Free Market Fairness

Free Market Fairness is simply an outstanding book, worthy of all five stars.The book starts with a discussion of the history of liberal thought and its three main strands of classical liberalism, libertarianism, and high liberalism (which I would prefer to call progressivism, but whatever). This history alone is worth reading. It's remarkably fair and charitable to all sides, and it sets the syncretic stage for the rest of the book.Tomasi's basic idea is simple. Economic work is a dimension along which many individuals pursue self-development and find meaning in their lives. Given this, thick economic liberty should be protected to the same degree as other basic liberties. This includes strong property rights (including of the means of production), respect of and enforcement of economic contracts, low regulation, and low taxes.Just as free speech and other basic liberties aren't absolute, neither are economic liberties. They can be overridden, but the justification to do so must be strong and cast in terms of protecting other basic liberties. Tomasi argues that such a regime of "market democracy" can satisfy John Rawls's difference principle, whereby (at the level of ideal theory) only those institutions should be chosen that are likely to benefit the least advantaged members of society. Market democracy satisfies the difference principle given the economic growth it encourages. Indeed it probably satisfies the difference principle better than Rawls's own preferred regimes of property-owning democracy or "liberal socialism".Most of this argument is directed at high liberals. But for his project to succeed Tomasi also must persuade libertarians and classical liberals that social justice is both coherent and defensible. To this end he gives a long discussion of what he calls the "distributional adequacy condition" that he argues many libertarians and classical liberals implicitly defend (or at least acknowledge the moral salience of) even if they explicitly reject social justice. This discussion involves a delightful who's who of thinkers in these traditions, including most prominently a heterodox social justice interpretation of Hayek, who, Tomasi shows, not only endorses a number of institutions aimed at protecting society's worst off, but also employs an objectivity device similar to Rawls's veil of ignorance. Namely, Hayek contends when thinking about institutions, we should ask ourselves where we would want our children to grow up if we had no idea what social class they would be born into. Tomasi makes a good case that many of these thinkers, in light of their own substantive arguments, have more of an allergic reaction to social justice (when well-defined) than they do principled objections.In an especially illuminating section on Hayek, Tomasi discussed the Austrian's concepts of cosmos (emergent order) and taxis (order of intentional design). These two kinds of order are conceptually distinct, but they shouldn't be seen as either/or. Taxitic and cosmoic orders coexist in nested structures. Firms obviously have a purpose, but they exist within the more cosmoic order of the market.Tomasi gives the example of tweaking the boundary conditions of a sugar solution to create rock candy. The sugar and water molecules aren't individually directed; they just follow the physical forces comprising solution chemistry. The crystallization is a spontaneous process, but the macroscopic characteristics of the rock candy were determined by human design. The cosmoic order is used instrumentally for human purposes. Another example would be the methods of gardening. In the same way, the rules of a constitutional or market order can and should be tweaked for human purposes, namely social justice."When considering any social system as a whole, cosmos and purpose, far from being opposites or antagonists, go together. In the social setting, spontaneous orders seem positively to require such normative evaluations: evaluations, that is, in terms of social justice."

When Tomasi’s book first came in 2012, it got a lot of attention in libertarian circles. He challenged a lot of preconceived notions about libertarianism, fairness, and justice. Tomasi sets out in this book to create a kind of hybrid between the commitments typically associated with libertarians (and/or classical liberalism, market liberalism, etc.) and the commitments normally tied to what he calls High Liberalism (welfare liberalism, modern liberalism, egalitarian liberalism, etc.).A more provocative way to put what Tomasi gives us in this book is a Rawlsian libertarianism. I over simply here, but Tomasi essentially takes the core premises of Rawls’ conception of justice as fairness and uses it to defend a kind of libertarianism. Or rather, he argues that a proper understanding of what is required by justice as fairness and the moral premises behind it is best realized in a regime that thoroughly protects economic liberty (alongside—and for similar reasons—political liberty). Further, the demands of social justice are best met under such a system as well.Whatever you might ultimately think about the overall argument (and I remain skeptical though sympathetic), you have to give Tomasi credit for engaging in this huge revisionary project. At worst, it is an engaging and enlightening exercise to see what might happen if you accept Rawlsian starting points but add to it the moral importance of economic liberty. It’s an interesting way to learn about and further one’s understanding of Rawls (as well as economic liberty). At best, Tomasi has put forward a program the reunites the divided liberal house and sets it a more solid moral foundation.Ultimately, I don’t think Tomasi’s project is successful on the latter account. This is because I do not think the moral foundations upon which the project is based are the correct ones. Nevertheless, the book is worth a read by anyone interested in liberty or justice. If you more libertarian minded, you will get a presentation of the modern liberal point of view that is fair, charitable, and clear. This better prepares you to understand the philosophical viewpoint that you are up against without misrepresentation or oversimplification. If you more in the Rawlsian vein, you ought to read it because it will challenge many of the ways you might think about justice as fairness and related ideas. Either way, you may not come to agree with Tomasi but you will most certainly learn something.