits society at an acceptable cost to individual citizens -- then fine,
we'll keep it. If not, try something else. And if it becomes clear that the best policy is for government and the law to
leave well-enough alone (good for each, good for all) -- for example, maintaining the separation between church and
state, or refusing to prohibit sex acts between consenting adults -- then let non-interference be the government policy.
Right-wing propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding, progressives are not eager to expand government interference and
control over the private lives of its citizens. It is not the progressives that are demanding Constitutional amendments
against gay marriage, abortion, and flag burning.
The error of the libertarian Right resides in its embrace of the principle "good for each, good for all" as dogma, to be
applied a priori to society and the economy, virtually without exception. By rejecting, implicitly, the principle of
"good for each, bad for all" and vice versa, the Right recognizes no personal price that must be paid for the
maintenance of a just social order, and pays no heed to the social costs of one's personal "pursuit of happiness."
For theirs is a radically reductive view of society. According to the "free-market absolutist" faction of the
falsely-labeled "conservatives" (better, "regressives"), an optimal society emerges "naturally" and spontaneously out of
an aggregate of individuals in exclusive pursuit of their personal self-interest. To the regressive, "the common good"
and "public benefit" are myths. Indeed, so too is society itself, as Ayn Rand insists. Accordingly, we are asked to
believe, so-called "society" is merely an aggregate of private individuals, like a pile of sand grains, occupying
contiguous space. Ideally, say the regressives, all associations are strictly voluntary. And because "there is no such
thing as society," there are no systemic social harms. It follows that those who are poor are not "victims" of society
or the economy, they choose to be poor due to their personal moral failings.
The Necessity of Government
For the libertarian right, the only legitimate functions of government are the protection of the three fundamental
rights of life, liberty and property. Hence, the only legitimate disbursement of tax revenues is for the military
(protection from foreign enemies), the "night watchman" police (protection from domestic enemies), and the courts
(adjudication of property disputes). Because there are no "public goods," compulsory tax payment for public education,
research and development of science and technology, medical care, museums, libraries, promotion of the arts, public and
national parks, etc., is the moral equivalent of theft. According to this account of human nature and society, with the
exception of the just noted protections of life, liberty and property, there is nothing that government can accomplish
that private initiative and the free market cannot achieve with better results.
No regulation, no governmental functions beyond basic protection of life, liberty and property, no taxes except to
support these minimal functions. Any governmental activity beyond this should, in Grover Norquist's words, be "drowned
in the bathtub."
In contrast, the progressive views society as more than the sum of its parts; it is what philosophers call an "emergent
entity," with properties and principles of the whole distinct from those of its components just as, analogously,
chemical compounds (e.g. water and salt) have properties distinct from their component elements. In this sense society and its economy are "systems" like a computer, an engine, an ecosystem, a living language, consisting interacting and interdependent parts which
accomplish together what none can accomplish alone. If the social system malfunctions, there are innocent victims -- the
poor, the oppressed, the addicted, the uneducated -- and the system is thus in need of adjustment or repair or even
overhaul and redesign. These corrections are best diagnosed and treated when the system is examined and analyzed, as a
system, and not as an amalgam of distinct individuals. And diagnosis, adjustment, regulation, repair, overhaul, redesign
of the community-entity are legitimate functions of a government established to act in the interests of all.
*************
Copyright 2006, by Ernest Partridge
Bio Tag: Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public
Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the
website, "The Online Gadfly" ( www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" ( www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm .