Libertarian Mayor of London Boris Johnson: "There is a Limit to Laissez-Faire"

In a recent Slate interview with London Mayor Boris Johnson, Johnson talks about his opinion as to how a community based on well-being and liberty of its citizens requires an active government to be successful. In particular, he comments on the need for government to provide "leadership" in respect to public cleanliness, public transportation, and even diet and exercise amongst the people.

While his comments may seem a bit extreme, they come in context of a recent New York City ban on large-size cups for soda pop. The role of government in these sorts of decisions is also a relevant issue at the federal level as conservative opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act has used the example of compulsory broccoli purchases as the logical outcome of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in favor of President Obama's signature legislative achievement.

Two things come forth from these discussions: an acknowledgement of truth and an acknowledgement of limits. Mayor Johnson puts it very well when he talks about the importance of cities having the feel of villages. While the city brings people close enough together to be advantageous on an economic level, human beings still have millions of years of evolving and adapting to the small-group setting of a hunter-gatherer tribe. While the endless opportunities of the city should, from an economic standpoint, give individuals the free reign to make choices that will make them happy, the similarities we share due to our human nature point towards cities needing be have certain characteristics. These could include cleanliness, easy transportation, and strong neighborhoods that allow for multiple interactions amongst people.

Nonetheless, the limitations of the government intervention model should be heeded. If we are to follow an account of human flourishing that derives partly from our evolutionary history, the modern nation-state does not fit well into that system. Aristotle's polis, or city-state, seems to be a much closer fit to what we are searching for. But this would suggest that a leader such as Johnson, who would be in favor of government "leadership" at the city level, may be more wary of it at the national level. This fits well with an American federal notion of democracy: at the local level, the people have more of an opportunity to use their government for good. As we abstract government to higher and higher levels, the ability of people to use their government becomes less and less possible. Thus, we should always keep in mind that government intervention has to be backed by a strong democracy in order to be effective.

Government's Role in Fostering Healthy Communities and Fulfilling Relationships

A fundamental aspect of liberal economic theory is that individuals are the best judges of what will effect their own happiness. The point of a market system is to allow individuals the ability to spend as they wish on what they wish, thus leading to outcomes that are favorable to their personal happiness. Recent research, however, is calling this assumption into question. It turns out that many of the economic decisions that we make do not necessarily lead to our own fulfillment, likely because of our inability to foresee effects of our decisions and misunderstanding of what it is that truly makes us happy.

What is the government's role in rectifying this error? While our current condition in America of political polarization is centered on a question of what the role of government truly is, arguments on both sides are built on a single assumption: that government exists to promote the welfare of its citizens. While this is a perspective that stands in contrast with that offered by the Rand/Nozick/Friedman camp, the theory of the role of government put forth by Nozick is not one that is generally accepted in moral discourse. When people talk about the benefit of limited government, it is defended by the claim that limited government will better work to promote the welfare of its citizens. The modern understanding of government is deeply Aristotelian.

Thus, if government exists to promote the welfare of its citizens, then it has an obligation to work to create systems that benefit its citizens. If science can show us that individuals find more fulfillment in lives that are social rather than solitary, as recent research has begun to uncover, then government should be working to foster the communities, friendships, and families that facilitate that fulfillment.

This is where psychology is beginning to connect with views of human nature put forth by MacIntyre in Dependent Rational Animals. Human beings are built to live in communities and to care about others. When we create systems that encourage people to separate from one another, we are not actually facilitating freedom, but are instead cutting people off from the opportunity to enjoy fundamental human capacities. This is not to say that a more invasive government is the answer in this respect, it may very well be that a more laissez-faire government can allow people to have more authentic experiences with one another. But it does say that government has an interest in healthy relationships and communities within its jurisdiction and that it has an obligation to promote them amongst their citizens.