mdsinclair

Last week’s edition of The Ellsworth American included a commentary by Peter Sly proposing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. At the end of today’s session, we identified this as a possible topic for next week’s meeting, if Peter is able to join us then (or if not, at a later meeting) and tell us more about how he sees this working.

At various times during sessions of Beyond Labels, we’ve discussed (explicitly or implicitly) the concept of “liberty”. In 1859, John Stuart Mill published a short book entitled “On Liberty”, in which he gave his definition of liberty. There are many other definitions, of course, but Mill’s definition had a big impact when he published it and continues to echo today.

We could discuss this, if anyone wants to, at any time since I don’t think it’s time-sensitive.

This is a summary of Mill’s definition, from his introduction to “On Liberty”, Penguin English Library (1984), pp. 68-69:

“The purpose of this essay is to assert one very simple principle as to the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion or control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of anyone for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, as of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

Mill goes on to list some exceptions to this general rule, including the following:

• It applies only to mature human beings, not to children or minors (as determined by law)
• It does not apply to societies that are “in their nonage” (i.e. primitive or immature}. Mills writes: “Despotism is a legitimate form of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement and the means justified by actually effecting that end.”
• Society may compel people to perform “positive” acts for the benefit of others, such as to give evidence in court, or to participate in the common defense or in “any other joint work necessary to the interest of … society.”
• Society may compel any of its members to “perform certain acts of individual beneficence”, such as saving another person’s life or intervening to protect another person from “ill usage”.

The following are some questions we could discuss:

1. Is Mill’s general rule correct?
2. What’s left of Mill’s general rule once the exceptions are applied?
3. Are there any other exceptions to Mill’s general rule?
4. Are Mill’s general rule and exceptions reflected in American government and society today? Should they be? If not, why not?

After last Monday’s session ended, I suggested to Scott that we discuss the proper purposes of the federal government. An opinion piece in today’s New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/27/opinion/elon-musk-industrial-policy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.kk4.vx7n.2Ag_Jo35qjd5&smid=url-share) made me think we could address a.narrow slice of that question:

Does (and should) the federal government make “investments”?

I won’t be there on 30 December since I’ll be helping to make soup for the Simmering Pot that morning, so maybe we could discuss this topic on 6 January.

To answer these questions, I think we’d need to address other questions, including the following:

What is an “investment”? Is the definition the same for the federal government as it is for the private sector? If not, how do the definitions vary, and why?

Have some federal government expenditures in the past been “investments” ( e.g., the Louisiana Purchase; the purchase of Alaska; the Erie Canal; the Panama Canal; the space program, to the extent it generated spin-offs like communications, weather, GPS, and other satellite programs; funding for medical research or development of the internet; the national highway program; the air traffic control system; military spending on drones, radar, and other technologies; tax subsidies and credits to mitigate climate change; funding for social safety net programs like food stamps; etc.). If some of these have not been “investments, why not and what were they?

What recent federal government expenditures that were labeled as “investments” were actually not investments? If not, why not and what were they?

Should the federal government articulate an “investment” policy? If so, what should it be?

Should the federal government only make “investments” that the private sector would not make on its own? How should that determination (a “but for” test) be made?

How should the federal government determine whether its “investments” have been “successful”?