The False Dichotomy of "Economic" and "Personal" Freedom

The concept of freedom is often discussed in terms of a dichotomy between "economic" and "personal" dimensions, underscored by debates between right- and left-leaning ideologues. Many politicians and parties consider one of these aspects more essential than the other, emphasizing the dichotomy and creating a perceived rift between personal and private action. Despite the focus placed upon it, this dichotomy is false, and so-called "economic" and "personal" freedoms are actually inseparable and cannot exist but as a single whole: freedom.

According to Wikipedia's article on economic freedom, the classical liberal view defines it as "the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud, theft or government regulation." This characterization of economic freedom is in essence the ability to do what one pleases with one's property, so long as it does not involve forcing others to act against their will.

There are a few concepts in this definition which must be unpacked. This characterization of economic freedom clearly requires the concepts of private property and force, which have various definitions depending on their context. These concepts can be seen from different perspectives, but the core similarity shared by every definition is the ability of an actor to pursue his own ends as freely as possible. In a society of individualists possessed by none of Stirner's "spooks," ideas which they feel are above or beyond themselves which they must serve, each individual understands the necessity of self-determination and voluntarism. No rational individual seeking her own interests would vote for a state with power over herself, as she would understand that, while it may serve her immediate interests now, a state with sovereignty over individuals would inherently strip her of the ability to make and act on her own volitional decisions and "live [herself] out." The only way to ensure that one may seek his own ends while participating in society is with the concept of property, the ability to keep what one produces, and non-aggression, the collective understanding of a society that force and aggression are no to be tolerated. Without these concepts, it is impossible for an individual to claim any autonomy, so any self-interested rational agent would desire a society built on these concepts.

I plan on discussing the validity of egoism in a future article, but for now I write for an audience who already accepts the value of individual lives over the value of a sovereign state and sees government only as a means to ensuring that individuals live safely and happily (regardless of whether or not any current government can be said to do this or whether this characterization of the state is possible). Readers of an authoritarian leaning who put the good of some individuals over others or believe in a "collective" whose rights go beyond those of the individuals constituting it will have to wait for future articles to see why I disagree with their perspective.

With the right to private property and therefore economic freedom established as a necessity of one's life and volitional action, we will consider the role of "personal freedom." Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines personal freedom as "freedom of the person in going and coming, equality before the courts...freedom of opinion and its expression, and freedom of conscience subject to the rights of others." Let's unpack each of the components of this definition individually.

Firstly, the "freedom of...going and coming" amounts to the freedom to direct one's own motion without being prevented by the state. If private property is not guaranteed, then it makes no sense to consider this freedom, as one would be unable to drive, fly, or even walk to a destination without the right to keep any funds for travel one produces or to travel through others' property with permission. Next, "freedom of opinion" seems possible without economic freedom, but the freedom to "its expression" cannot be guaranteed if one must ask the president nicely for the permission to "own" a Facebook account with which to post. Finally, the "freedom of conscience" can also be held without economic freedom, but one cannot act on conscience if any means one has of doing so must be first approved by the conscience of the state. No solution to these problems can be given by suggesting that the state would simply allow individuals to do what they want while still having the power to restrict them if necessary, because the "right to property on the terms of another" is subject to the arbitrary whim of the other and is thus not one's own. Indeed, no "right" to action can be substituted by "conditional permission."

Ultimately, if individuals are to reign supreme over their personal lives, they must do so over their economic activity as well. The principle of non-force is a declaration of the right of each and every person to pursue his or her ends freely with whatever means he or she is capable of producing, excluding anyone from appropriating the means of another by force or aggression. It is clear, then, that in a society of rational individuals seeking their own good, economic and personal freedom are not equal nor separate: economic freedom is a necessary precursor of personal freedom and must be treated as primary.

Supporters of so-called "libertarian socialism" may be unconvinced. They might suggest that economic freedom allows individuals to violate the personal freedoms of another, or that allowing full control over one's property would result in the ability to discriminate as one pleases or prevent the poor from obtaining what they need to survive. In order to validate and affirm the necessity of private property, such criticisms must be demonstrated as invalid.

Libertarian socialists are correct that economic freedom allows for discrimination on ethnicity or other factors. However, to see why this is not a problem for freedom, consider the restricted nature of rights. The only thing guaranteed by the rights discussed above is the ability to pursue one's ends, whatever that means for the individual, without restricting others with aggression or force. There is nothing included in such a right that entitles an individual to the services of another, whether he be a gay man in search of a cake for his wedding or a member of a racial minority denied services at the bar of a white supremacist. While racism and discrimination are unsavory and adversarial to society, forcing a baker to produce cakes equally or a landowner to serve any member regardless of race is a clear violation of his rights, while being refused a trade by a private individual violates nothing. To recapitulate: there is no right to use the property of others without their consent, only to earn the results of one's actions without the application of aggression or force.

While discrimination is clearly not a problem of rights but of unfavorable personal beliefs, the question of poverty is yet to be addressed. The answer is found by the same means of analysis as applied to the previous case. If a man in poverty is granted the systematically appropriated wealth of someone born into a higher socioeconomic class, it is not the poor man's right that is being affirmed, but that of the wealthy man which is being denied. These rights are fundamentally rights to act and own the consequences of one's actions, not to have one's life sustained by others at gunpoint. Thus, as long as the right to the pursuit of one's ends and to keep one's property is affirmed, the state has no right of its own to enact policies that sacrifice the right of one group for the well-being of another.

At this point the conclusion is clear. Economic freedom is a necessary consequence of a society consisting of individuals seeking their own good, and personal freedom is its corollary. The right of an individual to sustain his own life and pursue his interests can never be sacrificed for the well-being of another, even to prevent discrimination or abject poverty. The debate over which type of freedom is most important can be settled once and for all: there is only freedom, and it must be absolute.