Morality as a Plus-Sum Game
Why Libertarianism Fails as a Social Policy
Ernest Partridge
April 6, 2010
Printer Friendly Version
| |
The legitimate object of
government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to
have done but can not do at all or can not do well for themselves in
their separate or individual capacities.
Abraham Lincoln |
It is written that when Rabbi Hillel (a contemporary of Jesus
of Nazareth) was asked to recite the essence of The Law of Moses while
standing on one foot, he replied: “What is hateful to thyself do not do to
another. That is the whole Law, the rest is Commentary.”
After several decades of studying, publishing and teaching moral philosophy,
I believe that I can identify the foundation of morality in a single breath:
“Morality is a plus-sum game.”
These precepts are not contrary, for they are of differing logical orders.
Hillel’s precept is a moral commandment – an ethical rule of conduct. On the
other hand, “morality is a plus-sum game” is an account of the foundation of
morality; what philosophers call “meta-ethics.”
So just what is the meaning of “morality is a plus-sum game?” While it is
easy enough to articulate this question, spelling out an answer might
require volumes of elaboration, as indeed it has. But here, at least, are a
few initial steps.**
The late American philosopher,
John Rawls, explained
this principle with admirable clarity when he wrote: "[A] society is a
cooperative venture for mutual advantage... [S]ocial cooperation makes
possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live
solely by his own efforts." (A Theory of Justice, p. 4).
This insight is by no means original with Rawls. It resounds throughout the
history of philosophy and political theory. Moreover, it is proven time and
again in the experience of successful civilizations and, conversely, in the
decline and fall of other civilizations.
Accordingly, this proven insight clearly explains why a radically
individualistic political dogma such as libertarianism is not only immoral,
it is empirically unworkable. Any society based upon such a dogma is bound
to fail to satisfy the legitimate needs of its citizens.
About Game Theory:
Game theory, which was developed by John von Neuman and Oskar Morgenstern in
the forties, “attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic
situations, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends upon
the choices of others.” (Wikipedia)
(John Nash, portrayed in the movie, “A Beautiful Mind,” won his Nobel Prize
in economics for his work in game theory). While game theory can involve
some highly advanced mathematical elaborations, the essentials can be
readily understood by the ordinary citizen.**
In its most general sense, a “game” is a cooperative, rule-governed,
other-contingent, and
goal-directed activity. ("Other-contingent" refers to von
Neuman's and Morgenstern's criterion that "success in making choices depends
upon the choices of others").
With the rare exception of solitaire (which might better be called a "puzzle" than a
"game"), games involve multiple “players:” two
individuals (e.g., tennis and chess), two teams (e.g. football), several
individuals or teams (e.g. lotteries, tournaments), and entire societies
(e.g., governments, morality). If there are two players or teams and the
game is designed to result in one winner and one loser, it is called a “zero
sum game.” Tennis and chess are zero sum games. If there are multiple
players and only one winner, the game is designated as “minus sum.” Lotteries
and tennis tournaments are minus sum games. Competitive games are either
zero-sum or minus-sum. Such games are also “cooperative” in the sense that
the players agree to obey the rules.
However, there are other “cooperative, rule-governed, other-contingent, goal oriented”
activities in which the players cooperate to produce positive results, i.e.
“wins,” for all players. While such activities are generally not called
games, they nonetheless fit the definition: “cooperative, rule-governed,
other-contingent, and
goal oriented.”
For example, from the point of view of the teams and the spectators,
football is a zero sum game: one team wins and the other loses. But from the
point of view of the participating players, it is a plus-sum game: each
player interacts with the other team members in a well-coordinated activity
which, when well-executed, results in a gain for all the team players that
none can accomplish alone, namely, a win.
A freely consummated barter or purchase is a plus-sum game – cooperative,
rule governed, other-contingent and goal oriented – in that each participant gains through the
transaction. If I have more vehicles than I want and my house is in need of
repair, and if my neighbor, a skilled carpenter, needs a car, then a trade
of my car for his labor leaves us both better off. For a sale to take place,
both the buyer and the seller must perceive a personal advantage in the
transaction. Not surprisingly, game theory has attracted the intense
interest of economists.
Science is a
plus-sum game. It is cooperative: an accumulated accomplishment
of millions of working scientists through the centuries. It is
rule-governed: following strict rules of inference and evidence, and
requirements of publicity, replicability and falsifiability. And it is
oriented toward the goal of establishing verifiable truth.
A well-ordered society is also a plus-sum game, whereby capital, labor,
education and government function cooperatively according to mutually
acknowledged and enforceable rules (i.e., laws and regulations) in pursuit
of common goals. These common goals are clearly articulated in the Preamble
to the United States Constitution: justice, domestic tranquility, common
defense, general welfare, and “the blessings of liberty.”
Each institutional “player” in a successful “plus-sum game” of a just
economic/political order needs the cooperative efforts of the other players
if that society is to accomplish, in John Rawls’s words, “a better life for
all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts.”
In contrast, a libertarian (unregulated “free market”) economy is minus-sum
game in the extreme: few winners, a great many losers. As we are discovering
in the United States today.
Many non-competitive sporting activities are also plus-sum games, including
mountain climbing, sailing, and tandem (two person) canoeing, all of which
require well coordinated “team play” to achieve a well-defined goal.
A personal example: I am a life-long aficionado of white-water boating (in
kayaks and canoes). Well before I acquired much experience and skill in this
sport, I persuaded my brother to run a swift Utah river with me in his new
canoe. Each of us had independent ideas as to how to maneuver the thing. In
short, two captains and no crew. Rock straight ahead? Bow wants to go
right, and stern wants to go left. It was a near disaster. As any tandem
canoeist will tell you, a successful river run (a plus sum) can only be
accomplished with an ability to “read the water” and to execute coordinated
paddle strokes according to unambiguous decisions by the designated
“captain.” Similarly with successful team climbs and sailing cruises.
"Autocracy?" Perhaps. So the team may choose switch command from
time to time. But with a rock approaching dead ahead, this is no time
for discussion.
The Virtues as Plus-Sum:
Time now to assess my contention that a moral order in society is a plus sum
game. Consider the usual roster of moral virtues: honesty, trustworthiness,
courage, compassion, charity, loyalty and,
perhaps
most fundamentally, empathy – the capacity to share another’s joy and to
feel another’s pain. Is it not abundantly obvious that the more virtuous
the members of a society, the greater the plus-sum “payoffs” of social
life? Economic transactions would be conducted with full knowledge and
confidence, with no “inefficient” losses due to default, deceptive
advertising, or fraudulent contracts. Marriages would be secure and
enduring. Government officials could be expected to serve their
constituents, free of bribery and corruption. In a community of optimally
trustworthy, compassionate, tolerant and generous individuals, there would
be no need to invest community resources in police, criminal courts and
prisons.
Such a consideration led James Madison to conclude that “if men were angels,
no government would be necessary.” (The Federalist, 51). Regarding
the codification and enforcement of criminal law, Madison was no doubt
correct. Even so, his pronouncement is an overstatement, for even in a
society of angels, some government would be necessary. For example, there
would have to be traffic laws, no matter how virtuous the drivers, if
traffic were to move safely and efficiently. Once the traffic lights fail,
the freedom to move is obliterated in the resulting chaos. In general, if a
game is to be played successfully – including the “game” of
economic/political activity – the players must know the rules, even if there
is total assurance that no one will cheat and thus there is no need whatever
to enforce the rules with the threat of penalties.
There are, to be sure, some traditional “virtues” that contribute little to
the mutual advantages of community life. David Hume called these “the
monkish virtues,” and they include celibacy, fasting, penance,
mortification, self-denial, silence and solitude. Of these, Hume observed:
“they serve to no manner of purpose; neither advance a man’s fortune in the
world, nor render him a more valuable member of society...” (Enquiry
Concerning Morals, IX:1) With Hume, I conclude that these traits
scarcely qualify a “virtues” at all, but rather are the consequences of
“superstition and false religion.”
The Vices as Minus-Sum:
In contrast, moral vices subvert and stifle the mutual advantages of social
life, which, I contend, is precisely why they are vices. Foremost among
these are pride, cruelty, ruthlessness, hatred, prejudice, dishonesty,
selfishness, greed. Add to these “an absence of empathy” which,
as I have argued
elsewhere, may be the most fundamental of the vices.
Each of these vices shred the fabric of an orderly society, as they make
cooperation impossible or even counter-productive, as they undermine rules,
and as they subvert the pursuit of common goals. In a society of liars,
contracts can not be made. When prejudice and hatred prevail, all citizens
can not be equal before the law. A representative republic can not endure if
public officials can not be trusted. And an ideology that prizes selfishness
and greed cannot be the foundation of a flourishing economic/political
system.
The Inevitable Failure of Libertarianism as a Social Theory:
I most emphatically do not wish to suggest that libertarians are wicked
people. Many libertarians that I know personally, and others that I know by
reputation, are as tolerant, unbiased, generous and charitable as any
liberal, and even more so than some liberals of my acquaintance. Some
libertarians are so tolerant that
they invite me
and other liberals to publish in their journals and participate in their
conferences.
However, as libertarians, they believe that the promotion of these virtues
is no business of the government. Charity and tolerance, they insist, are
and must remain, private virtues. To the libertarian, a voluntary
contribution to the poor or to a school, museum or park is morally
commendable. But taxation in support of welfare, education, museums and
parks is theft. As for cruelty, ruthlessness and dishonesty, these
vices are regarded by the libertarians as self-defeating and, when exposed
in practice, these vices fail in a free market and in the unregulated
association of free individuals. Any vices that constrain the fundamental
“negative” rights of life, liberty and property, can legitimately
be sanctioned and punished by the “minimalist” libertarian government.
Even so, despite any private virtues of individual libertarians, as a public
political philosophy libertarianism is morally inadequate. In practice, it
will produce minus-sum consequences.
Consider once again, our criteria of a plus-sum game: a cooperative,
rule-governed, other-contingent, goal directed activity aimed toward accomplishing mutual
advantage.
Libertarian doctrine drops the cooperation criterion of gamesmanship
in favor of “YOYO” – "you’re on your own." The libertarian dogma of “the
invisible hand” decrees that a collection of self-serving individuals
seeking only to maximize their own personal freedom and wealth, will
somehow, by “spontaneous generation,” evolve into an optimum social
arrangement. No explicit rules and regulations are required apart
from those laws designed to achieve the goal of the protection of the
lives, liberties and property of each individual.
It is a neat and simple belief system which, unfortunately, neither history
nor practical experience will validate. Instead, history has taught us that
when a society officially embraces what Ayn Rand calls “the virtue of
selfishness” and greed becomes the controlling force in community life,
wealth and power do not “trickle down” to the masses, they “percolate up” to
those in control, leaving those masses impoverished and disenfranchised.
Government, having been “drowned in a bathtub,” offers no relief to the
oppressed. “The free market” and “competitive enterprise,” extolled by the
libertarians in theory, are set aside in practice. The prevailing
capitalists regard competition as inefficient and inconvenient, and still
worse, the constant competitive pressure to improve and innovate erodes
profits. Hence mergers and acquisitions. Say goodbye to Mom and Pop stores
and Downtown, USA. Say hello to Wall-Mart, Costco and Home Depot. Say
goodbye to a free and diverse media. Say hello to the new “Ministry of
Truth:” six media mega-corporations in control of 80% of the nation’s media,
spewing out the official doctrines of “the free market” and “government is
the problem.”
How, then, are diversity, free markets and competition to be preserved? How
else than through the intervention of anti-trust laws, which means an
activist government, which, of course, is anathema to the
libertarian.
The eventual result? “Life, liberty and property” for the privileged few,
with poverty and servitude for all the rest. A minus-sum game.
“You are on your own” does not work with tandem canoeing, nor with a social
order. Without cooperative effort, without commonly acknowledged rules
sanctioned and enforced by law, and without shared goals, a society cannot
succeed.
Liberty and Autonomy in a Plus-Sum Society.
“What you are describing,” replies the libertarian, “is the ‘order’ of a bee
hive or of an ant colony. Pure communism. Not a place where I would want to
live. How can personal liberty and autonomy thrive in your ‘cooperative
venture for mutual advantage’?”
A wise answer was told to me by a Russian
friend, a professor at Moscow University, during the “cowboy capitalism”
days following the collapse of Soviet communism. “Under communism,” she
observed, “we had order without freedom. Then we had freedom without order,
only to discover that without order, there is no freedom.”
The libertarian and the liberal concur in their desire to maximize personal
liberty. However, the libertarian advocates freedom without order – without,
that is, an institutional structure that will ensure freedom for all. Absent
such a structure, liberty, like wealth, will “percolate up” to those in
charge, “with liberty for
some," leaving the masses with nothing but their squalor and oppression.
The liberal, on the other hand, strives to establish and maintain the
social, economic and political order without which there is no freedom. The
liberal understands that the economic output and the civil liberties of a
society are the products of the joint contributions of all members of
society – of the plus-sum cooperative, rule governed, other-contingent, and goal oriented
efforts of all. Because no social order operates without some “friction,”
there are inevitably victims of social and economic misfortune: the
unemployed, the bankrupt, the abandoned. Add to these, the victims of
natural misfortunes – accidents, disease, birth defects, earthquakes,
hurricanes, tornados, etc.
Voluntary charity to these unfortunates, as advocated by the libertarians,
is commendable. But it is insufficient. Good for the souls of the
charitable, but not very helpful to those in need. There are just too many
of them. Moreover, voluntary charity is a “tax on virtue,” as are private
donations to education, museums, libraries, concerts and parks. Most
citizens correctly reflect, “I might contribute, but even if I do, my one
contribution will not abolish poverty and ignorance, nor will it add
significantly to civic excellence.” To accomplish these common benefits, all
must contribute through taxes. And with this understanding, most enlightened
citizens will pay their taxes willingly, as they likewise support
legislation designed to relieve suffering and to promote the common good.
"Taxes," wrote Judge Oliver Wendell
Holmes, "are the price we pay for civilization" -- the very civilization
that is prerequisite to any and all personal wealth. Accordingly, it is not
unjust to require the beneficiaries of civilization to share in the burden
of its maintenance. However, there may be justifiable reasons to complain
about the distribution of this burden.
“Necessitous men are not free men,” FDR
observed in 1936. The liberal realizes, as the libertarian does not, that if
personal liberty is to be maximized in society, it is not enough merely to
guarantee the life, liberty and property of each individual.
The social contract of a just community
also requires that if the citizens are to enjoy “the blessings of liberty,”
the pre-conditions of liberty must be attended to: namely, public education,
economic opportunity, equal opportunity, the protection of common resources,
and the promotion of civic institutions.
As the English conservative, Edmund Burke observed:
[Society is] a partnership in every
virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot
be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only
between those who are living, but between those who are living, those
who are dead and those who are to be born.
Copyright 2010 by Ernest Partridge
**For more about game theory and the "plus-sum" nature of a
just society, see Chapter 5 ("Good
for Each, Bad for All" ) and Chapter 6 ("The
Moral Point of View") of my book in progress,
Conscience of a
Progressive.
