Who Solves Society’s Problems?

Who should solve society’s problems?

Who should determine wages? Who should take care of the poor, sick, and marginalized? Who should provide education? Or, the classic libertarian question…who should build the roads?

Government? Citizen individuals voluntarily working together? Some combination thereof? 

While I have my personal thoughts on each of these individual topics, I will not attempt to answer them all for the reader. Instead, I want to suggest that finding the best answers to the difficult question of who should solve a given social problem lies in a guiding principle called   the “presumption of liberty.”

In Western jurisprudence, there exists a bedrock legal principle called the “presumption of innocence.” The presumption of innocence means that any person accused of a crime is considered innocent until they are proven guilty. The word “proven” is key because it means that the presumption of innocence must hold until such time as there is sufficient evidence, or proof, of guilt. The burden of providing the proof always lies with the accuser. The burden does not lie with the accused. In other words, the burden of proof does not lie with the accused in proving their innocence. The burden of proof lies with the accuser in proving the guilt of the accused through sufficient evidence. 

Similarly, in modern classical economics, there exists a corollary principle called the “presumption of liberty.” The presumption of liberty means that when faced with a choice between liberty and and curtailment of liberty through forced intervention, liberty is presumed until such time as the intervention can be sufficiently justified. The burden of proof is on the proponent of the intervention to demonstrate why the curtailment of liberty is justified. The burden of proof is not on the proponent of liberty to prove why liberty should be maintained. The economic argument for the presumption of liberty parallels the legal argument for the presumption of innocence. 

Importantly, the principle of the presumption of liberty is named as such – a presumption – because it is not an absolute. Proponents of this principle, such as the founder of classical economics Adam Smith, go to great lengths to explore various interventions which may be sufficiently justified. For example, Smith argues that courts are necessary to enforce the rule of law, which in turn is necessary for preserving liberty. The key takeaway is that while the presumption of liberty is by no means an absolute, it is the best default assumption.

These principles, once a firm part of the foundation of our Western republic for all to enjoy, can be easily lost. In recent years we’ve seen the effects of the erosion of the presumption of innocence on our culture through the social media court of public opinion and cancel culture. Is it any wonder, then, that in the year 2020 the words “freedom” and “liberty” became all but swear words, regarded with mockery and scorn? On the heels of a public health crisis, we’ve watched the rapid erosion and inversion of the presumption of liberty. Now, intervention and curtailment are immediately assumed to be better for society than liberty. 

The appropriate question to ask is: has sufficient evidence and proof been provided to justify the interventions? I’m sure my readers will disagree on this, as they should. Discovering the best answer requires a diversity of opinions, each containing their own elements of both truth and error, and reasonable discourse to minimize error and reveal the truth. This cannot be accomplished when reason, evidence, and discourse are replaced with mere appeals to authority.