Content area
Full text
Leland B. Yeager: Ludwig von Mises Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Economics, Department of Economics, Auburn University, Alabama, USA
My assignment has been to review what Ludwig von Mises contributed to understanding problems of nationality in his 1919 book Nation, State and Economy. First I urge some points about related concepts occurring in Mises' discussion.
Freedom
The words "freedom" (or "liberty"; I do not distinguish between those two words here) and "democracy" are often misused. Blanketing different concepts under a single label invites confusion, yet each of these words often turns up with multiple meanings. A reader, Angus Sibley, provided a familiar sort of example in the London Economist of 21 January 1995 (p. 8):"Conflict between freedom and community is inevitable where freedom is simply taken to mean, as it is by Hayek and his disciples, the individual's right not to be imposed upon by others. By itself this right is a negative and self-centred freedom. Compare the view of a leading modern theologian, Father Bernard Haring: "In essence, freedom is the power to do good." Here is a broader and richer concept of freedom that sits better with the basic need for community."
Such a passage arouses my indignation. It is not just woolly-minded but self-righteously and aggressively woolly-minded. Mr Sibley and Father Haring simply define away any conflict, and thus any analysis of possible conflict, between freedom and community, whatever that may be. They interpret freedom as the power to do what is considered good and coherent with the need for community. On this interpretation, when the state prevents an individual from acting in a way thought bad, it is not infringing on his liberty (or his true liberty). How equivocal!
As Mr Sibley obliquely recognizes, several political philosophers (e.g. Hayek, 1960, ch. 1) define a person's freedom as absence of restrictions and compulsions imposed on him by other persons, including agents of the state. This definition conforms pretty well with ordinary language. It permits considering various types and degrees of restriction on freedom. It invites investigating possible clashes among various specific freedoms of different persons and investigating relations between personal freedom and measures to promote equality, say, or to save the environment. Yet Mr Sibley disparages freedom so conceived as "negative and self-centred"....