The
Rational Argumentator
Liberty Causes Progress
Before discussing the causes of progress, we need to identify what progress is. Progress is not simply income growth or increases in quantities of existing output types. Rather, as Randall Holcombe notes, “the more significant element of progress in the work people do is not the quantitative reduction in work hours or increase in output, but rather the qualitative changes in the nature of work.”[1] Furthermore, “[t]he changes in types of output and methods of production…create economic progress...”[2] During the 20th century, the average real income in the
Progress, then, is a comprehensive improvement in the number, kind, and quality of goods, services, opportunities, and occupations available to individuals. As it involves a vast multitude of considerations, progress cannot be measured by any single parameter, such as the per capita Gross Domestic Product or average number of hours worked or the output of any particular good. The number of horse-drawn carriages produced today is significantly smaller than that produced in the late 19th century – yet most people would agree that substantial progress in transportation has been made and that the decline in horse-drawn carriage production is actually a sign of such progress. Integrating a wide variety of parameters and understanding their causal interactions is essential to obtain an understanding of whether progress is occurring and to what extent.
While it may be impossible to precisely measure the rate of progress as such, it is nonetheless possible to conclude with certainty that substantial progress has occurred over time – especially in the past 250 years and that the frequency of progress has greatly increased in the recent past. Holcombe observes, “The economic growth over this 250 year period has been remarkable, but the economic progress that has taken place over the same period is even more remarkable.”[5] Even judging by people’s subjective estimations of their own lives, the evidence for progress is inescapable. In his first comprehensive “world map of happiness,” social psychologist Adrian White notes:
"The three predictor variables of health, wealth and education were... very closely associated with each other, illustrating the interdependence of these factors. There is a belief that capitalism leads to unhappy people. However, when people are asked if they are happy with their lives, people in countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per capita, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy."[6] Furthermore, whatever the problems of the more technologically advanced and materially prosperous countries may be, they pale in comparison to the problems that were universal throughout most of human history and still plague much of the
"Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution-- all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light."[9]
Clearly, the fruits of progress are not simply the abundance and variety of material goods available. Progress improves the morals of virtually all human beings and enables them to coexist peacefully, ethically, and to mutual benefit. If we can pinpoint the enabling factor of progress, then promoting and enacting this cause is one of the noblest endeavors available to us.
Fortunately, the cause of progress is well-known and accessible; it is transforming and improving the world at this instant. This principle – which elevates every aspect of human life and distances humankind from the primeval state Hobbes described as a “war of all against all”[10] – is the liberty of individuals to act in any manner not injurious to the welfare of others. Thomas Jefferson enunciates this concept of liberty: “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”[11] F. A. Harper agrees and defines liberty as “the absence of coercion of a human being by any other human being; it is a condition where the person may do whatever he desires, according to his wisdom and conscience.”[12] Liberty does not give individuals any positive entitlements to concrete goods, but it protects an individual’s freedom to act to improve his life. Harper explains that liberty is not freedom from hardship or want; rather, “Nature will still impose its restrictions on [a man], of course; but his fellow men shall impose none.”[13] Freedom does not guarantee anybody his life or his happiness, but it does remove – as far as is humanly possible – any active manmade obstacles to their pursuit and securement. Having the resultant freedom, individuals can choose to act to remove natural barriers to their survival and happiness as well, or to trade and negotiate with others for the goods that will enhance their quality of life.
Integral to the concept and the preservation of liberty is the idea of private property. John Locke explains that every person originally owns his own body and his labor. Because, in a state of liberty, a man is free to use his labor to transform objects originally in the state of nature and thereby to remove them “from the common state Nature placed it in, “no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to”[14] and the transformed object becomes his property. The only legitimate ways to obtain property are to mix one’s labor with objects in the state of nature or to gain the consent of another individual who has already done so to the use of the fruits of his labor.
But it is not enough to simply have an abstract understanding of liberty and private property. These principles need to be well-defined and diligently enforced in order to bring about real-world progress. Even if an individual has a natural right to what he has acquired through his own labor or honest commerce, he will make little progress if his just property is not widely recognized and if he can be easily expropriated. In any market interactions, the parties involved need to be able to answer a series of crucial questions: “Does the seller own the [property] and have the right to transfer it? Can he pledge it? Will the new owner be accepted as such by those who enforce property rights? What are the effective means to exclude other claimants? This is why the exchange of most assets outside the West is restricted to local circles of trading partners.”[15] Hernando
Well-defined property rights render individuals secure in what they own and allow them to develop more innovative ways of using their assets in economic transactions that generate progress.
Enforcement of liberty and private property bring about progress through a multitude of ways. They constitute progress in themselves by freeing individuals from the arbitrary power of others to inflict harm on them. But moreover, a free society enables and encourages individuals to take full advantage of social cooperation through specialization and the division of labor. Ludwig von Mises explains that “[t]he fundamental facts that brought about cooperation, society, and civilization and transformed the animal man into a human being are… that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and that man's reason is capable of recognizing this truth.”[20] By using their own minds, people will enter into economic arrangements that enable the division of labor to flourish.
Indeed, the tremendous advantages of specialization are only possible in a society of liberty – where a wide extent of commerce is possible. Dwight Lee notes that “[a] specialist produces much more of a product, or part of a product, than he wishes to consume himself.”[21] The only way for a specialist to gain from producing the entirety of the output within his ability is to trade a part of his output for the fruits of others’ labor. Only in societies where commerce is sufficiently free to be wide-ranging can people have a sufficient incentive to specialize. In unfree societies where commerce is limited, individuals will tend toward autarkic production – seeking to personally create all of the basic necessities of life. Without freedom and the consequent specialization, most individuals will live on the edge of subsistence. Just as the workers in the pin factories Adam Smith observed were able to produce 48000 pins per day via specialization but would only have been able to produce 200 pins per day if each worker made pins from start to finish, so individuals forced to personally supply all essential needs would achieve lower outputs by orders of magnitude.[22]
" Because the participants in this market are less than omniscient, there are likely to exist, at any given time, a multitude of opportunities that have not yet been taken advantage of. Sellers may have sold for prices lower than the prices which were in fact obtainable… Buyers may have bought for prices higher than the lowest prices needed to secure what they are buying…"[23]
The entrepreneur is the individual who notices such discrepancies before anyone else does and takes action to remedy them by purchasing assets at lower prices than those at which he sells them. But this pure arbitrage is not the extent of an entrepreneur’s contributions. Much of an entrepreneur’s contribution to progress “is spotting alternative methods of production, and spotting ways in which output characteristics can be altered to better satisfy the demands of purchasers.”[24] The entrepreneurs are ultimately responsible for introducing new consumer products; they consider currently available goods or technical methods of production to be inadequate and offer an improvement. If the improvement stands the market test, the entrepreneurs are rewarded with profits, and consumers are qualitatively better off.
Much of the 20th century’s progress can be attributed to the actions of entrepreneurs like Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates. These individuals did not necessarily invent the products they popularized, but their activities were essential to the success of others’ inventions. Were it not for the entrepreneurs, some inventions might not have come to benefit the general public “because their originators were not able to put all the pieces together to make those ideas profitable.”[25] But it is impossible to predict in advance which entrepreneurial decisions will ultimately pass the market test, earn profits, and improve the lives of consumers. Holcombe notes that “it may be impossible to say ahead of time what someone could do to be entrepreneurial.”[26] No government or committee of experts can foresee which actions will bring profit or correct economic discrepancies. Thus, progress cannot be centrally planned. The government can only hinder progress when it restricts the liberty of entrepreneurs to act on their alertness.
If we wish our lives to continue to improve in their length and quality, if we desire continued technological advances and rising standards of decency and morality, then it is essential to recognize liberty as the source of progress. A society of free men and confident, protected property owners is a society that can only grow and flourish.
G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician, composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right, Le Quebecois Libre, Rebirth of Reason, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Senior Writer for The Liberal Institute, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles of reason, rights, and progress. Mr. Stolyarov's works have been published on GrasstopsUSA.com. He also posts his articles on Helium.com and Associated Content to assist the spread of rational ideas. His newest science fiction novel is Eden against the Colossus. His latest non-fiction treatise is A Rational Cosmology. His most recent play is Implied Consent. You can also view his YouTube Videos. Mr. Stolyarov can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.
Works Cited
Harper, F. A. 1957. [2007]. “
Hill, Peter J. 1988. "Markets and Morality."
Holcombe, Randall G. 2003. “Progress and Entrepreneurship.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. Vol. 6 Num. 3. Retrieved
Johnson, Johnson, and Johnson. “Quotes.” Available from http://www.shortydawkins.com/Quotes.html. Accessed
Kirzner
Lee, Dwight R. 1998. “Specialization and Wealth.” The Freeman. Vol. 4 No. 8. Available from http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3509. Accessed
Locke, John. 1690. Second Treatise of Civil Government. Retrieved
Mises, Ludwig von. 1949. [2000.] Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute. Available from http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp. Accessed
Pinker, Steven. (2007, March 19) “We’re Getting Nicer Every Day: A History of Violence.” The New Republic.
“Thomas Hobbes.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes. Accessed
[1] Holcombe 2003, p. 6
[2] Holcombe 2003, p. 4
[3] Holcombe 2003, p. 5
[4] Holcombe 2003, p. 5
[6]
[7]
[8] Pinker 2007
[9] Pinker 2007
[10] “Thomas Hobbes.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
[11] Johnson, Johnson, and Johnson.
[12] Harper 1957
[13] Harper 1957
[14] Locke 1690, Sec. 27
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Hill 1988, p. 4
[20] Mises 1949, p. 144
[21] Lee 1998
[22] Lee 1998
[23] Kirzner 1973, p. 41
[24] Holcombe 2003, p. 18
[25] Holcombe 2003, p. 11
[26] Holcombe 2003, p. 11
Click here to return to TRA's Issue CL Index.
Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.
Disclaimer: The presence of the following advertisement serves as an attempt to eventually enable The Rational Argumentator to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of its domain name. TRA does not foresee making an actual profit with these advertisements for a long time. The advertisement does not necessarily reflect the views of TRA or any of its contributors, and the readers are encouraged to judge it on its own merits.