Free and Equal
Reflections on a book relevant to the times
Introduction
There is a tendency—perhaps even stronger than that—in our political zeitgeist to believe our form of democratic government must look a certain way. In accepting this condition as set in stone, we fail to remember that the structure of our political, social, legal, and economic systems are “not an unchangeable order beyond human control but a pattern of human action.”1 In the book Free and Equal, Daniel Chandler uses John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice as a framework for boldly proposing what a liberal democracy could look like. Chandler’s approach is radical, well-rounded, and it reminded me—alongside the current political spectacle unfolding—of the stakes of civic engagement. The following are my reflections.
“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.” – Oscar Wilde, “The Soul of Man under Socialism”
I wish Chandler had led with this quote; while reading Free and Equal I initially looked upon the policy proposals naively, forgetting that utopia is in some sense meant to be an unattainable ideal. Far from being a waste of effort, utopias provide a distant imagination, an outer bounds to what may be possible and an inspiration to improve on what we have today.
John Rawls is a political philosopher who, while not necessarily becoming a household name, published a major work of political theory titled A Theory of Justice in 1971. His groundbreaking theory rests on this question:
If you were designing a society from scratch, from behind a “veil of ignorance” and not knowing anything about yourself—whether you’ll be rich or poor, man or woman, gay or straight—how would you structure that society?
Given the random nature of who you might become—and the clear disadvantages that certain demographics experience—this thought experiment suggests principles of fairness, equity, respect, and justice would win out. After all, with such a gamble at stake in this imagined scenario, it’s in everyone’s favor to design a society in which the least well-off have the best living conditions possible.
The Myth of Meritocracy
We are brought into the world in much the same random way, yet we still place comparisons and expectations upon others based on one’s merit—defined by Michael Young as “intelligence plus effort”—and ability to attain the American Dream. In reality, a meritocracy merely creates a dynamic in which those at the bottom of society are both looked down upon and feel responsible for their status, as we see today. “We can only really deserve something if we are responsible for it in some way,” Chandler writes, so why should we feel wholly responsible for the lottery of our random life circumstances?
“And yet the tendency to focus on economic efficiency misses the most important point. The case for equality of opportunity ultimately rests on a more fundamental moral commitment: it is simply unfair that random circumstances of birth over which we have absolutely no control—such as class, race, and gender—should have such a profound influence over our lives.”3
There is increasing evidence to support the idea that hard work and individual achievement is the wrong way to look at social mobility and success. One of the greatest predictors of a child’s future income is, unsurprisingly, their parents’ income.2 Other personal traits—such as effort, perseverance, patience, sacrifice for the future—are largely shaped in childhood, and the degree to which these traits are shaped stem from a range of factors: parenting practices, family income, education, nutrition & exercise, and many others. It is not that one shouldn’t feel privilege and gratitude toward their fortunate situation in life—earned or otherwise—but simply that we shouldn’t judge others as responsible for their misfortune.
Personal vs Economic Liberties
Digging deeper into the book, my favorite theme was the assertion that basic human rights must, in many situations, if not most, overtake the importance of economic efficiency. Ironically, Rawls was formulating his theory of justice just prior to the rise of neoliberalism—a near-religious belief in free markets, loose regulations, and trickle-down economics—a period of time which has shown, in retrospect, to have drastically increased income disparities. Between 1980 and 2016, inequality in the United States increased by roughly 20%4 and as of 2022, the wealthiest 10% of Americans held 71% of all personal wealth, while the poorest 50% had just 1.5%5.
There is something seriously out of alignment when our economic system allows for such drastic income disparities, with individuals hoarding unimaginable piles of wealth while others live without the most basic necessities of food, water, shelter, and clothing. Stepping back from our current situation, one might make the observation that economic growth and personal success is our collective meaning of “the good life,” an interpretation which certainly isn’t true for all. Beginning with this, or any other, arbitrary image in mind, personal rights and freedoms get trampled as governments, social movements, religions, etc. vie for power & influence. Instead, by emphasizing the “priority of the right over the good,” as Rawls wrote, “the good life” is created only once basic rights and necessities are met for all.
An important strength of Rawls’ theory comes in what can be thought of as context-based reasoning. He understood that moral decisions are a context-specific endeavor, rather than a universal, unchanging reality, and therefore require a state of what he called “reflective equilibrium.” We should aim to approach a certain political or social issue with our preconceived convictions, yet still be open to changing our mind and refining our beliefs. An example might be the question that arises when the freedom for parents to raise their children how they see fit runs up against, and may be overtaken by, the right for children to receive comprehensive education and civic development. These are complicated questions and deserve nuanced thought in each scenario, not a copy-and-paste approach.
Free Markets & Workplace Democracy
I admit I have a tendency to think of free-markets as fundamentally flawed—given their association with the neoliberal economic model I’ve lived to experience—when the issue lies more within capitalism’s inherent need for continual accumulation and growth, and therefore unsustainable practices. Markets, at their core, are simply a place for people to buy and sell things—a freedom we should not easily hand control of over to the state.
Yet, those with power and wealth stand to gain the most by preserving the status quo, and alterations to our current economic model are repeatedly dismissed—slandered as radically progressive or outright socialist—as impossibilities that would stunt growth and innovation. Throughout Free and Equal, Chandler provides various progressive, cooperative policies that not only improve the rights of workers, but in some cases possess economic advantages over our current private-ownership capitalist model.
We spend the majority of our lives working, and therefore we deserve and should strive for workplace conditions that promote dignity, security, and meaning. In America, and much of the world, shareholders (generally wealthier individuals) of larger businesses and organizations call the shots and ultimately determine the working conditions of their employees. This focus on shareholder value often leads to short-term decision-making, reduced investment in long-term growth, and neglect of employee, community, and environmental interests. Chandler provides alternatives to the “shareholder primacy model” including co-management and worker cooperatives, which have shown to sustain economic performance, and in some cases increase productivity.
Our current welfare system—a complicated and often humiliating system to navigate—creates a distinction between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” with those dependent on welfare often negatively stigmatized throughout politics and society at large. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) could assist in providing basic needs to all, while sustaining dignity and self-respect. Studies on policies similar to UBI show limited, if any, reductions in peoples’ desire to work—even millionaires continue to work, which shows that work is more than just about money—while providing a host of positive outcomes including “mental and physical health, educational outcomes, parenting, and crime.”6 Fears of a UBI policy being too expensive and raising taxes might be alleviated by slowly phasing it in, perhaps by offering a UBI for a limited number of years throughout a lifetime or only offering it to “net beneficiaries.”
“In the words of the philosophers and basic income advocates Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, whereas a means-tested welfare system provides ‘a safety net that fails to catch a great many people it should catch, and in which many others get trapped,’ a UBI ‘provides a floor on which they can all safely stand.’”
— Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal
Conclusion
If you’re like me, conversations about politics and economics can feel intimidating without an appropriate knowledge base and vocabulary—Free and Equal provides just that. On the whole, I thought this book was approachable and informative, without becoming too theoretical or complicated. This has been only a handful of ideas which stood out to me, among many, many other creative policy proposals (e.g. democracy vouchers; universal minimum inheritance; citizens’ wealth fund; banning fee-paying private schools).
In recommending this book I hope that others can discover language and concepts important to them, increase their civic engagement, and leave a positive impact on society.
References
1. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, revised edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999) 88.
2. Miles Corak, “Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27:3 (2013), 79-102.
3. Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal: A Manifesto for a Just Society (page 36). London; New York, Allen Lane, 2023.
4. Pew Research Center. (2020, January 9). Trends in income and wealth inequality. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
5. Net personal wealth share in 2021, World Inequality Database, access 16 November 2022, https://wid.world/.
6. Marinescu, “No Strings Attached,” 3; Rebecca Hasdell, What We Know about Universal Basic Income: A Cross-Synthesis of Reviews (Stanford, CA: Basic Income Lab, 2020).