The notion of social justice has played a key role in liberalism and
politics for some time. Wolfson attempts not to dismiss it as does
Hayek but to argue for market based approaches.
Market democracy recognizes that the question of social justice is a
real one but without assuming that ordinary people don't value economic
liberty. Thus Mr. Tomasi believes that health care is a matter of social
justice, but he prefers market-based approaches (with a safety net). "In
seeking to benefit the least well off," he says, "we must take care to
do so in ways that respect the autonomy and dignity of those citizens."
Any social injustice must however be a matter of a
violation of rights, including property rights.
Today's political debate seems frozen in time, pitting the party of
social justice against the party of economic liberty. The contours of
the debate were set as early as the first half of the 20th century, with
the Progressive and New Deal challenges to laissez-faire economics,
though some people might locate the roots of the debate much
earlier—say, in Karl Marx's critique of commercial society, or even
Rousseau's. To discover when this debate took its modern form, we need
look no further back than the 1970s.
It was in 1971 that John Rawls's "A Theory of Justice" appeared,
laying out the precise requirements of social justice. The gist of
Rawls's argument was that society's institutions should be arranged to
benefit the least advantaged. "A Theory of Justice" quickly became the
template for left-liberal thinking in America. Five years later,
Friedrich Hayek published "The Mirage of Social Justice," a defense of
the free market that denounced the whole notion of social justice,
describing it as a "will-o'-the-wisp"—a "quasi-religious superstition." Not only is the phrase "empty and meaningless," Hayek said, but it is a
"mark of demagogy."
As John Tomasi observes in "Free Market Fairness," we have been
forced, ever since, to choose between social justice and economic
freedom, often in reductive forms governed by moralistic absolutes. On
one side is a frequently "bullying (and morally condescending)"
left-liberalism; on the other an often "cold and heartless"
libertarianism. It is widely thought, Mr. Tomasi says, that there can be
"no common ground" between the two sides. The antagonists enter the fray
believing that "when the dust settles, one side will win and the other
will lose."
Mr. Tomasi, a political theorist at Brown University, is unhappy
with this stark choice. He confesses that he is attracted to the ideals
of both camps. He also observes that much has changed since the 1970s.
As we move into a postindustrial, Internet economy, it becomes
increasingly clear that people of all income levels value the right to
make economic choices. Yet most people also believe in something like
social justice, supporting programs that adjust for inequalities.
With "Free Market Fairness," Mr. Tomasi proposes an alternative to
both points of view. He christens it "market democracy," a mix of
economic liberty and social justice that, in his view, supports a
morally superior ideal than either the minimal state or welfare-state
liberalism. Market democracy is not meant to be a mushy compromise or
mere middle way, he says, but a "hybrid" that stands on its own merits.
Mr. Tomasi's idea of a market democracy breaks with key ideas on
both sides of the debate. First, he argues—against the socialist ethic
of Rawls—that economic liberty is among the basic rights of individuals,
as fundamental as the right to free speech. That is, we value economic
liberty not merely for reasons of utility but for the ways in which it
enables us to be the authors of our own lives. As Mr. Tomasi eloquently
explains: "Restrictions of economic liberty, no matter how lofty the
social goal, impose conformity on the life stories that free citizens
might otherwise compose."
Second, market democracy breaks with modern libertarian thinking by
taking the claims of social justice seriously. Unlike Hayek, Mr. Tomasi
does not believe that social justice is a mere will-o'-the-wisp. Nor
does he believe that society is little more than the sum of private
transactions. For Mr. Tomasi, society is "a public thing," and thus all
citizens should be able to affirm that its arrangements are fair. "A set
of institutions is just," he writes, reworking Rawls, "only if it works
over time to improve the condition of the least well-off citizens."
Market democracy recognizes that the question of social justice is a
real one but without assuming that ordinary people don't value economic
liberty. Thus Mr. Tomasi believes that health care is a matter of social
justice, but he prefers market-based approaches (with a safety net). "In
seeking to benefit the least well off," he says, "we must take care to
do so in ways that respect the autonomy and dignity of those citizens."
But he notes that economic liberty, as a triumphant principle, can
lead to repellent results. To take a classic example, a person has no
right to sell himself into slavery. Nor, Mr. Tomasi suggests, should the
state sit idly by while sectors of society fall into grinding poverty
and social dysfunction. The state has an obligation, he argues, to
intrude upon laissez-faire arrangements so that "the exercise of
responsible self-authorship" is possible.
It isn't entirely clear how market democracy would function in the
policy debates of the moment. Mr. Tomasi's book is emphatically a work
of political theory, not a blueprint for political action, much less a
catalog of policy solutions.
He does believe though that market
democracy offers a way out of our either-or political debate, which at
its extremes pits the Tea Party against the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Market democracy would make the welfare of the very poor a top concern
but would find little justice in mere wealth redistribution.
Yet choosing sides is not what "Free Market Fairness" is about. Its
aim is to question opposed modes of thought and find a way between them.
Saying that his book was written for "ideologically uncommitted
readers," Mr. Tomasi invites them and others to join him in exploring
the ideas he has outlined. It is an invitation well worth accepting,
especially in an election year.
Yet choosing sides is not what "Free Market Fairness" is about