In this paper, I consider the libertarian view of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, a view that upholds the majority opinion in favor of Yoder as correct and justifiable. I then consider an objection to this view – one that challenges a libertarian understanding of paternalism.
Libertarians posit that every act of government limits freedom in some regard, because government action in itself interferes with liberty. This is grounded in the idea that human beings possess the power of free will (Tomasi & Zwolinkski, 10) and the individual sphere of liberty ought to include as much as possible. Any government decision about an individual’s sphere of liberty, then, would limit this sphere and thus impact the individual’s freedom from coercion. Coercion is understood by libertarians to mean any decision that limits the individual’s ability to act entirely on their own free will. But, libertarians understand the individual’s free will and liberty to act on it as stopping at the point that it might interfere with another’s free will and liberty. It is at this nexus between two individuals’ liberty that an umpire, or government, can mediate the rules.
In the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, it is not the nexus between two individuals’ liberty that was in question, but instead the liberty of Amish parents to pull their children from school before the minimum age of 16. These parents made this decision on religious grounds; thus, the Court considered their freedom of religion to be in question. The Court ruled that schooling past the age of 14 to the Wisconsin legal minimum age of 16 violated Amish religious beliefs – that students, in those years, would be exposed to “worldly influences” and ideas that run contrary to their religion. The libertarian supports this idea on three premises: first, that the individual’s freedom from coercion to act contrary to their own religious beliefs is paramount; second, that though a minimum amount of elementary-level schooling is justified, nothing past what the Amish find to be useful to their community should be enforced; and third, that paternalism is justified in the case of children.
First, the libertarian believes that individualism surpasses in importance any arguments for the greater good – thus, Amish religious beliefs, which are felt by the individuals in that community, are more important than the state’s minimum schooling requirement. The right of the individual to practice her religion would be threatened by the imposition of the state’s requirement, as the libertarian understanding of rights is founded on the concept of freedom from interference with individual free will.
This is complicated by the libertarian’s understanding of “neighborhood effects” as allowing for the justification of government intervention. “Neighborhood effects” indicate the accrual of an individual’s action to beyond himself and his parents, but to his community. The libertarian argues that because is it difficult to measure who benefits from the individual’s action, is it not possible for those benefactors to compensate the individual under voluntary exchange. Libertarianism would always advocate for voluntary exchange over government interference — it is only in the case where voluntary exchange is not possible that the state can interfere to guarantee this neighborhood effect. The state’s minimum age requirement was likely founded on similar assumptions about accrual of benefit, which the libertarian would justify if other interests of individual liberty were not in question. Indeed, Friedman notes that “a stable degree and democratic society is impossible without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens” and education can contribute to this. But because the Amish drew attention to the state’s minimum impacting their freedom of religion, the libertarian considers only the minimum education that does not hurt this freedom to be justifiable under the idea of neighborhood effects. Indeed, the libertarian argues that the social gain in the form of neighborhood effect is greatest at the lowest level, but as the level of schooling rises, this is when consensus about its general benefit declines.
At this point, the libertarian would argue that the community should determine what forms of education have the greatest social advantage for their community (Friedman 89); of course, they are seeking to prioritize their freedom of religion, by way of an informal system of vocational education that plays out in farming and physical labor to support the community. Now, the libertarian’s support of Amish freedom to reject the state’s minimum is threefold: first, on grounds of individual religious liberty, but second, on the grounds that the individual is entitled to their own body and labor. The libertarian belief in private property extends to a belief that labor, if exercised instead of the state’s minimum education requirement, should be protected. Third, the libertarian believes the community should use its own means to determine the best educational system.
Finally, the libertarian supports the Court’s ruling in this case on grounds that paternalism is justified in the case of children. The Court saw parents as liable, just as a libertarian would – children are not, according to Friedman, responsible parties who can have freedom. Thus, parents are justified in making decisions about their children’s freedom, which is what the plaintiffs in this case sought to do. They used claims to their own individual freedoms and applied them to their children, which is what the libertarian definition of paternalism requires. Children are, in the libertarian view, the property of their parents, as parents use their economic resources to have children. Libertarians believe that individuals are entitled to private property and can do what they will with it, as long as it does not interfere with another’s freedom. But since children are not assumed to have freedom because they are not responsible parties, paternalism is justified.
Objection to the Libertarian Justification of the Decision
It is from this last point that I draw the most notable objection to this libertarian view of the Wisconsin v. Yoder decision. On the basis of the libertarian’s belief that every action of government infringes on personal liberty in some respect, one would conclude that the Amish children’s liberty to choose the path of their education is infringed upon by this decision. The libertarian, as addressed earlier, would argue that the child is not able to exercise freedom as a responsible individual, and thus the child’s freedom becomes incorporated into the parent’s freedom — this is paternalism. An objector might ask, however, how paternalism can be compatible with the fundamental libertarian belief in individual free will? Indeed, Milton Friedman raises this tension himself in Capitalism and Freedom. He writes that though libertarians believe paternalism is “inescapable”, libertarians do not believe “in the freedom of parents to do what they will with other people”. What Friedman argues here is derived from the same libertarian assumption that the individual’s freedom ends where the next individual’s freedom begins. In implying this, Friedman contradicts his assertion that children are not responsible people with freedoms. He writes explicitly that “children are responsible individuals in embryo, and a believer in freedom believes in protecting their ultimate rights”. Government intervention, in the form of a Court ruling that children are not protected in pursuing their education past age 14, affects their freedom to make that decision. Any decision that impacts the individual’s freedom where it does not harm another is not in line with libertarian views.
In response to this objection, the libertarian might argue that negative liberty, or freedom from coercion, is the only kind of liberty that may be enforced by government. As such, in this case, a libertarian would argue that protecting the child’s choice between religion and continuing education is not required, because that choice represents positive liberty. Positive liberty is defined as the freedom to act on free will (to make a choice, to do an action), but is not sufficient to justify government interference. In the libertarian view, using government action to protect positive liberty would result too much infringement on negative liberty, or freedom from coercion. For example, if a government were to protect all individuals freedom to attend a park, it would establish national parks, which oversteps the purpose and function of government according to Friedman, who argues government should just mediate differences (25). Libertarians believe that the free market and voluntary exchange can protect positive liberty sufficiently.
But again in response to this, one might argue that the libertarian defense of paternalism crumbles on itself. The libertarian view contradicts itself in assigning responsibility to children, and it ultimately argues that they are responsible from the embryo and thus their rights and freedoms exist. If this is true, we can gather that they too possess negative liberty. If the children have negative liberty, the libertarian support of the Court’s ruling actively infringes upon it. By choosing the parents liberty over the child’s, the parent can now coerce the child into not continuing school from ages 14 to 16. And coercion, of course, directly limits negative liberty, so it is not only the child’s positive liberty to choose that is affected.
In conclusion, the libertarian view of the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder supports the Court’s ruling that the Amish parents are entitled to hold their children from school from ages 14 to 16, on grounds of religious freedom. The libertarian analysis goes much deeper than religious freedom, however – it draws on the belief in freedom from coercion more broadly, and speaks to libertarian beliefs about the role of government. The libertarian, to justify this position, also draws on the libertarian belief in paternalism in the case of children’s freedoms. This particular component of the libertarian view is subject to objection, because the libertarian justification for paternalism is fundamentally contradictory to the libertarian belief in individual freedom. As such, the argument attacking the libertarian’s understanding of children’s freedoms serves as the strongest objection to the libertarian’s support of the Court’s decision.