Philosophical Issues in Economics

TAWNEY

Liberty _principle (or principle liberty): Tawney defines liberty as implying the ability to do or refrain from doing definite things. He is concerned with the basic needs (emphasising education, healthcare and security) and special needs (for example, for the disabled) that people should have access to (as discussed below in relation to equality _{extended opp.}).³⁹ To protect these basic needs Tawney emphasises the need of, what he refers to as, principle liberties (liberty _principle). Liberty _principle needs to be made accessible to all as formal liberties by means of laws, as well as usable so that people can exercise these liberties when needed. Principle liberties comprise the principles most states are based upon and include in their constitution (Tawney 1964:227).

In contrast, secondary liberties are less crucial and can be extended or restricted depending on the circumstances since “Enlargement of general liberty involves the curtailment of such particular [secondary] liberties as may conflict with it” (Tawney 1964:283).

Equality _{extended opp.} (or extended equality of opportunity): Tawney’s definition of equality of opportunity is similar to that of the Friedmans but does consider class, economic, and social position to be actual obstacles that can limit or enhance an individual’s ability to act. He believes that in so far social arrangements can achieve it, everyone should have equal opportunity to enjoy a worthwhile life (Tawney 1964:122). To achieve this Tawney promotes a society that communally provides welfare services by pooling surplus resources by means of taxation (Tawney 1964:122). Tawney is not promoting a system in which a society’s national income is equally distributed between every member. People are inherently different in character and capacity. The aim should therefore not be for everyone to do or to receive the same but should be towards a system, which confers to each according to ones basic needs.
Liberty _principle and Equality _{extended opp.}
Just as the Friedmans realise that liberty _formal is an unattainable goal, Tawney realises that achieving absolute equality _{extended opp.} is as well, but believes that society should aim to achieve the most equality _{extended opp.} as possible. The more equality _{extended opp.} in society, the more conditions are satisfied to provide usable freedoms, thus equality _{extended opp.} promotes liberty _principle (Tawney 1964:164).
Tawney realises that by promoting equality _{extended opp.} some people’s secondary liberties will be restricted. But supports this since more people will gain access to liberty _principle that they previously only enjoyed in the form of formal liberty. A society that would not promote equality _{extended opp.} as their main goal would promote inequality, according to Tawney, since mobility is inhibited in a society that enables some to have ‘privileged’ liberties and others to only have formal liberties. Such a situation intensifies inequalities and inhibits others access to their basic or special needs. Tawney therefore asserts that “A large measure of equality, so far from being inimical to liberty, is essential to it” (Tawney 1964:168).

The Friedmans and Tawney

It may have appeared from the two quotations referred to in the title of this essay that Tawney and the Friedmans are disucssing the same concepts but the above shows how both maintain distinct definitions of liberty and equality and the different implications they have on society. In response to the Friedman’s system Tawney would reply that “freedom for the pike is death for the minnows” (Tawney 1964:164). And the Friedmans in response to Tawney’s view might question who and how one could make distinctions between principle and secondary liberties without granting a group with an disproportionate amount of power. Thus, the Friedmans might reply that Tawney forgets that in their system ‘all minnows can become a pike (which might however look more like a large minnow lacking the pike’s predatory behaviour)’.

In response Tawney could remind the Friedmans that to promote liberty _formal, they too have decided what interferes with someones liberty _formal, hence protecting peoples right to liberty _formal by means of government intervention. Using the Friedmans own words, “If some are denied access to particular positions in life for which they are qualified simpily because of their ethnic background, colour, or religion that is an interference with their right to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’ (Friedmans 1980: 132), Tawney might ask how class, economic, or social position could not be considered interferences? The Friedmans assert that they can be overcome, but can they in reality? Are they not essentially contrary to liberty _formal, exactly what the Friedmans ideal society would put first?

Returning to Berlin’s initial discussion

How would their diverging views affect the education system? Tawney argues that equality _{extended opp.} in the sphere of education means equal opportunity for everyone to develop his or her abilities to the fullest (Tawney 1964:122). Education can therefore play an important role in achieving complete equality _{extended opp.}. Tawney therefore supports a system that maintains a graduated taxation system, benefiting the poorest most by, for example providing them with equal opportunity to educate their children to the same extent as the rich (Tawney 1964: 234-35).

On the face of it the Friedmans would not claim to want to achieve anything significantly different. According to them, everyone should have equal opportunity to education and each parent should have the liberty _formal to choose the type of school they prefer on basis of its quality and price (Friedmans 1980:156). For some this would mean that they might not be able to afford private education but this could be overcome by personal effort. Hence, Tawney’s suggestion would be limiting some people’s liberty in the Friedmans’ perspective.⁴⁰
Berlin asserts that it is permanent characteristic of human nature to have to choose and sacrifice some ultimate values for others (Berlin1969:1i). Tawney does this, sacrificing secondary liberties for the sake of achieving principle liberties, made usable by promoting equality _{extended opp.}. By promoting equality _{limited opp.}, the Friedmans have implicitly chosen to only regard birth, nationality, colour, religion, and sex as characteristics that could and should not prevent people from achieving the positions in life their talents allow for and they choose, hence liberty _formal. The Friedmans definition of liberty _formal however, leaves room to argue that other characteristics should be taken into account, such as class, economic, and social position because they in effect interfere with some people’s ability to choose, as critics have put forward in the education example. Hence, the Friedmans equality _{limited opp}. can be argued to be in opposition with actual liberty _formal. It is clear that the definitions of the type of liberty and equality that is going to be supported and protected in a society need to be unambiguous, to ensure that the two do not conflict with one another. And as Sen eloquently states and as this essay has illustrated, “Liberty is among the possible fields of applications of equality and equality is among the possible patterns of distribution of liberty”(Sen 1995:22-3).