What matters in life? What are the keys to happiness? At the individual level, we may value good character, ambitions achieved, pleasures enjoyed, a life full of family and friends, and perhaps faith and virtue. However, politics is about the collective striving for values; approximately forty million Californians decide explicitly, informally, or absent-mindedly what is essential, what matters more, and what matters less. Thus, let us begin by asking what principles matter most to us.
We may not be aware of the principles that motivate us in our everyday lives. However, we may observe people, for example, watching how they treat others or spend their money. Then, we can infer principles. This person spends her day caring for her mother, showing that the love of family matters. Another spends hours perfecting an athletic skill, seeking physical excellence. A third is always shopping, loving to accumulate material possessions. Similarly, at the political level, we may observe the actions of forty million Californians and infer what matters to us as a state.
Naturally, there are so many political phenomena to observe and analyze. Often, we may infer that multiple values are present. Three are most evident: liberty, equality, and order. Each of these values has various definitions, and any particular political issue may not involve all three. Let us consider each of them and apply them to current policy debates.
Liberty, or freedom, is commonly defined in two ways. The first is negative liberty: freedom from interference, especially government interference. This version is rooted in John Locke's philosophy and other social contract philosophers. The individual possesses autonomy and should be free to make their own decisions unless they interfere with the freedom of others. The second is positive liberty, which is found in the writings of philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx: when individuals find greater freedom by doing that which is good as defined by a collective philosophy. For example, a religion may prohibit certain behaviors to help individuals free themselves from moral failings.
A law may take away negative liberty and add positive liberty. In 1986, California began requiring everyone to wear seatbelts in automobiles. This law takes away negative liberty by telling us what to do. Still, it gives us positive liberty by making it more likely that we will survive an accident to enjoy the freedom of another day.
Equality is a second crucial political value, which may be defined in multiple ways. Drawing on the ideas of John Locke and others, the notion of intrinsic equality argues that every person, being human, is equal and hence has equal rights. For example, although there are dramatic differences in achievement among us, each person casts a single vote at the polling place. After this fundamental premise, we can distinguish between equality of opportunity and outcome. The first advocates a "level playing field" without discrimination based on personal attributes such as race, ethnicity, and gender. For example, federal and state laws prohibit employment discrimination. The second, equality of outcome, favors everyone receiving the exact result or condition. For example, everyone is assigned a desk in a classroom, or perhaps in the future, everyone receives health care.
A third value is order. Our moral judgments evaluate the legitimacy of public policies. There are many examples of the value of order. Belief in a particular economic ideology, such as capitalism or socialism, informs our opinions about economic policies such as the minimum wage, tax rates, or welfare. Our religious beliefs may cause us to object to public policies upholding certain personal freedoms. Many people perceive obeying the law as good in itself. On the other hand, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights protestors engaged in nonviolent civil disobedience, their sense of order led them to violate civil law to promote a higher law.
When considering an issue, values may harmonize or conflict. For example, equality of opportunity and negative liberty enhance each other. Let everyone pursue their dreams without government interference. On the other hand, equality of outcome is likely to clash with negative liberty because providing equal provisions of goods and services will require higher taxes and more regulations. The classic tradeoff is between negative liberty and order. We want to do what we wish, which may clash with existing laws. For example, homeless people may seek temporary shelter by camping in parks and other places where this is prohibited. The case study (For Your Consideration: Driving the Homeless Out of Echo Park) illustrates this conflict in values.
For Your Consideration
Driving the Homeless out of Echo Park
A few miles north of downtown Los Angeles lies Echo Park Lake, a reservoir with a mile-long path around it surrounded by grass and trees. It is a place for nearby residents to play ball, have picnics, rent swan-shaped paddle boats, or walk. However, as the homelessness crisis worsened in Los Angeles County, the park began to fill with tents and other makeshift shelters, with approximately 200 people crowding out the usual park visitors. The City of Los Angeles did not enforce the "no camping" regulations.
With sanitary conditions declining and reported crimes increasing, the residents in the surrounding neighborhood of Echo Park complained, arguing that they could no longer safely use the park. In late March 2020, city workers from several agencies notified everyone making the park their home that they would have to leave. They were offered shelter at hotels paid for by the city. Ultimately, the police had to forcefully evict those who remained, sparking street protests by homeless advocates. By May, the park was fenced off, renovated, and reopened with the resolution that the city would enforce the "no camping" regulation.
Considering this case study, what political values are evident? The first question is how, as a society, do we provide for housing? Is this addressed through the free market, that is, people are responsible for themselves, buying or renting? Is this addressed through public housing with units provided by the government? Is there a middle ground under which the government subsidizes rents? All three types of economic order are undoubtedly present in the state; the question is, what balance among the three do we prefer? As the price of housing increases in California with the stock of public and subsidized housing in short supply, advocates for people experiencing homelessness in Echo Park argue that residing in the park is a reasonable short-term solution to help address the housing crisis.
Second, the Echo Park camp raises questions of liberty: should people have the freedom to camp where they please? If homeless people are free to camp in the park, does that infringe upon other people's liberty, namely local residents, to use the park for recreation? If so, whose liberty matters more? This is also a matter of equality: do people without housing have as much right to be in the park as local residents? And, drawing upon the concept of positive liberty, perhaps the homeless are best treated by providing them with homes, even if they prefer not to leave the park.
What do you believe? If you were on the Los Angeles City Council, would you favor removing the homeless people from the park?
