If You Hate Your Job, Embrace Capitalism

Marx writes, “In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

However, by making you significantly richer, a capitalist society does a much better job of enabling you to hunt in the morning and criticize after dinner than a non-capitalist society. Ironically, though, you have to cut way back on your consumption to make this happen. But if you’re willing to save 50-70 percent of your income, there’s a good chance you can retire in your 30s or 40s and spend your time doing whatever you want. So capitalism allows you to achieve the flexibility that Marx dreams of—you just need to buy a lot less (which, if you reject consumer culture, should be pretty easy) and save a lot more.

The Intuitive, Presumptive Wrong of Interference

The Mercatus Center held a book forum on In Defense of Openness (IDoO) with Anna Stilz, Kit Wellman, and James Witte as respondents. I'll post the podcast when available. 

Our main strategy in the first few chapters of IDoO is to argue that there is an extremely strong presumption in favor of free trade and open borders. We then look at and defeat objections which try to override this presumption.

We start by using modification of Michael Huemer's starvin' Marvin case, which goes roughly as follows:

Imagine Starvin' Marvin is starving. He will starve unless he makes a trade with some people. Fortunately, there are people in a market who want to buy what he sells. But suppose Bob shows up with armed guards and forbids those people and Marvin from trading. As a result, Marvin dies.

Here it looks like you have done something really evil and wrong. You don't have to be a libertarian to agree. 

In response, Stilz said:

For one thing, the case is ambiguous: it’s not obvious that what is salient here is that Marvin is prevented from making a trade with a willing partner, rather than the fact that he is placed into a scenario in which he must starve and die.  Most people agree that it is wrong to leave people with no option but to starve.  But note that there are many ways to prevent starvation (we might give people a right to economic exchange, we might give them a universal basic income, we might give them land on which to grow food, and so on).  So how do our intuitions about starvation support strong rights of free exchange?

That's right on it's own as a response to this one example, but it's a problematic response overall for a few reasons.

1. We anticipated this point in the book. Accordingly, we included number of alternative cases where the stakes are lower. It still seems wrong, indeed, awful and rotten, to interfere even if the stakes are lower. Imagine Marvin will merely remain poor. Or imagine Bas is literally indifferent between eating at Denny's or Perkins, but I show up with a gun and order him to pick Perkins. Here, I have treated Bas very wrongly, even though he is indifferent between the two outcomes. The wrong of interference comes not merely the welfare loses from interference, but from the interference itself. We don't even have to posit that Bas has a "right to choose where to eat" to explain why this such an evil way to treat him.

Indeed, if you have a theory which says, "When Bas is indifferent between A and B, it's ok to threaten to force him to choose B with state violence," I'd regard that as a reductio of your theory. The fact that your theory says that means your theory is false. (If you had some good reason to threaten him, that's different, but it'd better be a mean good reason. See below.)

2. Regarding Stilz's own solution, imagine that when Starvin' Marvin shows up, I once again post armed guards and forbid him from making a willing, consensual, mutually beneficial trade with others. But suppose I offer him a sandwich and care package, plus I give the willing trading partners some cash, too. Here, it nevertheless seems that I wrong him badly. Threatening him with armed guards and violently stopping adults from interacting with each other who want to do so seems very wrong, even if I make the payments so high as to be equal to the welfare gains from trade. I had better have a damn good reason for treating them this way. Not just any old reason will do.

It's of course scary and frightening to have armed guards who threaten people with violence. This is more analogous to the real world--there are indeed armed men who will attack you at the border or track you down and attack you inside the country. Indeed, even US citizens such as I have to interact with armed, mean Border Patrol agents when driving on various highways in the US. But you imagine that the interfaces is done magically instead. Suppose I cast a magic spell which simply prevents Bas from ever going to Perkins. He would rightly be pissed even though by hypothesis he has other alternatives that are as good.

So, there is a strong presumption in favor of not treating people like this. This presumption can be overridden or defeated if one can show that there are other hidden moral or welfare costs to allowing such trades, but the presumption must be overcome.

3. Overcoming the presumption is difficult, not easy, as Stilz suggests. Consider some things that would not justify this kind of violence or interference: You can't forbid Marvin from trading because you feel like it, because you dislike his race or religion, because he listens to the wrong music, because you want to use video footage for a documentary you're making, as a form of performance art, because some of the neighbors dislike it when people trade, or because some other people want to trade with Marvin's potential partners and hate the competition. You can't say, "I want to stop Marvin from trading because I am worried that it will reduce the income of the very rich by a slight amount for a short time." None of these look like good justifications. So the presumption seems very strong, not weak.

4. It's worth noting--and I did note--that even Rawls agrees. (Stilz is, I think, a kind of Rawlsian.) Rawls things there are very strong rights to be able to live where you want, to take a job you want (subject to reasonable regulation and licensing in special cases), and so on....but only within one country. But Rawls has close to zero argument at all for restricting this to one country.  

Resisting The Mask Mandates

After acquiescing to wearing a mask upon entering the grocery store on more than one occasion, I decided I am no longer going to do it. The first time I encountered a store request to wear a mask was when I went with my daughter to Costco. My daughter is 21 months old. I wasn’t expecting it. I didn’t want to not get to shop, so I wore it. The look on my daughter’s face was one I never want to see again. She looked part confused, part scared. She didn’t understand why she couldn’t see my face. And she seemed to be upset about it too. This is, I think, the proper reaction to have. I told myself then and there that I would not take her to a shop again if masks were required (and I haven’t). But I have shopped again at Costco. And I have worn a mask that they provided me upon entry again (I don’t have my own mask and I have no plans to get one). Another local grocery store started to “require” masks and I found myself agreeing to wear one when I shopped.

Each time I have worn a mask, I have felt a deep sense that I am doing something wrong. I have told myself that I will wear one because I simply don’t want the hassle of an altercation… or because I am in a hurry and I just want to get the groceries and get home, but I know none of these are good enough reasons. I know that mask wearing doesn’t feel right because I am obeying a command for no other reason than I am being commanded. I don’t believe mask wearing helps the spread in the way that it is now claimed to (you may recall that in the early covid days, people were advised not to wear masks). The science on mask wearing is sketchy. No one should be breathing in their own CO2 and bacteria. I am not stating that there is no effectiveness whatsoever in wearing a mask, but rather that wearing a mask is, all-things-considered, not necessary. 

Beyond this, I think we should all be deeply troubled about the dehumanizing aspect of mask-wearing. By wearing a mask, you no longer get to interact with other humans in a normal way. You cannot read each other’s facial expressions and you are deprived of being able to share a smile as you pass each other by. This is no small thing. Humans read emotion and behavior by being able to see each other’s faces. We are altering our social dynamics at a fundamental level and people don’t seem to be worried about it in the least. It is also very difficult to hear any person trying to talk with a mask on. Most of the time, at least one of you has to repeat yourself in order for the other person to hear. On top of all this, the use of widespread mask use communicates the idea that we are all dangerous and to be feared. Who knows who is infected? You had better keep your distance… You had better stay home… Except people don’t. People strap on their masks and they go out out into the world ready to admonish their fellow humans if they dare not wear a mask. Apparently, those who choose to wear a mask have taken it upon themselves to condemn the rest of us. Which is another reason people should be weary of the mask mandates—it is turning us against each other. People are shouting at those not wearing masks and even calling the police on them (this happened to a friend of mine while visiting the beach in WA… before there was even a state mandate to wear one). What in the world is going on here? 

The dehumanizing aspect of wearing the mask is troubling for adults, but it is absolutely unforgivable when applied to children. Adults have had the benefit of growing up in a world where they developed interpersonal skills in a normal way. By being able to get close to other people and see their faces. Children who are required to wear a mask and exist in a world in which everyone around them are wearing them are deprived of normal human interaction. This is happening while they are developing their sense of self and learning how to interact with other humans. But everywhere they go they cannot see anyone’s face properly. And the reason they are told that they can’t see people’s faces and why they have to cover their own is because there is this lethal virus out there and there is no way to know who has it. Imagine what this is doing to their psychological development. Being raised to be fearful of other humans… to be fearful of their friends. I am told that parents tell their children that they are just doing “their part”. But what does this even mean to a child? Their part to … stop spreading a virus they might have… to “protect” others…? Parents should not be normalizing mask wearing to their children. At best, if parents feel compelled to make their children wear masks and take them places where everyone else is wearing them, they should be teaching them that it is not normal and it should be temporary. It is one thing to follow the mandate for pragmatic reasons, it is another to support the mandate for idealogical reasons and teach these reasons to your child. 

I can’t help but wonder about the mask wearers who have gone to some length to obtain a personalized mask. I find the desire to express your individuality while conforming to a rule (law?) that should have everyone skeptical rather disturbing. I know it is more likely that a person is thinking if I *have* to wear a mask, I might as well make it one I like. But I think this is the wrong attitude to take to the mask mandates. I think it is an indication that people are too comfortable being obedient. It also appears to signal an idealogical embrace of wearing the mask. All of this normalizing of the mask mandate is very troubling. Where is the resistance? Why are people so comfortable wearing a mask when the science is sketchy and the virus is nowhere near dangerous enough to justify this level of infringement on our freedom? It would be one thing if covid was like the virus seen in Contagion. But I don’t think you’d even need laws at that point. No one would be risking leaving their house to pick up some milk. You wouldn’t just put on your mask and slather on the sanitizer. You’d be in self-isolation and barricading your house off.

So I decided I had had enough. I wasn’t going to wear a mask if the store required it. None of the reasons I had told myself were sufficient to lose a part of myself each time I went to the grocery store. So the other day, I went to the grocery store and I didn’t wear a mask. And you know what? I felt free. I felt like I had done right by myself. I felt like I was communicating to everyone in the store that they don’t have to wear a mask either. I am certain that most people didn't interpret my lack of mask wearing that way, and that some people were upset seeing me without a mask, but not one person confronted me about it.

I am sure that most of what I have wrote will strike a lot of people as insensitive and callous. Some may even think my decision to not wear a mask is “killing people”. It isn’t, but I am also fairly sure that the media has done such an excellent job of scaring the beejeesus out of everyone that nothing I could respond with would convince them otherwise. 

I have wrote this post because I am genuinely worried about what is happening to humanity in response to a virus, that while deadly in some small amount of cases, is nowhere near harmful enough to justify the violations to our individual liberty and the complete economic shutdown of the economy (why is a liquor store considered “essential” but not a small, family-owned restaurant?). And maybe, someone out there will read this and it will resonate. Maybe it will give them the strength to resist and reclaim their freedom. Maybe if enough of us do it, the government and businesses will have no choice but to repeal their mask mandates or “conditions of entry”. And maybe… we can get back to a place where people smile at each other at the store and don’t try and have people arrested for going to the beach with their kids.