by Mario Rizzo at ThinkMarkets

After most presidential elections in recent years there is talk of uniting the country, somehow overcoming differences and working for the betterment of the nation. This is a dangerous idea if it is taken seriously.

In a (classical) liberal society with a minimal state this ideal is a real and benign possibility. This is because in such a society government restricts its activities to those that benefit each and all. Although people naturally differ in their priorities — the goals for their lives, how they wish to allocate their incomes, how they conceive of happiness, and their personal moral codes — they do have one interest in common. This is the preservation and enhancement of a system of voluntary social cooperation.

Social cooperation is the great means by which each of us can attain, or strive to attain, our diverse individual goals. We do this by helping other people attain their individual goals through exchange. So a system of social cooperation does not eradicate individual differences. It does not seek to unite people in a single hierarchy of purposes to better the nation. It certainly does not require people to agree on what “betterment” means.

A system of social cooperation is an abstract and complex order that is maintained by a framework of rules. These are the ones familiar to classical liberals: mainly, property, contract and protection of the individual’s physical integrity. (Classical liberals do have disagreements about the need for rules outlawing anticompetitive behavior and for policies dealing with external effects and public goods. But even here the implicit theory is the benefit of each and all.)

Social cooperation in a liberal order is not limited to market exchanges but finds manifestation in all of the voluntary institutions of civil society including those of the nuclear or extended family. Many of these have the character of reciprocity even if the agents are not conscious of it. For example, friends may each gratuitously offer moral support to the other in times of need. But if one friend continually refused to reciprocate the relationship would end.

The statist-liberal insistence on agreement at the level of national purposes is destructive of freedom because it moves beyond the realm in which people have common economic or moral goals. The idea of national purpose does not rest on pre-existing common values and goals but on the political suppression of individual differences.

To illustrate: Do we, as a Nation, “think” that We ought to save more? Or that We ought to increase public borrowing for economic stimulus? Do We believe that government (taxpayers’) resources ought to be injected into failing American automobile manufacturers? Should more money go, instead, to save homeowners from foreclosures? Should more money be sent to save starving children in Africa?

The simple answer is: The questions are senseless. We all don’t have the same priorities. The idea of a Nation’s priorities among these options is a fiction designed to give the impression that the political system expresses some inner national character or some rational assessment of alternatives. Moreover, no one can seriously claim that there is some objective morality that will enable us to order uniquely these alternatives in a way that commands our assent. Once we leave the realm of those relatively few rules that sustain social cooperation – those that benefit each and all – we enter a world in which political priorities are set by special interests motivated by their partiality and avidity. In this world what counts is the political manipulation of the hapless guy.