Classical liberalism #7: What authority should government have over our actions? | Peter Jaworski

Classical liberalism #7: What authority should government have over our actions? Watch the newest video from Big Think: https://bigth.ink/NewVideo Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: https://bigth.ink/Edge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In classical liberal philosophy, voluntary action says the scope of legitimate government authority is extremely narrow. While not all classical liberals agree on immigration policy, the question remains: What right does a government have to stop someone from moving to another country should they so choose? As an immigrant, himself, Georgetown University professor Peter Jaworski invites us to consider the freest countries in the world and examine the economic freedom and civil liberties their citizens enjoy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETER JAWORSKI: Peter Jaworski is an Associate Teaching Professor teaching ethics at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. He is the co-author of “Markets without Limits” (with Jason Brennan), and has been published in Ethics, Philosophical Studies, The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, amongst others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT: PETER JAWORSKI: Voluntary action is about peaceful interrelationships between persons. There's a broader question about voluntary action which has to do with whether or not all of our actions are voluntary. Other related questions, for example, if I'm in the middle of a hurricane and the hurricane forces me to go somewhere then in a sense my actions are not voluntary. They are forced. Plenty of classical liberals have opinions about whether or not we have free will or whether or not our actions are predetermined by other facts. Nevertheless when classical liberals talk about voluntary action they're talking about interpersonal relationships. They're talking about the authority and legitimacy of government, of governments everywhere to be able to make people do what they don't want to do. Voluntary action says that the scope of legitimate government authority is extremely narrow. We should maximize or at least try to have as much as possible voluntary interactions with people, and that applies to government just as surely as it applies to what we do with our friends and our neighbors. It's worth looking at the countries around the world that are considered the freest. So I'm thinking about countries like Norway, countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia. Those countries have incredible economic freedoms. They're in the top ten for economic freedom. And you'll notice that those countries do better with respect to wealth, with respect to health, even with respect to self-reported happiness scores. They do this annual survey about people's happiness, and people report that they are happier in those countries. And not only are those countries more economically free than some of the other countries in the world, they also have greater civil liberties, as well. And both of those types of freedoms – civil liberties, as well as economic freedoms – both instances where we live by the mantra that we should interact peacefully and voluntarily and without making people do what they don't want to do, I think that makes people better off. The founders of the United States Constitution and the founders of Canada as well, I'm Canadian. The founders of Canada, especially former Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, they believed that our interactions ought to be voluntary. And that means significant restrictions on what the government is permitted to do. One thing that's controversial at the moment but is less controversial amongst classical liberals is the extent to which governments can restrict who may immigrate and who may leave. Immigration is the subject of a lot of controversy. But for classical liberals the question that they ask is, what right does a government have to stop somebody who would like to move from one country to another, especially if they're someone in the immigrating country, in the home country, that would like to extend an olive branch or would like to ask that person to come into that country? Immigration is a sensitive topic and not all classical liberals agree with one another on this issue. But just as we don't have a right to tell our neighbors that they can't go and that they can't move to another house or that they can't move from one state to another or one province to another, so too does the government fail to have the right to prevent people from coming here if they so choose. Take me as an example. I was... Read the full transcript at https://ift.tt/2WYAikB