Recently here at Econlog Scott Sumner and Janet Bufton had an interesting discussion about liberalism as an anecdote against authoritarianism (see Sumner hereBufton’s comments hereand the continuation of Sumner here). The central theme is how liberalism, well understood and consistently applied, helps inoculate against a descent into authoritarianism, even if one likes what the authoritarian does. These are great messages and you should read them (even if you have already done that). But I think there is a gap in the conversation that I want to fill: what unique aspect of liberalism does it make an effective vaccine? The liberal understanding of justice makes it an effective vaccine.
To be clear, I am sure that both Sumner and Bufton are both aware that the liberal understanding of justice makes liberalism effective. Justice is implicit during their messages. I just bring it forward.
In the opinion of this man, the best development of liberal justice comes in that of Adam Smith Theory of moral sentiments. In TMS, Smith discusses three justice of justice. He calls the first ‘commutative justice’ or ‘mere justice’. Commutative Justice has very precise rules about how they can treat each other and in principle they come down to “not harm people and not to take their things.”
Just like the rules of grammar, these justice rules are fundamental. Under very rare circumstances (and even the most judgmental) they can be broken, but for the most part they have to be maintained. The other two insights are what he calls ‘distributive justice’ (who uses someone’s talents and resources to the best of its ability), and cute justice (which is a person or thing that owes the correct one). This development can be found on pages 269-270 of the Liberty Fund Edition. For my purposes here I will only discuss commutative justice.
Justice is fundamental. No society can survive without justice. Every society where different individuals are wrongly treated, where their person or ownership is constantly threatened, will tend to extinguish, if not through in fighting than by conquest or dissolution by more robust societies. But justice itself is not enough to make a good society or a good person. We need other virtues, such as love, welcome and benevolence. A society that is simply not a pleasant place to live.
But, as Smith notes, we are limited in our ability to give love, welcome and benevolence. We are limited by our own resources; It would be quite impossible to keep everyone right. Such a burden is limited to God (or another ‘completely essential being’) any attempt to keep everyone of everyone, would lead to a person being extremely unhappy (see part VI, section II, Chapter III). Consequently, the fate of humanity is much easier: “The care of his own happiness, that of his family, his friends, his country” (PG 237). We love ourselves. We love our family more than our friends. Our neighbors more than our country. And so forth. Our social circles determine who we keep and how (for more about this, see Adam Smith and the circles of sympathy by Fonna Forman).
So far, so good. Even nationalists will agree. What distinguishes the liberal from the nationalist or authoritarian is the question: “What do we owe each other?” How do we treat people socially about us? This is where the issue of justice comes in.
We don’t owe the liberal liberal, loves and the other virtues. I am sure that you, dear reader, are a nice person, but I will never love you as much as I love my brother, mother and father. If my brother needs a ride to the airport, I pick it up. If you ask me, I will charge a fee.
But what we Doing It owes everyone worldwide. In order not to cause damage to their person or their property. Smith’s famous “Chinese earthquake” Thought experiment (pages 136-137) demonstrates this point. If an earthquake touched China tomorrow and a thousand people die, few people would lose a lot about it. Yes, we would sympathize with their loss, but our feelings would only be the smallest fraction of what those who are affected by the earthquake would feel. One would lose more sleep due to the loss of a little finger than the loss of those thousand lives. But if the loss of a little finger could stop the earthquake to ever happen, then there will be a strong feeling to lose the little finger and to rescue The thousand lives.
The fact that everyone, whether they are in our social circles or not, deserves the absolute minimum of justice, is what separates liberalism from authoritarianism. Liberal justice is not much, but it is powerful. Authoritarians tend to divide the world into categories. Certain categories deserve justice. Others not. Consequently, authoritarians carry out horrible and bad acts. Liberalism, although it is reminder that we owe everyone Is only justice, acts as an effective inoculation against a descent to authoritarianism. Injustice, when recognized, is a powerful disgusting feeling. We try to stop injustice. Liberalism helps us to see that those injustice are being done.