Positive Liberty

Last night’s episode of Battlestar Galactica was disappointing in some ways, but hopeful in others. The plot centered around nasty dealings within the black market that has sprung up among the fleet. This market apparently consists of people trading goods and services (including prostitution) for ration coupons. Why the market is “black” is unclear—Apollo says that it’s illegal, but why would the authorities make it illegal for people to trade ration coupons?

Surely nobody imagines that the Roslin Administration is capable of knowing every need that every person has at all times. Why would she prohibit people from exchanging ration coupons that they don’t need for other things that they do need? The great thing about markets is that they can adapt to the decentralized nature of information—that is, to the fact that it’s impossible for a central authority to know all of the needs of every person at any time. But by allowing a trading market to rise where people exchange their ration coupons, the Administration would ensure a more efficient distribution of the resources in the fleet. Sure, some people would make bad choices about what to do with their ration coupons. But they are probably less likely to make bad decisions than the people who hand out those coupons to begin with. Look at Shevon’s situation—she can’t get the antibiotics she needs. If someone has antibiotics and is willing to sell them, why should she not be able to buy them?

Some might say: “wait a second, the fleet has very limited resources. They have few if any natural resources; there’s a fixed supply of goods in the fleet. So the distribution has to be equal to be fair.” But this is wrong for two reasons.

First, the resources in the fleet aren’t limited. Apparently some farming is going on, and people are able to exchange services. Not just prostitution, mind you, but things like clothing repair, or day care—anything can serve as a basis for trade. Japan has virtually no natural resources, but thanks to its (relatively) free market economy, it is one of the most prosperous nations in human history. This is because trade doesn’t just distribute wealth; it creates wealth. Profit incentives encourage people to use their ingenuity in a creative way: if the people making antibiotics could make a profit doing so, they would be far more likely to make more quicker, and Shevon wouldn’t have to wait so long. (And why would someone consider that “wrong”? Even if you think it would be “nicer” for people to make antibiotics for free, why would you prohibit people from making a profit, when doing so might mean that Shevon and her child don’t get the medication they need? Is your hatred of profit so great that you would condemn these people to sickness or death?)

Second, an equal distribution of resources is not necessarily a fair distribution of resources. “Fair,” presumably, means that each person gets the things they need; there would hardly be anything “fair” about ensuring that illiterate people get an equal ration of books, or that people who can’t play get an equal distribution of musical instruments. If allocating resources fairly means ensuring that people get what they need, then the best way to do that is, again, a market system that allows people to have a choice in prioritizing their needs and investing their time and energy. When Phelan defends the black market, saying that it is what ensures that people get the things they need when the “equal distribution” fails, he is exactly right. Black markets have kept people alive (and more) in many, many cases in human history. Usually the only thing wrong with them is that they are pushed underground by nonsensical regulations.

The only reason I can think of that Roslin might have prohibited people from trading their rations or ration coupons is that she thinks that people will make unwise choices in their trades, and that they might, for example, trade away food coupons in exchange for alcohol. But she’s wrong to react in this way for a couple reasons. First, many other people will make wise choices as to their trades, and it’s wrong to prohibit them from that opportunity just out of the fear that some other people will make unwise choices. Second, and in a related vein, those people who make wise choices with their trades will probably be in a position to encourage other people who might waver to make wiser choices: they might set up businesses that will help their fellows to pull themselves up. Third, people ought to be allowed freedom of choice. That, presumably, is one of the great principles that separates them from the Cylons who have no choice in their lives. (A harrowing thought, if you consider it. That might be the ultimate horror of being a Cylon sleeper agent. Look at Sharon; loving a human, yet never knowing when her programming might kick in to make her destroy the ones she loves!) For Roslin to deprive people of their choices out of a desire to protect them from bad choices seems to betray one of the things that makes humans better than Cylons. Fourth, and most importantly, as John Milton said,

We our selves esteem not of that obedience, or love, or gift, which is of force: God therefore left [man] free, set before him a provoking object, ever almost in his eyes herein consisted his merit, herein the right of his reward, the praise of his abstinence. Wherefore did he creat passions within us, pleasures round about us, but that these rightly temper’d are the very ingredients of vertu? They are not skilfull considerers of human things, who imagin to remove sin by removing the matter of sin.

Now, of course, stealing things to sell them is wrong, and should be prosecuted. And abusing children, and murder, which were the focal points of the story. But note that that did not seem to be Roslin’s primary objection to the flourishing market on the Pegasus. She seemed to be upset that the people were trading things at all. But, again, there is nothing wrong with that. If the fleet is to survive, it must develop a private market economy (a proposition that Roslin used to believe in, since she wanted, last season, to move from a barter economy to a money-based system). Remember what happened to the Pilgrims.

Zarek at one point snickered at Apollo, accusing him of believing that a “utopia” would “rise from the ashes.” I don’t know how to interpret this: is Roslin a communist of some sort? But in “Colonial Day,” Zarek insisted that what the fleet needs is leadership that will focus more on the collective than on the individual. So why would he scorn Roslin for being too collectivistic? On the other hand, if Zarek’s comment was poorly phrased, and if he genuinely believes in expanding the private economy in the fleet, then he absolutely needs to replace Roslin as president, if humanity is to survive at all.

In any case, the upside is that at least Apollo realizes the importance of keeping the black market operating, while ensuring people respect each other’s rights. The reason he realizes this, apparently, is that he has seen first hand how the ration system does not work. Roslin, who shows a shocking degree of ignorance (not knowing that this market is going on in plain sight) apparently has had little contact with the people who are suffering under the ration policy. Like so many bureaucrats, she imagines that she can create a rational, top-down regulatory system that will ensure that everyone gets the things they need and no more. Apollo has bothered to actually see how the system has failed, and has learned from it.

Update: Some interesting thoughts from Thompsonian*NET blog.