Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:03:40.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Political Liberty Today: is it Being Restricted or Enlarged by Economic Regulation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

T. V. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Chicago

Extract

The liberty of any given citizen is inhibited by four great enemies. The first enemy is outer—the inhibition of the liberty of one by the liberty of others. The other three are inner enemies—illness, poverty, ignorance. The outer enemy is commonplace to political scientists. And so it is this inner triumvirate against freedom which I wish first and mainly to discuss. Worst of the three is ignorance.

Pure liberty would consist simply in doing what one wants to do. Illness is enemy to this ideal not merely because illness weakens wants, but also because it aborts the very formation of virile wants. Poverty is enemy not only because it stunts the growth of healthy wants, but because it circumvents efficacy of efforts to fulfill any and all wants. Ignorance, however, is worst of the three, not only because it fortifies the other enemies, inner and outer, but because it also converts such regulation of elemental wants as is made inevitable by civilization into the psychological poison of aggression and thereby estops fructifying sublimation of the crasser forms of freedom.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Discerning readers will here and elsewhere perceive my indebtedness to Mr. Harold D. Lasswell. Reference should be made particularly to his latest book, Politics: Who Gets What, When, How?

2 Forgiving Mr. Hoover—for he knows not what he says—and passing Mr. Walter Lippmann by—for he knows more than he says—let us focus eyes for a moment upon Mr. Ogden Mills, that average, earnest, befuddled citizen. Denying that there is “any middle ground,” Mr. Mills continues: “We can have a free country or a socialistic one. We cannot have both. Our economic system cannot be half free and half socialistic.” (Liberalism Fights On, p. 70.) Could anything be more impercipient than that? Not only do we have what Mr. Mills says cannot be, but such a middle course is, when seen objectively, just the desideratum of a democratic society.