Am I a libertarian or a utilitarian?

Evan Mandery, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, recently wrote about his experience teaching an ethics course based on Michael Sandel’s book, “Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do?” (which I’ve read and loved).  He taught the course for a semester at Appalachian State in Boone, NC, thinking he might find a difference in how people make ethical judgments in the Deep South when compared to Manhattan-based John Jay.  He didn’t.

While exploring how people make those judgments, one student stood out – one he describes as a libertarian.  Mandery tells us he believes the student would “sacrifice himself for the greater good” and observes that “people are too willing to prioritize what’s politically expedient over fundamental values.”  I confess I find his view confusing as sacrificing oneself for the greater good sounds more utilitarian than libertarian.  It was John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian ethicist, who defined the “greatest happiness principle” as “a moral action that maximizes utility, or happiness, for the greatest number of people.”  If that’s utilitarianism, wouldn’t one who sacrifices oneself for the greater good be utilitarian?  

Lately, I’ve taken to calling myself a libertarian. It’s how I express my distaste for the two predominant political parties without engaging in a long-winded explanation.  It has the added advantage of not having to defend policies or candidates affiliated with one or the other.  

But, that’s an expedient position rather than a principled one.  The truth is I am more pragmatic than dogmatic, arguing for the action I believe benefits society most.  So, for example, I would never argue that businesses should not be regulated as a true libertarian might.  To argue in favor of the chaos that would result from the complete elimination of regulation is, in my view, both lazy and impractical.

So, am I a utilitarian?

French economist Thomas Piketty has observed that elites may be divided between the “Brahmin left” (Silicon Valley) and the “merchant right” (Oil & Gas magnates).  Each has captured one of the major parties leaving out those with little money or education.  And, so, both Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren gain favor among them by espousing the theory that the system is “rigged.”

I reject the excuses of declaring the system rigged.  Sure, moneyed interests pour cash into our political system.  And, yes, those interests don’t much care about you and me.  But, at the end of the day, those of us in the middle-class are just trying to keep a roof over our heads, food on the table and enjoy ourselves with what’s left over.  The system, rigged or not, is what we learn to deal with.  In that sense, we – those who occupy the middle-class suburbs of most cities – might be libertarians.  We take responsibility for our own families and our own outcomes.  

So, am I a libertarian?   

WHO WILL LEAD? 

Borrowing Your Way To The American Dream

My leafy, little neighborhood in Fairport, NY could be the poster child for the middle-class American dream.  Located within the village limits, in walking distance of three public schools, the streets are lined with well-kept homes, the garages of which contain late model SUV’s and sedans.  Free-range children can be observed riding their bikes, playing games and rolling down the streets on scooters and skateboards. 

Were that our only reference point, we might conclude America’s middle-class is thriving.  Unfortunately, it’s not.  It’s shrinking according to a Pew Research report.  There’s good news and bad in their report.  Yes, the middle-class is shrinking (bad news).  However, more families are moving up than down (that’s good, right?).  

The report uses family income as the criteria for defining middle-class. You are middle-class if your family income is between two-thirds (about $54,000 for a five-person household) and double the median annual income ($162,000) according to Pew. 

Income is one way to look at economic status.  But Pew’s report ignores net wealth.  Think of it this way: who’s more secure? A family of five with an annual income of $100,000 and $50,000 in savings or the reverse?  

And then there’s debt. Americans are borrowing heavily to maintain their middle-class lifestyles according to the Wall Street Journal.  Many families take seven-year auto loans to afford an average new vehicle cost that exceeds $32,000, often leaving them in the predicament of needing to trade-in an aging daily driver before they’ve paid off the loan.  No worries, though.  You can simply roll your balance due into the next car loan.  At the same time, debt to equity ratios on home mortgages now equal pre-financial crisis levels.  And, credit card debt exceeds $1 trillion for the first time since the Great Recession. 

Hedge-fund investor Ray Dalio has analyzed the split between the Top 40% and Bottom 60% of income earners.  The Top 40 earn, on average, four times the average of the Bottom 60 and have ten times the wealth.  This spread has grown over the last 20 years as manufacturing jobs have disappeared and the mix of household assets and liabilities have changed.  The Top 40% are more likely to own tax-advantaged real estate, stocks and bonds while the Bottom 60% are more likely to incur expensive student, auto and credit card debt.  So, over time, the split grows wider. 

Maintaining a middle-class lifestyle has become more expensive while incomes have not kept pace.  And, I haven’t even mentioned the impact of rising tuition and healthcare costs.  We learned a hard lesson in 2008.  Sooner or later, borrowing more than we can afford to repay will lead to financial ruin.

How will that impact our leafy suburbs?

WHO WILL LEAD?