Carte Blanche: When Classical Liberals and Social Justice Liberalism Collide

UNSPLASH/Sushil Nash

The theories of social and economic justice have dominated the political rhetoric of left-wing politicians in America for as long as anyone can remember: civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King have advocated for a universal basic income (UBI), Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty and Great Society, and we now have the critical theory of intersectionality.

The resurgence of Progressivism in the American political discourse has been growing vastly in popularity evidenced by the popularity of individuals such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the social movements of Black Lives Matter. These progressive movements have roots in Marxism, socialism, and liberal egalitarianism, and they have been growing in popularity due to the coverage of historical and modern disparities between black and white communities. 

The idea of disparity has been a driver of history, whether good or bad, but the evils of colonialism, the words of Marx and the Bolshevik Revolution and the everlasting debate over the meaning of justice. How do we address this everlasting conflict of disparity and inequality that seems to plague the human condition perpetually? How can someone who favors the principles of individualism and free markets understand a side that considers this unjust? In order to dissect the context of this argument, we must evaluate two classes of thought embattled in modern discourse. 

What we know today as “Liberalism” does not have the same connotation of “Classical Liberalism” that has helped form the backbone of Western philosophy and political ideology. We can trace this classical thought back to the 17th century “Levellers” in England, a middle-class movement that advocated for free trade and free-market principles. Subsequently, thinkers like the 18th-century philosopher, John Locke, was one of the earliest advocates for natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Locke’s words should sound familiar since the founding fathers were greatly influenced by the Englishman whose words had a role in inspiring the American Revolution. Locke is not the only one, but his prominent philosophy of justice under the rule of law was a very common argument among early classical liberals. Combine the theories of Locke and his natural rights, David Hume and his analysis of justice as property rights and Adam Smith’s specialized labor and the “invisible hand” and we can understand the root principles of early Western Capitalism.

Fast forward to the 1960s and we observe the writings of John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, which discussed his theories of end-state justice. Rawls believed that disparity was unjust, and his difference principle justified his assertion that a state should exist to redistribute the wealth of society in order to promote justice and equality. Contrast this worldview with the classical liberal ideas and we can observe the most pervasive conflict on the idea of justice and equality: equal protection under the law versus equality of outcome.

Rawls (obviously there are many others) was a very powerful voice in his time, and his challenge of the false justice of equal protection has been very influential in the rise of redistributive justice in American politics. The ideas of private property and capitalism perpetuate, not eliminate the ideas of disparity and inequality, yet one could argue that the means of creating disparity might be capitalism’s most valuable attribute.

Robert Nozick, an American philosopher, wrote a book equally famous to Rawls’s called Anarchy, State, and Utopia which was a libertarian answer to Rawls’ liberal egalitarianism. Nozick made a very powerful hypothetical to justify the nature of disparity in capitalism.

Imagine the famous basketball player Wilt Chamberlain, a specimen of unique proportions at 7ft tall, immense leaping ability, strength and great skill. Having imagined Wilt, what if a thousand people paid Wilt a dollar to watch him play? Well, Wilt would be a thousand dollars richer, but nobody would really complain about it because they would have enjoyed watching someone accomplish feats nobody else could. 

True capitalism does create a disparity after a transaction, however, it is a disparity that is mutually agreed upon because of the transfer of wealth between two parties. If you really need shoes and a talented shoemaker sells you a pair of loafers, then you will have decreased your overall wealth, but you would have fulfilled a personal desire and a need so that you might be able to walk to your job. 

Of course, human interaction is not this simplistic nor universally humane, but the essence of the mutual transaction is responsible for the creation of new health and innovation that pushes society forward. A writer at the publication Quillette, named Coleman Hughes, wrote an article back in 2018 on the wealth gap in America between Blacks and Whites. 

In his article, he argues that disparity and variation in wealth is a norm across all racial groups and even within racial groups: Jewish people having a 7:1 wealth advantage over Protestants, Asians had the highest median income in the US while both of these communities have suffered persecution in the US. This is not to trivialize or ignore the evil of slavery or Jim Crow that has been a dark stain on American history, but is that the entirety of the story? 

I also don’t want this to seem like I’m simply flaunting racial stereotypes ignorantly: I am a half-black, half-white and I worship at a synagogue. However, one cannot deny the cultural importance of fiscal competence and individual literacy that is valued in the Jewish community. Judaism emphasizes the value of literacy as a requirement since every observant Jew must be well-versed in the Torah at a young age. Furthermore, rabbinical sages such as Maimonides are well-known teachers of prudent commercial practice.

Evaluating only the end result of wealth inequality ignores the greater context by which that equality came about. Hughes, a black man himself, references the income and wealth disparities between blacks originally from the West Indies and blacks with more entrenched American bloodlines with West Indians possessing $12,000 of wealth on average compared to just $8 on average of African Americans.

Hughes’ argument seems to concentrate on the idea that consumer behavior and cultural values are under-discussed aspects of wealth inequality in the US. Of course, we should consider that the US has not always functioned as a free market and seems to deviate from that routinely since the progressive era, so there are instances of the US government promoting inequality outside of the bounds of the free market.

If we simply rectify this disparity and “injustice” by erasing the difference in the financial outcome, how do we achieve it besides ignoring individuals’ right to property that this country was founded upon? The ideals of social justice and distributive justice, while noble in intention could neglect the very rights blacks sought to achieve in America during the Civil Rights movement. 

As the Austrian economist, F.A. Hayek famously stated, “the road to serfdom is paved with good intentions”. Let us not forget the means by which society has become so prosperous, or we might risk destroying the prosperity we all desperately seek.