Brad Delong nails it....

Grasping Reality with Both Hands: The Appeal to "Undecidability" as Last Gasp

Friedman's argument against social democracy was that it would not do the job--that you would lose a lot of economic efficiency and some political liberty and in return get no equalization of economic power because the government would redistribute income and wealth the wrong way, and the beneficiaries would be the strong political claimants to governmental largess who would not be those with strong claims to more opportunity.

By the time you have resorted to arguing that "human existence in the shadow of a nanny state doesn't conduce to 'Aristotelian happiness'... because it strips human beings of the deeper sorts of agency and responsibility that ought to be involved in a life well lived..." you have lost the argument completely. And I have not even raised the point that Aristotle thought that Aristotelian happiness was possible only if you yourself owned lots of slaves:

Aristotle:

There is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters.... The master is not called a master because he has science, but because he is of a certain character.... [T]here may be a science for the master and science for the slave. The science of the slave would be such as the man of Syracuse taught who made money by instructing slaves in their ordinary duties.... But all such branches of knowledge are servile. There is likewise a science of the master... not anything great or wonderful; for the master need only know how to order that which the slave must know how to execute. Hence those who are in a position which places them above toil have stewars who attend to their households while they occupy themselves with philosophy or with politics...

Libertarianism

Modern Liberalism and Libertarianism: An Economist's View
By Brad DeLong

Let me give you what I take to be an American card-carrying modern liberal economist’s take on classical liberalism--which I think is broadly an updated version of Adam Smith's take. It is, in short, that modern liberal economists are wanderers who have been expelled from the garden of classical liberalism by the angel of history and reality with his flaming sword...

It starts with an observation that we are all somewhat more interdependent than classical liberalism allows. It is not completely true that it is from the self-interest and not the benevolence of the butcher that we expect our meat. Self-interest, yes, but benevolence too: a truly self-interested butcher would not trade you his meat for your money but instead slaughter you and sell you as long pig. So this opens up a gap between the libertarian view and the world.

That said, and modulus this basic human--well, call it "sympathy" as Adam Smith did--modern liberal economists were very happy for a long time with classical liberalism. Yes, there were externalities, and increasing returns over a range, and market power--but the presumption was that market failures were tolerable and in a sense optimal because of the magnitudes of government failures that would attend any attempt to compensate for them. The near-consensus of economists was at least crypto-classical liberalism, along the lines of Colbert's exchange with Legendre in the reign of Louis XIV:

"What do you need to help you?" asked Colbert. "Leave us alone" answered Legendre. ("Que faut-il faire pour vous aider?" asked Colbert. "Nous laisser faire" answered Legendre).

Then starting in the late nineteenth century liberal economists were mugged by reality:

--on issues of income distribution--the Gilded Age--and how laissez-faire did not appear to be producing the reasonable distribution of the fruits of the social division of labor that economists had all expected...

--on issues of macroeconomic stability--the Great Depression was a big shock--and the argument that the Great Depression arose because markets were not free enough never acquired legs or force outside the theological...

--on issues of the persistence of "unfree" labor--Adam Smith expected the imminent collapse of slavery, but ending slavery took a war, and the market economy in America did not appear to be doing very much at all to undermine Jim Crow...
last and most recently, the fear of the increasing importance of "market failure"--the coming of the "information economy"--caused economists to worry that we were moving from a Smithian to a Schumpeterian world, and even if the presumption of laissez faire works for a Smithian world it is not at all clear that it works for a Schumpeterian world...

The upshot is what Keynes said eighty-four years ago:

It is not true that individuals possess a prescriptive ‘natural liberty’ in their economic activities. There is no ‘compact’ conferring perpetual rights on those who Have or on those who Acquire. The world is not so governed from above that private and social interest always coincide. It is not so managed here below that in practice they coincide. It is not a correct deduction from the principles of economics that enlightened self-interest always operates in the public interest. Nor is it true that self-interest generally is enlightened; more often individuals acting separately to promote their own ends are too ignorant or too weak to attain even these. Experience does not show that individuals, when they make up a social unit, are always less clear-sighted than when they act separately. We cannot therefore settle on abstract grounds, but must handle on its merits in detail what Burke termed “one of the finest problems in legislation, namely, to determine what the State ought to take upon itself to direct by the public wisdom, and what it ought to leave, with as little interference as possible, to individual exertion”...

One way to understand Keynes's General Theory is that Say's Law is false in theory but that we can build the running code for limited, strategic interventions that will make Say's Law roughly true in practice. The modern Ametican liberal economist's view of libertarianism is much the same: libertarianism is false in theory, but it is very much worth figuring out a set of limited, strategic interventions that will make the libertarian promises roughly true in practice.

What is going on...

Jason Pye on the legislative session that just started today.

If you aren't reading his blog you do so at your own peril.

One of my academic interests is the question of where theory and reality merge and Jason's pretty staunch philosophy creates a number of intrigues... and quandary's for me. Plus he's up on his p's and q's of current conservative debate/policy

Also you should check out Georgia Legislative Watch where he is blogging on the session.

Stiglitiz on the crisis

Capitalist Fools

Behind the debate over remaking U.S. financial policy will be a debate over who’s to blame. It’s crucial to get the history right, writes a Nobel-laureate economist, identifying five key mistakes—under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II—and one national delusion.

Rocker on Liberalism and Democracy...

"Liberalism and Democracy were pre-eminently political concepts, and since most of the original adherents of both did scarcely consider the economic conditions of society, the further development of these conditions could not be practically reconciled with the original principles of Democracy, and still less with those of Liberalism. Democracy with its motto of equality of all citizens before the law, and Liberalism with its right of man over his own person, both were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economy. As long as millions of human beings in every country have to sell their labour to a small minority of owners, and sink into the most wretched misery if they can find no buyers, the so-called equality before the law remains merely a pious fraud, since the laws are made by those who find themselves in possession of the social wealth. But in the same way there can be no talk of a right over one's own person, for that right ends when one is compelled to submit to the economic dictation of another if one does not want to starve" --Rudolf Rocker "The Ideology of Daily Life"

Libertarianism, Proper Politics and "Property" Proper

The Lesson of Rod Blagojevich: We Need Better Government!

But if government just doesn’t work, limited government just doesn’t work either. So either go ahead and come out as an anarchist or swallow your iconoclastic loathing of “good government” pap and admit that you want better government. I want better government!

Generally, we’re more likely to get relatively good government in a cultural climate that encourages good government. Ridiculing as naive norms of anti-corruption and civic responsibility doesn’t undermine belief in the efficacy of government so much as expose the one who ridicules as a defector in a crucial cooperative game, undermining his reputation as a sincere advocate of the public interest. It is valuable and necessary to point out that certain institutional arrangements are unstable and invite corruption, and should therefore be reformed. But people are more likely to listen to you if they believe you believe reform is possible.

WWII and the Great Depression

I recently posted on a Reason segment where they use a strawman argument against new New Deal supporters.

Strangely enough, Jason Pye responded by stating that it was World War II that ended the Great Depression.

I wonder if it was the price controls? Or the wage controls? Or the rationing?

As Political Theorist,Sheldon Wolin, noted in his book Democracy inc.

"the economy was controlled by government "planning" directed toward prescribed production goals, prohibited from producing most consumer goods, and subjected to central allocation of vital materials. The labor force, for all practical purposes, was conscripted: its mobility was restricted, wages and prices were fixed, while collective bargaining was put on hold. Food and fuel were rationed... (p. 106)"

I'm not sure how this fits in with any "free market" positions that are out there. But if anyone knows feel free to shoot it my way.

To top it off he states:

Why else would anyone say that we need another New Deal if they recognize that it was a failure?

Umm can anyone say Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush... we've had years of economic decline--coming from tax cuts, deregulation, and lax regulation...

Why else do I talk to people who say--what happened to the economy that I grew up with.

To say I don't follow either the logic or the history lesson would be an understatement.

Though I do enjoy the fact the he agree's with Paul Krugman about World War II ending the depression.

Lets put away 102 Trillion dollars this week...

I should be studying for my theories of democracy final but this is too much fun...

Jason responds again:

How can you say that it's not true with any certainty? These programs will be consuming almost 20% of GDP in 30 years. The current budget, not including bailouts, is around 21% of GDP. You're talking about adding another entitlement to these boondoogles programs.

It doesn't make any sense.

I believe markets work.

And I'm assuming we're speaking to the medicare issue and the market competition that the government can bring via a plan you can buy into as the entitlement you are speaking of?

Does anyone really believe cutting into profit margins of other firms doesn't lower costs and makes markets more efficient?

Does anyone believe that government purchasing power won't lower costs of medicare by providing cheaper drugs? We're not currently allowed to negotiate prices by purchasing in bulk thanks to Republicans.

We have to waste revenue subsidizing private companies who already get protectionism from patents. I'm on board with getting rid of wasteful spending--who isn't by the by?

If one doesn't think purchasing power would push down costs why is the purchasing power of walmart so effective for lowering costs?

Also note a clever chess move in the NCPA study Jason cites...

"Looking indefinitely into the future, anticipated benefits, over and above expected premiums and dedicated tax revenues, amount to $102 trillion. This is about 7 times the size of the U.S. economy. It is the amount the government needs to have set aside today, invested and earning interest, to fund these programs indefinitely"

Look at social security... its set up so the workforce today is paying for the current benefits going out. So its a straw man to say anyone is arguing we put all that money away today.

And once again... are there any other government programs we project 70 years into the future? Why not project the military expenditures for the next 1000 years? Might as well throw up the white flag, cut and run so to speak... we can't afford it.

I don't know of anyone saying we save all of it up today? Err... aside from ncpa. No wonder they are worried about it... (on second reading my hyperbole doesn't work... of coarse they don't.)

update: also check this... they state:

Congress often passes legislation that benefits current generations by imposing costs on future ones — Social
Security and Medicare are prominent examples.

Question... are there any government programs whose sole goal is to benifit future generations?

In what democracy could a politician possibly get elected by saying: "We need to spend x amount of dollars so that every child in 2085 has a robot of their own--I don't care about helping citizens today... we need to think about our future first." Whose gonna vote for that? People are greedy and selfish (i.e. people work on incentives--the reason markets work so effectively).

Obviously the social security surplus was about thinking about the future... but it was for the future in the sense that its our economic sustainability that is important--and people do have incentives to give a decent quality of life to their kids...

if you stopped to blink...

Jason responds to my blog post on the "crisis" myth...

The answer to funding shortfall with entitlements is not adding more entitlements.

You can't raise taxes because it risks economic growth and you cannot put off the bills coming due years down the road.

Europe has had so many economic problem because of the welfare state and excessive taxation to fund it.

You're essentially asking for more problems.

If you blinked you'd miss the quick shift to other issues. I admire it as a good "chess move" but I responded in the comments page by trying to go back to the essence of my post...

"Europe has had so many economic problem because of the welfare state and excessive taxation to fund it." Then why do they have longer life spans and higher quality of life? We were hit with the global economic crisis just as hard--if not more--than they have been. So you're not possibly arguing our economy is stronger are you?

"You're essentially asking for more problems." Actually I was responding to the myth of the crisis.

I didn't say we should raise taxes necessarily nor i'm I completely closed off to privitization efforts.

I was pointing out the "sky is falling" is not true and is more ideologically driven.

These are manageable problems.

Do you not think increasing our work force through increased immigration there by pushing down wages will stimulate growth and help get economic growth? Then you don't raise taxes and help address the issue.

Do you not think more competition in the market place would help get rid of needless bureaucracy and force the private sector to lower wages and provide better service?

What about getting not wasting revenue and using the governments purchasing power to get cheaper medications for those on medicare and medicaid?

these all address problems you highlight in this blog... using markets... cutting down on wasteful spending... free flow of labor...

We aren't going to do something between now and 2041???

Jason Pye posted on the social security/medicare crisis stating:

These two programs are cause for serious concern and it is irresponsible of our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, to keep avoiding the issue. But like Sullum says, there is no political will to take it up and we'll pay the price in the long run.

I hate the corruption, red tape, and slowness of a Republic. Our founding fathers consciously put slow reform as a top priority... but I don't seriously believe we won't do something about the health care crisis within the next 10 years or address social security funding between now and 2041. I may be cynical about government but I'm not that cynical.


There is so much here... I don't know where to begin. Both in the description of the problem and then from a political theory perspective...

The 2008 trustee's report:

Social Security's current annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures will begin to decline in 2011 and then turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires.

First we knew that, its not a shocker. In fact we've been taking in more taxes--building the surplus--for that very reason. So its not going bankrupt in 2011... its turning towards the surplus we built up for this very reason:

Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2019 and Social Security reserves in 2041.

Not exactly top priority in the way of "major drains on the budget" (i.e. the Iraq war boon-doggle)

On the "crisis" itself. You'll often see Medicare and Social Security lopped together... to talk about the "crisis." One reason is that the trustee's are mandated (I think it's a mandate) by law to address them together as if they are one program, but this plays right into those who want to drum up business for their fiancial industry buddies. Medicare's crisis is one built on the house of cards we call our health care industry. We pay 2 to 3 times as much as other industrialized nations for health care and get worse quality care for it--we rank 37th in the world for health care according to the world health organization.

Back to the trustee's report:

Medicare's financial status is even worse. This year Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up from general revenues which pay for interest credits to the Trust Fund.

Two things... If we brought competition into the health care market--by way of a government plan that people could choose to buy into if they wanted--we would bring down costs and remove the excessive bureaucracy that runs up your doctors bill and gives you and your doctor headaches dealing with the insurance companies who make money by denying coverage. But there are a lot of people making money off our status quo so the obvious fix, universal health care is off the table of discussion for the "crisis" crew.

So problem one is not only a medicare problem... its a huge private sector problem that has put health care reform on the table for discussion (finally). Meaning we will get some kind of reform soon--many in the business community who opposed the Clinton effort in the 90's are now on board... See here.

If you care about Medicare check out is The Impact of the Medicare Drug Benefit on Health Care Spending by Older Households
December 2008, Dean Baker and Ben Zipperer

So the health care crisis is part of the drag on the long term "crisis" we face with Medicare. Keep in mind its 2008 not 2018... lets fix the health care system now! It'll save the lives of people who are falling through the cracks, save you time and money personally, and help with our fiscal woes. Joining the rest of the industriziled world on this issue is going to be a dynamic long term fix to many problems we face.

Secondly if we aren't taking in enough revenue and needing to dig into the general budget thats a revenue problem (i.e. we are paying enough taxes towards it... gasp!!!) At least the increasing revenue to deal with this problem should be on the table as one solution--but its not even on the agenda of the "crisis" folks.
Further from the report:

The Medicare Report shows that the program could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by an immediate 122 percent increase in the payroll tax (from 2.9 percent to 6.44 percent),

There is also a demographic issue in the form of the baby boomers getting old (which means I'm getting old... sigh...).

But there's a very simple solution to that. Increase the workforce. Increasing immigration--for those who are concerned about the demographic aspect of the "crisis", has got to be a top priority--there is no way around that one (that or heavey subsidies to promote technological innovations that will make our workforce more productive which we used to create this new fangeled thing here i'm typing on, not to mention the internet these words are crossing through).

The majority of these folks do not support free markets, therefore they do not believe in open borders to allow for the free flow of labor--one of the fundamental aspects of "free market theory". In polite society the immigration reform required-- in regards to the demographic crisis--though necessary, is also not on the agenda and therefore is not to be discussed.

Also... and this seems absurd but maybe i'm just not educated enough on such things--how many government programs are projected 75 years!!!

Its hard for economist to project into next year let alone 75 years. It is the dismal science! Thats why the trustee's do three predictions... from bad to rosy. If I remember correctly, the historical long term economic growth we've seen in this country--which we have no reason to believe will change--leans towards a more optimistic forecast. I can't source it off the top of my head--trust me on that one!

There is another fact we often forget. In 2041 its not like there will be zero benefits. Its like 75% of promised benefits--which is adjusted for inflation better benefits than currently received by people on social security.

Bottom line 2041 is a long ways a way and you'll still be getting more bang for your buck. Social security has been in far worse buget situations in the past which we addressed. Don't lose any sleep over it.

Now onto the theoretical questions which I think are very concerning for those of us who believe in democratic principles and living in a civilized world where we are our brothers keeper. If you don't believe we are all in this together--which is an incoherent concept to begin with. Or don't believe in a basic quality of life for your fellow man nothing I have to say will be of any relevance to you. We just disagree. But for those of you concerned about living in a civilized world, where we combat and reject the dog eat dog pathology of our popular culture, I think there are some unstated premises that pop up in regards to this question.

I'll point to two that come to mind from the comments on Jason's post

Again it is all about personal responsibility ....BUT the government with its arrogance and stupidity on the economy have made it all but impossible for the average citizen and I am talking about those who hold legal citizenship to plan,save and execute a workable plan to save for their own future.

incoherent conception of government and market systems. Also I disagree on the question of representation of the population. Social security and medicare are very popular programs. If you believe in democracy in some form or fashion it is an obvious truism that you support fixing not gutting these plans. From the tone of the comments i'll infer this person does not. Difference of opinion. Also note that they state "legal citizenship" therefore this person obviously is not a proponent of free market theory so some of the easy fixes will not be on the table for him. Free flow of labor, as noted above, is an important step in the demographic crisis involved in this issue.

I agree that individuals need to plan for their retirement--these programs are saftey nets. But market systems by definition will cause some people to not thrive. These programs keep millions above the poverty line and provide a basic standard of living for all of our citizens. Freedom means responsibility... and those of us who have benifited from the economy--it is a collective effort mind you--should from an ethical standpoint in my mind provide basic subsitance for others. Take John Rawl's veil of ignorance that sets out to show that

principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity.

In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the state of nature. In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a "veil of ignorance", depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to.

back to the commentor...

We have a government that is out of control and will not change its ways of stupidity and waste until the citizens see the food from their table going to feed the do nothings in Washington.

I'm not really sure what this means.

When are we going to demand Washington,Atlanta and in my case McDonough stop the wasteful,non essential spending habits they are so fond of?

once again these are popular programs. Therefore the bums in DC actually are--this in situation--representing the people. So it can't possibly be nonessential spending. Again if you don't accept my two theoretical premises this will not logically follow.

So in both the actual facts on the ground... and from a theoretical standpoint--which is quite common and has been for a long time--see moreal teachings of christianity, judaism, Islam, buddhism... for examples--just ask someone on the streets at random. 9 times out of 10 they like democracy and believe humans should have food, shelter, and opportunities to thrive beyond abject poverty.

Also most of the "crisis" folks don't mention they are often just pushing privitization for theoretical reasons and are just looking for any reason to attack these programs. These programs are founded on the belief that we owe citizens of this country a safety net. No one gets left behind.

Some people bleive in an abstration that states its every man for themselves and that a privitized world where your neigher is a consumer and an object of labor who sells themselves on the market for the highest bidder.

Though i'm not necessarily opposed to privitization plans as an add-on to create incentives for further savings beyond the safety net the unmentionable by these types is that the transition costs are huge. If they want to talk about some kind of add on to create incentives for individuals to actually save for their future (which is think is not done enough these days) then you ought to start talking about the way we bring in the revenue to pay for this program. Once again this question is not on the table for discussion.

Anyways that was my two cents for now. I'm sure I left something out...

Just don't worry social security and medicare will be okay if we join the rest of the industrizlied world and fix our health care system. And social security won't be gone tomorrow--at least if we are smart enough to do something about between now and 2041...

by the by if you want to see a cool tool that helps put our health insurance crisis into perspective and helps us look at the buget issues more objectively, check out CEPR's Health Care Cost-Adjusted IOUSA Deficit Calculator which

allows you to see what the projected U.S. budget deficit would be, as a percentage of GDP, if the United States had the same per person health care costs as any of the countries in the list below, all of which enjoy longer life expectancies than the United States. All of the other budget assumptions are the ones used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which form the basis for the scary deficit numbers in IOUSA. Each country is listed with its life expectancy in parentheses.

Or on the question of privitization: Accurate Benifits Calculaor which

compares current-law Social Security benefits to the Bush Plan based on "Progressive Indexing" and the 2005 State of the Union proposal, which includes private accounts paid for by 4 percentage points of the employee's payroll tax

And if your worried about the economy. Call your Representative and demand a fiscal stimulus plan (see the open letter from over 375 economist calling on a quick, effictive bill which "should be in the range of $300 to $400 billion per year and should be geared toward targets that inject capital into the nation's economic system immediately" )

update: Jason responds with a good chess move...

update part deux: ah the en passant

Libertarianism

The End of Libertarianism
"The financial collapse proves that its ideology makes no sense."

Hayek and Democracy

Delong on HayekJuly 08, 2003

Notes: Hayek and Democracy
I have long been of the opinion that Friedrich Hayek saw more deeply into why the market economy is so productive--the use of knowledge in society, competition as a discovery procedure, et cetera--than neoclassical economics, with its Welfare Theorems that under appropriate conditions the competitive market equilibrium (a) is Pareto-Optimal or (b) maximizes a social welfare function that is the sum of individual utilities in which each individual's weight is the inverse of their marginal utility of income.

I have also long been of the opinion that Karl Polanyi saw more deeply than Hayek into what the necessary foundations for a well-functioning and durable market economy--and good society--were.

But last night I ran into a passage that makes me wonder whether Hayek in his inner core believed that democracy had any value--even any institutional value--at all. It came on pp. 171-2 of Friedrich Hayek (1979), Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Political Order of a Free People vol. III (Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press: 0226320901):

Egalitarianism is of course not a majority view but a product of the necessity under unlimited democracy to solicit the support even of the worst.… It is by the slogan that 'it is not your fault' that the demagoguery of unlimited democracy, assisted by a scientistic psychology, has come to the support of those who claim a share in the wealth of our society without submitting to the discipline to which it is due. It is not by conceding 'a right to equal concern and respect’ to those who break the code that civilization is maintained…

Now it is certainly true that of the trio "Prosperity, Liberty, Democracy," Hayek puts prosperity first and liberty second--or, rather, that freedom of contract needs to be more closely safeguarded than freedom of speech, for if there is freedom of contract then freedom of speech will quickly reappear, but if there is no freedom of contract than freedom of speech will not long survive. But the passage above makes me wonder whether democracy has any place in Hayek's hierarchy of good things at all.

Sam Brittan wrote somewhere that Hayek is an odd combination of market libertarian and social conservative--that his "free people" are always "submitting to the discipline" required by society's current moral conventions. Indeed, there are places where Hayek goes further and limits what a "free people" can do even more--where his idea of "freedom" seems to be freedom to (a) transact at the market's current prices, and (b) shut up and be grateful. Witness Friedrich Hayek (1976), Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice vol. II (Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press: 0226320839), p. 93:

While in a market order it may be a misfortune to have been born and bred in a village where…the only chance of making a living is fishing… it does not make sense to decribe this as unjust. Who is supposed to have been unjust?--especially… if these local opportunities had not existed, the people in question would probably never have been born at all… [for lack of] the opportunities which enabled their ancestors to produce and rear children...

It seems to me that this "shut up and be grateful you were ever born" proves far too much, and is far too powerful an argument to be true, for it can be used in defense of any imaginable social order:


While in a feudal order it may be a misfortune to have been born and bred a serf owing three days a week of labor on the lord's demesne… it does not make sense to decribe this as unjust... if feudalism had not existed, the people in question would probably never have been born at all...

While under the Roman Imperium it may be a misfortune to have been born a slave to Marcus Porcius Cato… it does not make sense to decribe this as unjust... if the Roman Imperium had not existed, the people in question would probably never have been born at all...

While in the American colonies it may be a misfortune to have been born a slave to Thomas Jefferson… it does not make sense to decribe this as unjust... if the American colonies had not existed, the people in question would probably never have been born at all...

I love this latin phrase...

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas is a Latin phrase commonly translated as "unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things", or, more literally, "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion".

It is often misattributed to St. Augustine of Hippo, but seems to have been first used in the 17th century by a German Lutheran theologian, Peter Meiderlin (also known as Rupertus Meldenius), in the form "Verbo dicam: Si nos servaremus in necesariis Unitatem, in non-necessariis Libertatem, in utrisque Charitatem, optimo certe loco essent res nostrae.", meaning "In a word, let me say: if we might keep in necessary things Unity, in unnecessary things Freedom, and in both Charity, our affairs would certainly be in the best condition".

It is widely quoted in defence of theological and religious freedom.

This phrase is the motto of the Moravian Church and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (United States), as well as the Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen, ÖCV and CV, and the Unitas Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Katholischen Studentenvereine, UV and UVÖ the associations of Catholic student fraternities of Austria and Germany. The phrase in its current form is found in Pope John XXIII's encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram [1].

It seems to be the essence of left libertarians... and you see the intellectual decent of Rousseau...

the collective whole (i.e. economy) first, individual liberties second, humanity always...

[update]
Here is something interesting on the phrases origin... as with all internet finds one must be weary but at least it cites sources--which I would have no time to track down anyways!