THE VALUE OF A BAG OF ICE

I had occasion to be reminded the other day that I lived through an event that garnered national attention, at least at the time.  I lived in South Florida when Hurricane Andrew hit. We almost lost our roof and the aftermath, dealing with shortages, no electricity, and contending with homeowners’ insurance and a mortgage company, were memorable (nightmarish?) and I can say that I am glad it all ended a long time ago.  No, I am not seeking any recognition or sympathy; a lot of people experience such events – nothing special in the grand scheme of things – but the memory did bring up an issue of justice.

As we experienced the shortages after the storm, price gouging became a factor.  Actually, my wife and I were extremely lucky.  The contractor who ended up working on our home’s repairs literally just knocked on our front door.  He and his crew were from up state and they had recently hit town looking for work and were trying to take advantage of the devastation.  He offered a deal: he would give us a favorable rate and, in exchange, we would let people know about him.  We said that we would, but that we would be completely honest in our account of our arrangement with him and about the quality of the repairs.[1]  And so it was.  But not everyone was so lucky and, as is usually the case, talk around town soon revolved, to some degree, about outlawing gouging.  Actually, my understanding is that Florida does have some laws against gouging.  While I was concerned about what things might cost with shortages, I had taken enough economics courses in college to know that high prices invite high supplies which leads to lower – even lower than initial – prices.  That is the irony policy makers need to account for when contemplating laws or regulations involving price gouging.  But there is another aspect to this.  Michael Sandel[2] comments that price gouging not only hits our pocketbooks, but it also offends our notion of what is right and moral.  Price gouging is probably seen as lacking virtue.  To feel and believe that presupposes a sense for what is virtuous and moral.  And when we demand or, at least, argue for government to step in and restrict the practice, we are asking government to reflect a particular moral stand.  And that latter stand verges on what I wrote about in the last posting:  should the state, the government, promote a particular moral stand; should it foist on us someone’s view of what is right?

What makes capitalism so conducive to a natural rights perspective of governance and politics is that it is practically value free.  Its only claim to a value is to value individuals’ right to determine their own value positions.  And as such, under conditions of shortages, each person is free to determine what value he/she will put on any product or service and that includes things like ice in August in South Florida when hardly anyone has electricity.  But yet, and this feeling increases exponentially when the person is one of these householders, it just seems unjust for some to charge ten or twenty dollars for that bag of ice.  Then, all of our often proclamations for liberty are sorely tested.  It just doesn’t seem right for a neighbor, a fellow citizen, to take advantage of one who is victimized by the forces of nature.

I would argue that it is here that the tension between a federalist view and a natural rights (liberal) view comes into sharp focus.  Being a federalist myself, I have strongly mixed feelings about these opposing views of justice and virtue.  I readily think government – in the non-foisting fashion I described in the last posting – should promote a view of virtue and justice.  This blog has gone into great detail about what that view should be.  But even I and I suspect those who agree with the general tenor of this blog share to a degree ambivalence over this central and foundational disagreement:  to what extent should government promote a particular view of virtue and justice?  I will return to this question.

---

[1] Let me add for the benefit of those who find themselves in such a situation, we did check out the contractor.  My wife made many a call.

[2] Sandel, M. J.  (2009).  Justice:  What’s the right thing to do?  New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

NO FOISTING GOING ON HERE

Does a republic foist community on a person?  That is, does living in a true republic, as opposed to a liberal polity,[1] a means by which communal arrangements are expected and even insisted upon by government?  Richard C. Sinopoli[2] presents an argument that alludes to a view of republics as just that kind of place.  His approach, I believe, is a bit mischievous.  He begins by claiming that the founding fathers of our republic were not so community minded as recent historical revisionist work makes them out to be.  He quotes Cass R. Sunstein:  “It is no longer possible to see a Lockean consensus in the founding period, or to treat the framers as modern pluralists believing that self-interest is the inevitable motivating force behind political behavior.”[3]  Sinopoli counters this view by citing how much the founders were concerned with the ability of the individual to protect him/herself from the whims of the majority both through the delineation of rights and their much focused concern for the protection of property.  Through this analysis, it seems to become clear that Sinopoli is making his case for liberalism – natural rights perspective[4] – as the preferred general construct by which to view our constitution, governance, and politics.

My argument in this blog has been that the natural rights view enables an anomic populous.  There is a virtual literature of sociological and political research that supports the general description of an American citizenry characterized by self-centered concerns, narcissistic biases, and very low levels of political involvement.  The last national election, for example, was able to attract only about one-third of the electorate to vote.  Sinopoli argues that while the US is a liberal polity, it does engage in a full range of discussions and debates over a host of issues; that liberalism does not by its nature preclude citizens from being so engaged.  But such observations do not pass judgment on how extensive such engagement is or the quality of the discussions.  He admits that liberal polities do not encourage much participation and describes what involvement the citizens partake in is more in the form of interest-group intercourse which is aimed at advancing those interests.

This blog has not argued for a foisted community.  What it has encouraged is a civics curriculum in our schools that holds community as a general goal – more as an ideal than a policy of promotion.  It has stated that this can be done by arranging lessons that have students ponder issues and specific social and political problems in which their underlying tensions are caused or affected by the affront the issues or problems have on federalist/republican values.  Those values are summarized by being of two types:  the value for societal survival and the value of progressing toward those societal goals and aims that democratically determined decisions have identified.  Yes, these same objectives can be pursued in a liberal polity, but are they?

Let’s consider one issue:  climate change.  Here we have a developing problem, one that promises to be quite costly if not addressed.  It is caused by the consumption of the commodities, fossil fuels, central to our economy and the source of enormous wealth for very influential people.  The problem, we are told by scientists, is already causing significant costs to many.  The current winter could very well be a product of climate change.  What have been the costs this year are hard to calculate.  But since a definite determination cannot be attributed to us spewing carbons into the environment and therefore changing our climate, we officially choose, to date, to deny the connection.  We elect public officials who simply bypass the issue by claiming they are not scientists.  The discussion so far has been reflective of liberal approaches:  everyone is merely looking out for his/her immediate interests.  These might be in the form of the price of oil stocks they own, cheap gas for their cars, their jobs.  Few really look at the general effect the conditions are having on the common good.  And this seems to include a common good that might be centered on the survival of our society.  Under a worse-case scenario, climate change can threaten our very survival as a viable society.

Our history as a federal republic has had its cases of oppressive mores, customs, and even laws.  As I often have stated, the liberalization of our national, cultural mode of being has been more good than bad.  But we have at times gone too far.  We don’t have to love everyone, but we would benefit from understanding that in more ways than many of us want to admit, our common fate is more pervasive than our public policies often assume.  We would be well served to view all of our fellow citizens as partners in trying to fulfill the promise of federalist values.  This is enhanced by a general sense of kinship among us – a mutual loyalty that is based on a common fate.

---

[1] A liberal polity is one in which community is not seen as an a priori goal.  See footnote # 4.

[2] Sinopoli, R. C.  (1992).  The foundations of American citizenship:  Liberalism, the constitution, and civic virtue.  New York, NY:  Oxford University Press.

[3] Ibid., p. 25.

[4] By liberalism, I am referring in this posting to the political philosophy that promotes individual rights that include the right to determine what course of action one takes in life as long as one does not inhibit the same such right of others.  I am not referring to the general political orientation that is leftist and associated with the positions of the Democratic Party.  As a matter of fact, the liberalism I am writing about is more associated with conservative politics or libertarian political positions and is more readily associated, but exclusively, with the positions of the Republican Party.