A quick response to Pat since I’m trying to do the final touches on my
paper for the EEA meetings in NYC this week.  I will probably not
comment again on this until I return. First, I did not equate collective
bargaining with institutions. Instead, I equated SOCIAL INNOVATIONS with
institutions. Though he is right that Commons did look at collective
bargaining as a social innovation.

The focus on my comments was not on collective bargaining, but a broader
issue I’m interested in and thinking about. My focus was that liberty is
the ability to exercise meaningful and effective choice. This of course,
is part of a positive theory of liberty that links freedom with social
and institutional powers. But there is a subtle difference in my
position that is often lost by Libertarians for example by Hayek (I know
I’m going to get into a lot of trouble here ☺). Power, wealth and
education increase one’s freedom not by simply having them, but by their
ABILITY to enable one to make meaningful choices – they are the SOURCES
that allow us to make meaningful choices and expand our freedoms. 

This means in reality and in the social world we all have levels and
limitations to our liberty or freedom by the degree of power, wealth and
education that we have. Those levels can change by the expansion of
power, wealth and education that we have. Hayek goes against this by
trying to dissociate liberty from political power or at best confine it.
 I can quote more from Hayek, but I think this short statement captures
his point. Here is Hayek:

“It can scarcely be contended that the inhabitants of the District of
Columbia, or resident aliens in the United States, or persons, too young
to be entitled to vote do not enjoy FULL LIBERTY because they do not
share in political liberty” (Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 1960,
p. 13). 

Now I grant Hayek that just because I can’t vote doesn’t mean that I
might not have some level of freedom and liberty in my life, but I
wouldn’t say that I have “full liberty.” My point is that by expanding
the opportunities one has in areas of power, wealth and education one is
able to INCREASE one’s liberty. By being able to vote does increase my
freedom.  What Hayek is doing here, I think, is simply equating
political power with voting.  And he is right in just having this power
to vote does not necessarily increase my freedom that much. But let us
say that you truly have an increase in political power that will affect
your life and your family well-being, and not just the hope that your
vote will count in the next election, where you as a worker have a true
voice in your working conditions and able to bargain for a wage. This
new significant political power has truly increased your freedom and
liberty. Now what Pat might argue that this might increase the freedom
and liberty of workers, but this takes away freedom from owners of the
factories or tax-payers. This might be true, and it leads us to another
discussion of the relationship between equality and liberty – By all
individuals having equal access to power, wealth and education will
improve their ability and capacity for freedom and liberty. Having said
that I believe in reality the best that we can achieve are DEGREES of
liberty for individuals. I know these are difficult issues and don't
have time to go into all the subtle issues. 
Ric Holt