The Road to Positive Liberty

Does the state have a duty to provide resources for individual capability?

Let’s set the stage with some background.

June 21, 1788. New Hampshire ratified the US Constitution. With New Hampshire’s ratification, the Constitution became legal. The Constitution included this verbiage in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…promote the general Welfare…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The writers expanded the thought in Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…to…provide for the…general Welfare of the United States.

As ratified, the Constitution did not include the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments.) James Madison introduced that series of amendments during the First Congress in 1789. President Washington sent 12 amendments to the states for consideration; the states ratified ten of these 12. The two amendments that were not ratified dealt with congressional representation and pay.

December 15, 1791. With Virginia’s ratification, the Bill of Rights took effect. The Bill of Rights focused on negative rights. It restricted government action to protect individual freedoms rather than mandate the government provide specific services.

There is one positive right in the Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment outlined the government would provide legal representation for those accused of crimes.

Let’s fast forward 95 years to…

The 1880s. The majority of the writings of Thomas Hill Green were published after his death. Green was a British philosopher and liberal idealist. His work sparked a significant change within liberal thought. He advocated for an expanded role of the state to ensure not just negative liberty (freedom from interference) but also positive liberty (the capacity to act and fulfill one's potential.)

Green posited the state had a duty to promote the common good. To fulfill this duty, Green outlined the state has an obligation to provide resources and opportunities for individual capability.

Let’s move forward again to…

February 3, 1913. Wyoming ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. They are the last of the three-fourths of states needed for ratification. The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to levy an income tax without dividing it among the states or basing it on the United States Census.

This amendment enabled the federal government to fund programs and services that can be seen as fulfilling positive rights, such as Social Security and Medicare.

Let’s highlight that event again. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution fundamentally changed the premise of rights in America. Yes, we still have a right to protection from the government, or negative rights. But the 16th Amendment added positive rights. It enabled the government to act in the best interest of the people.

Now that we have a common perspective on the transition from negative to positive rights, we can get to our question.

Does the state have a duty to provide resources for individual capability, as Green posited?

We need to break this question down.

First, what is the ‘state’? In Green’s context, the state is the government. Let’s establish that in and of itself, the government has no money. Dollars in use by representatives of the American people, either elected representatives or government workers, are assets of the American people. The state is the American people.

Second, what’s the implication of the term ‘duty’? In the context of Green's philosophy, duty implied the state had moral and ethical obligations to act in the best interests of its citizens. But duty implies a second consideration here—is individual capability infrastructure? Let’s consider both.

First, moral and ethical obligations must have a standard. Absent a defined standard, we have no obligation requirement to pursue. Whereas we have personal opinions of a moral or ethical standard, these opinions aren’t the same across America. As an example, a progressive might apply a personal standard to create a government program to distribute resources to support single mothers. At the same time, a conservative would deem this an irresponsible use of public funds. Instead, the conservative might advocate for a local nonprofit to fill this need.

We have no defined statutory obligation that we must love our fellow Americans. Laws can mandate actions or prohibit behaviors, but they can’t drive care. Laws can encourage behaviors consistent with caring for and supporting one another, such as through community service or incentives for charitable donations. But they can’t compel feelings.

We have to eliminate ethical and moral obligations from consideration. Ethical and moral obligations originate from caring for each other. But the state can’t make us love each other.

Let’s return to our second ‘duty’ consideration—is individual capability infrastructure?

To answer our question, we need to ask—what is infrastructure? We traditionally understand infrastructure in terms of physical structures like roads and bridges. But infrastructure encompasses more than this narrow view.

Infrastructure is physical, such as transportation (roads, railways, airports) and communications (internet, telecommunications). It’s social, such as schools and hospitals. Economic infrastructure facilitates trade, investment, and the efficient flow of goods and services. Infrastructure is energy, such as supporting defense, agriculture, and heavy industry. Infrastructure is worker training. Businesses have a vested interest in a skilled workforce.

In short, infrastructure is national capability. It’s physical and conditional. Infrastructure makes society function.

Now that we have established capability as infrastructure, we can get back to the crux of the matter. Does the state have a duty to establish and maintain infrastructure supporting society?

The clear answer to this question is ‘yes,’ the state has a duty to support national infrastructure. Infrastructure leads to capability. National capability is cumulative individual capability.

Let’s simplify our logic.

Does the state have a duty to establish and maintain infrastructure supporting society?

Yes.

Is national capability infrastructure?

Yes.

Is a skilled and capable populace national capability?

Yes.

Therefore, does the state have a duty to provide resources for individual capability?

Yes.

In pictorial form:

An obvious question as to whether the state has a duty to provide for individual capability is…how? We can examine that question at a later date.

But, the crux of the matter, the decisive element, is not how. There is more than one acceptable approach.

The decisive element is a skilled and capable populace integral to national capability.

May God bless the United States of America.