Note: Below I conclude my four-part review of Philip K. Howard’s Everyday Freedom: Designing the Framework for a Flourishing Society, available here (Amazon).

Previously, we surveyed Philip K. Howard’s three-part critique of modern law: too many rules, too many procedures, and too many rights. But what is to be done? What steps can we take today — short of a revolution or violent overthrow of the existing federal government — to redress these three problems?

It is here, however, where Mr Howard misses the mark. In summary, he proposes three solutions: greater amounts of trust (Ch. 6), greater levels of institutional authority (Ch. 7), and greater involvement in community life at the local level, such as schools, churches, and charities (Ch. 8). Although these solutions may sound great on paper, they are wishful thinking for the following reasons:

1. Greater amounts of trust. Put aside the most obvious objection to this point: how do we measure “trust”, and how do we know whether the overall level of trust is falling or rising? Another problem with Howard’s “trust” argument is this: he fails to recognize that there is an optimal level of distrust in any human activity, whether it be politics, business, or even love. Yes, trust is a good thing, but if you always trust other people to do the right thing, you will be rolled over sooner or later.
2. Greater levels of institutional authority. What does Howard really mean when he calls for “greater levels of institutional authority”? Simply put, this fancy jargon is just a euphemism for rolling back unions and labor rights: Specifically, Howard wants to make it easier for employers to fire their employees without having to risk any legal consequences. In fairness to Howard, he might be right about this. The problem, however, is that his call for greater levels of institutional authority (i.e. for making it easier to fire workers) is an inconsistent and possibly hypocritical one. After all, why do federal judges have guaranteed lifetime tenure? If job security — i.e. lifetime tenure — is good for judges (and professors, I might add), then why isn’t it also good for the rest of us?
3. Greater involvement in community life. Last but not least, Howard calls for greater “community responsibility and social cohesion” (p. 73). Again, let’s put aside the most obvious objection to this point: how do we measure “community life”, and how do we know whether the overall level of participation in community activities is falling or rising? (Case in point: Howard selectively cites Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone but fails to cite Professor Putnam’s more recent follow-up book Upswing.) Does going to a rock concert count as a community activity, for example? What about trout fishing or horseback riding with friends?

But the biggest problem by far with these supposed solutions is that it is unclear at best what impact they might have on the overall level of human freedom. They might even end up reducing freedom, for Howard sounds more like a paternalistic boomer than a classical liberal champion of natural liberty, especially in the last four chapters of his book, where he tries to nudge us to go to church more often or coach Little League games. While I agree those are worthy activities, my larger critique of Howard’s brand of paternalism is this: you can’t have it both ways: you can’t say you’re for “everyday freedom” in some cases but not in others, such as the freedom to retreat from civic life or the freedom to focus on other less civic-minded pursuits.