How Did Social Reformers Conceive of Liberty Differently than the Proponents of the Liberty of Contract - Essay Example

How did social reformers such as Edward Bellamy, Henry George, and the Knights of Labor conceive of liberty and freedom differently than the proponents of the liberty of contract and laissez-faire like Herbert Spencer and Andrew Carnegie? Which of these groups was successful in imposing their vision on the larger society in the years before the turn of the century? Why? Introduction Liberty and freedom was conceived differently by the social reformers and the proponents of the liberty of contract and laissez-faire. The difference actually emanated in the manner in which the two groups interpreted the suitability of the operation of the economy. While the economy can operate on the basis of capitalism where individualism and private property are the basis of creating wealth, it can also operate on the basis of collectivity, where communism and pooling of the labor and output together forms the basis of wealth accumulation for the society. In this respect, the social reformers such as Edward Bellamy, Henry George, and the Knights of Labor conceived the freedom and liberty to entail the rights of the laborers to earn better wages, work for a few hours and have a legal tender mechanism from the government that was not under the control of the banks1. On the other hand, the proponents of the liberty of contract and laissez-faire like Herbert Spencer and Andrew Carnegie conceived the liberty and freedom to entail individualism and private property ownership as the basis of creating and then sharing wealth in the society2. Nevertheless, this discussion holds that the proponents of the liberty of contract and laissez-faire like Herbert Spencer and Andrew Carnegie were more successful in imposing their vision on the wider society, compared to the social reformers. Discussion Pooling resources together, such as collective labor and collective sharing of the outcome of labor seems to be a very alluring position for creating freedom and liberty. This is owing to the fact that this vision seeks to ensure that everyone in the society is relatively equal to the other, in the manner of generation and distribution of wealth3. This vision would be achieved through the establishment of institutions that are co-operative; productive and distributive4. In addition, the vision would entail the establishment of a social order where the laborers have the lien over the property they help to generate and accumulate, over the owners of the factors of production. Such principles seem to be very compatible with the concepts of freedom and liberty, owing to the fact that it is those who submit their labor for the production of goods and services that will have a priority claim over such products and services. However, the practicality of this vision is in doubt when it comes to its implementation in the real life situation, owing to the fact that it renders all people equal, whether talented or not, whether hardworking or not, whether with a vision or without. The problem with such a situation is that it does not deliver freedom and liberty, but rather results in tension, conflict and subsequent disintegration of a society, since some people will definitely prove productive than others, yet they are not rewarded according to their productivity5. For example, throughout the world, only very few countries operate under the umbrella of capitalism and socialism, since these systems have proven to be more challenging for the civilized society to adapt. Thus, most countries that initially adapted communism and socialism such as Cuba, Russia and China have shown transformation towards laissez-faire. On the other hand, the vision of individualism and private property ownership does not seem to be compatible with the principles of liberty and freedom, since it entails rewarding the talented and hard workers in the society, who may then opt to share their wealth with the community or pass it over to their children as inheritance6. Therefore, this vision does not seem to be very compatible with freedom and liberty, since it is only the rich in the society who seems to have the freedom to utilize their wealth in the ways they please, while the poor are left at the mercy of the rich7. Nevertheless, when it comes to reality, it can simply be seen that the vision of individualism delivers more freedom and liberty to the people. This is because; it allows individuals to choose the life they wish to live, since people are not confined to a collective system that may not serve their interest and reward their talent, hard work and commitment to self-improvement. It is therefore no wonder that this vision of individualism, liberty of contract and laissez-faire has been shared widely by the larger society globally. For example, throughout the world, the principle of liberty of contract and laissez-faire operates in most of the countries. The critics of liberty of contract and laissez-faire can argue that it is only suitable for benefitting a few in the society, since it results in the generation and accumulation of wealth by a few, who in turn exploits the rest of the society for their individualist gains8. However, this argument can be countered by the fact that the principles of liberty of contract and laissez-faire could not be such widespread and embraced by the larger percentage of the world States, if indeed they were not the most liberating principles. Furthermore, the concept of the "the greatest good to the greatest number", as advocated for by the social reformers is only limiting to the capacity of the people to attain their full potential. This is because; the concept requires that people work only for few hours (8 hours a-day) and dedicate the rest for leisure and social enjoyment9. This hinders the talented and hard workers from devoting themselves to hard labor and then reaping the fruit of their excess labor over the rest of the society. The result is discontentment for the willing hard workers, who feel that their freedom and liberty for self-improvement and opportunities to achieve their full potential have been limited. Nevertheless, the vision of the social reformers has not been without some important influence on the larger society. Notably, one of the important principles that the social reformers held necessary for freedom and liberty is the abolishment of the letting out of prisoners and other convicts in the reformatory services through contracting10. This principle has influenced the larger society to a great deal, owing to the fact that the practice has been reduced in most countries. The other example of an area in which the social reformers have influenced the larger society in the area of labor laws, where the social reformers advocated for the substitution of the arbitration with the labors right to strike and picket11. This is an area that has been widely focused by many labor unions globally, where the right of the laborers to strike when there is a dispute with their employer is the common practice globally. Conclusion In conclusion therefore, while the social reformers and the proponents of liberty of contract and laissez-faire have impacted the larger society in different ways, there is no doubt that the proponents of the liberty of contract and laissez-faire have managed to share their vision with the larger society more than the social reformers have done. This can be seen through the fact that most of the nations in the modern world have adopted individualism and private ownership as the basis of creation and accumulation of wealth. Further, it can also be observed that some of the nations that had previously embraced socialism and communism such as Russia, Cuba and China are currently manifesting capitalistic tendencies. Bibliography 1. Andrew Carnegie “Wealth,” North American Review (June 1889). Reprinted in The Annals of America, vol. 11, 1884–1894 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968), 222–226. 2. “Preamble to the Constitution of the Knights of Labor” in Terence V. Powderly, Thirty Years of Labor, 1859 to 1889 (Philadelphia: Excelsior Publishing House, 1890), 128-130. Read More