With a Ph.D. in Rhetoric, Scientific and Technical Communication, my research and writings focus on the Rhetoric of Economics and the Rhetoric of Narrative Design. The question of interest to me is how we “sell” the economic and social theories on which public policy is based. I also study the Economics of Rhetoric, meaning the capital required to engage in persuasive debate via media.
After serving as a visiting teaching professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business, I decided to complete a Master of Fine Arts in Film and Digital Technology. It is one thing to study debates and another to understand the current tools of debate.
You are reading Almost Classical, a blog on economics and public policy. This blog reflects a worldview shaped by J. S. Mill, Adam Smith, and many others. What matters most to me is the sovereignty of the self, promoted by J. S. Mill. My views are closer to the origins of Classical Liberalism than to the libertarianism of the American conservative movement or Libertarian Party, which seems to ignore the social contract suggested by Adam Smith.
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised 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 some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.
— John Stuart Mill. On Liberty. Chapter 1. iBooks ePub edition.
The association of the term “libertarian” with financial hoarding is unique to the United States, as where the term is associated globally with movements opposed to all centralized power, including corporatism and natural resource ownership. In the wider understanding of the term, you own what you create and what you purchase through those creative acts — but extracting resources and occupying land requires contribution (taxes and fees, usually) to the common good.
The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society.
— Adam Smith. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Book V, Chapter III. iBooks ePub edition.
Unfortunately, the individualism of libertarianism in the United States has been extended to a radicalized form that sometimes dismisses the concept of the community commons. Simplistic libertarianism marks a rejection of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. How can you be a Classical Liberal and reject the works of the foundational figures? Until the 1960s and the curious mingling of libertarianism with objectivism in the United States, the major figures were closer to the ideals of Adam Smith and deeply skeptical of the rentiers (investment class) who created little. Buying apartments to rent them to struggling people at a profit troubled Smith. Buying the rights for an idea from a creator also troubles some libertarians, but work-for-hire is a complex topic in economics.
I am a proponent of Negative Rights. Traditionally, these are described as the “Freedom from Intervention or Interference” but I consider that misleading phrasing. My problem with the use of “negative” reflects a political and theoretical bias. I consider these Negative Rights the Freedom to Act and Think what I want as long as I harm no one else — but as a professor I am obligated to help students use the proper terminology. My lectures refer to my libertarian ideals as Negative Rights because that is the accepted terminology within academia.
The challenge for a rhetorician is that concepts and terms do change, based on context. When George Lackoff writes of a “Freedom from Want” he is not describing Negative Rights. I discuss Lackoff in my courses, as well as Frank Luntz. Both men use “Freedom From” to appeal to very different audiences. (Welcome to rhetoric, where the art of persuasion meets the sciences of psychology and linguistics, all encased within ideologies.)
Reading through old writings by socialists and communists, these thinkers used the “Freedom From” quite differently than we might when discussing “Negative” and “Positive” freedoms. The rhetorical move of supporting a “Freedom from Poverty” or a “Freedom from Disease” is quite effective. Many brilliant and admirable men and women of the left discuss “Freedom From” in ways that are far more effective than the rhetoric employed by most libertarians or conservatives. It is this rhetorical “Freedom From” various concerns and perceived threats that I oppose because it invites government to solve problems. It is the Freedom from Interference suggested by thinkers like J. S. Mill, which is the model of freedom I embrace. (If you aren’t familiar with Mill, you should read On Liberty.)
My degrees are from the University of Minnesota (Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Scientific Communication), Chatham University (MFA in Film and Digital Technology), California State University Fresno (M.A. Rhetoric), and the University of Southern California (B.A. English, B.A. Journalism).
Photo by LSE Library