How much Freedom is Too Much?

[Accountable]

Kelvin brought up a good point that I believe deserves its own thread.

He said we in the USA have been brainwashed by the Constitution to distrust government control. I say we've been brainwashed to believe we are more free than we actually are. I've had numerous debates & arguments with Canadians & Europeans who say that we Americans are silly for not letting the government take over certain services, or even for not being socialist.

So how much freedom is too much?

I'm of the opinion that whoever makes the decisions has more freedom than those who have to abide by those decisions. The company owner is freer than the employee; the manager is freer than the laborer. Am I wrong?

Along the same vein, any decision-making power given to the government is necessarily giving up personal freedom. Notice our most recent fight over freedom: the healthcare debate. Federal legislators say the government should be able to force citizens to buy insurance and offer a public option for people who can't buy their own, yet they are unwilling to subject themselves to the same government control that they say is good for Americans.

Hell, I don't even like home owners associations because they take away my freedom to decide when or if to cut my lawn and what color to paint my house. In such instances I have to ask myself who truly is the owner - the person who pays the money, or the person who makes the decisions?

How much freedom is too much?

I want as much freedom as I can get, meaning I want to make my own decisions to the maximum extent possible.

 

[sharpies]

John Adams said that he was not sure that they should have the power to lock future generations into documents such as the Declaration Of Independence & The Constitution - by doing so I think he took away a great many of your freedoms & what's even worse is that all the supreme court wants to do is to keep upholding their original views instead of coming up with their own ideas.

I'm beginning to think that the so-called founding fathers would be very unhappy with the way the US is today.

On a more personal level you cannot allow everyone to have all the personal freedoms that they want, otherwise anti abortionists would blow up more clinics, muslim extremists would blow up more americans & neighbours would shoot dead, your barking dog. I think you will find that there is much less freedom in our world than most people think.

Sure you have choices but they are all made within a moral, legal, ethical & religious framework.

 

[Kyle B]

I want as much freedom as possible while still having security and the essential amount of government services. We can't have complete freedom or else there would be complete chaos. If we give the government too much power in order to enjoy services, we will soon find ourselves without free choice. I want America to be somewhere in the middle.

 

[Meirionnydd]

As to my definition of how much freedom an individual can enjoy without limitation, is that of the definition of traditional liberalism. I'll be paraphrasing here, but it's along the lines of - An individual can act freely, until his or her behavior adversely affects the freedom of others.

 

[Accountable]

John Adams said that he was not sure that they should have the power to lock future generations into documents such as the Declaration Of Independence & The Constitution - by doing so I think he took away a great many of your freedoms & what's even worse is that all the supreme court wants to do is to keep upholding their original views instead of coming up with their own ideas.

Dunno where you're getting that view of the supreme court from. If it were anywhere near accurate, Roe v Wade would have gone the other way. The Constitution may indeed have taken away some freedoms; I hadn't considered that & will have to give it some thought and research. But it has been the only anchor we can hold onto to keep us from sliding down the socialist slope with Europe.

I'm beginning to think that the so-called founding fathers would be very unhappy with the way the US is today.

:nod: I have no doubt about that.

On a more personal level you cannot allow everyone to have all the personal freedoms that they want, otherwise anti abortionists would blow up more clinics, muslim extremists would blow up more americans & neighbours would shoot dead, your barking dog. I think you will find that there is much less freedom in our world than most people think.

Sure you have choices but they are all made within a moral, legal, ethical & religious framework.

I saw a libertarian definition of freedom; I'll have to find the vid. I don't think anyone disagrees that you can let one person's actions impinge on another's right to act. That's where the line is drawn.

But some people think it's perfectly okay to obligate one group of people to provide for another simply because the first group has more, regardless of why the second group has less. Worse, the view is becoming that all people deserve the same benefits and privileges rich people can afford to pay for, yet should not be obligated to pay for themselves. The only way for this to happen is to force someone else to pay. This, in my view, strips some of earned and well-deserved freedom so that others may have privileges without cost.

 

[Accountable]

As to my definition of how much freedom an individual can enjoy without limitation, is that of the definition of traditional liberalism. I'll be paraphrasing here, but it's along the lines of - An individual can act freely, until his or her behavior adversely affects the freedom of others.

But while we agree to the words, your opinion of where that line is drawn is different from mine. An individual's freedom to earn and spend as he chooses does not adversely affect anyone, yet that freedom is attenuated by taxes to support those who have not earned as much.

 

[Accountable]

I want as much freedom as possible while still having security and the essential amount of government services. We can't have complete freedom or else there would be complete chaos. If we give the government too much power in order to enjoy services, we will soon find ourselves without free choice. I want America to be somewhere in the middle.

Why do the services have to come from the government?

What I mean to say is, why can't people live with the services they can afford to pay for themselves? I don't mean police protection, before those that have to find something to say try to yank this to extremes. I'm talking about those services that make life easier, that we now expect the government to provide (and other taxpayers to pay for).

 

[sharpies]

My own personal motto sums up what I believe are my own personal rights;

"Do whatever you want, just don't hurt anyone"

PS this refers to physical & mental hurt.

 

[Meirionnydd]

But while we agree to the words, your opinion of where that line is drawn is different from mine. An individual's freedom to earn and spend as he chooses does not adversely affect anyone, yet that freedom is attenuated by taxes to support those who have not earned as much.

Well, I guess that comes down to social justice and economic egalitarianism, not only are modern liberal democracies based on the principles of freedom and liberalism, but more recently, on principles of justice and equality. I see the issue of a wealthy person paying a higher proportion of taxes, in order to satisfy and promote social betterment for the poor as acceptable, and not an encroachment on an individual's freedom. You'd probably disagree with me there.

With that being said, I only think inequality is permissible when it is to the advantage of those who are less well off.

Why do the services have to come from the government?

What I mean to say is, why can't people live with the services they can afford to pay for themselves? I don't mean police protection, before those that have to find something to say try to yank this to extremes. I'm talking about those services that make life easier, that we now expect the government to provide (and other taxpayers to pay for).

Because most of the services that the government provides are generally in the public interest, that is, for the betterment and welfare of the community at large. To me, the only other alternative is privatization of said services, which generally results in poorer service delivery, higher costs, and an organization whose interests may be at odds with those of the community.

 

[Kyle B]

Why do the services have to come from the government?

What I mean to say is, why can't people live with the services they can afford to pay for themselves? I don't mean police protection, before those that have to find something to say try to yank this to extremes. I'm talking about those services that make life easier, that we now expect the government to provide (and other taxpayers to pay for).

That's a good point. People should limit themselves to services that they can afford. I believe that the government should step in and assist those who cannot afford the bare essentials. I don't have a problem with paying taxes to provide the disadvantaged with some assistance in the form of food stamps, disability insurance, etc.

If people pull their weight, become employed (provided that they are able), and put an honest effort into supporting themselves then I believe the government should provide a little help if they are unable to quite make it.

 

[dt3]

We retain all the freedoms that we're unwilling to delegate to our government. We give our government it's power. Problem is, I don't think the government realizes that anymore and takes what power it wants. I think Americans are fairly evenly split on whether the individual should delegate their basic responsibilities to the government.

 

[MoonOwl]

I personally like Ben's quote about those giving up liberty for temporary security deserving neither.

 

[Accountable]

My own personal motto sums up what I believe are my own personal rights;

"Do whatever you want, just don't hurt anyone"

PS this refers to physical & mental hurt.

That's a nice platitude that anyone can agree to, but it falls apart as soon as it's brought into the real world, applied to real situations. For instance, I might want to keep all my money for myself. I hurt no one by doing so, but the government will punish me if I do, causing physical and mental hurt to me.

Milton Friedman sums up a good definition of freedom, that I can get behind, in his definition of libertarian:

YouTube - Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)

In case you're not a video person, I'll paraphrase:

A libertarian wants the smallest, least instrusive government consistent with the maximum freedom for each individual to follow his own ways & values as long as he doesn't interfere in anyone else's doing the same.
​

Ayn Rand's definition is more stark, but unenforceable:

It is immoral to initiate force in any way at all. So the coersive power of the state is immoral in and of itself.
​

In other ways, the only way to defend a person's moral freedom is to do something immoral. I just can't support "2 wrongs make a right" so the first definition is better for me.
​

 

[edgray]

A very interesting question Accountable.

Personally, I value my freedom, and want as much of it as possible. But you have to remember that someone's freedom to do something takes away someone's freedom from that thing.

Take things like gun ownership. You have the freedom to own a handgun. What about my freedom from handguns? Freedom from the dangers of handguns? Freedom can be such a subjective thing. To put it another way: I'm free to throw a party in my apartment, but my neighbour has their freedom to a peaceful nights sleep taken away by me doing so.

You put a lot of weight on what is essentially consumer choice, like with the recent healthcare debates. To me personally, I don't give a monkeys uncle who provides my healthcare as long as it works, and is available to everyone. For you, if the govt supplies it you've had rights removed, if it's private sector, your ability to choose between HMO plans gives you freedom. I don't really equate consumer choice to freedom at all. One crappy HMO is not that much different from another. The freedom to choose between the two, for me, is practically inconsequential.

My personal belief of freedom is that, as of this moment, none of us a free. We're all subjugated in one way or another, mostly by money, bosses, corporations, the media and so forth, and to a lesser extent, the govt. Freedom cannot, in my mind, exist without 100% equality. !00% equality can never exist in any kind of capitalist structure, or traditional statist socialist structures, nor with any kind of representative democracy structure like the ones we all suffer under right now.

In that sense, freedom, as I would like it to be, is a long, long way off.

 

[Accountable]

Well, I guess that comes down to social justice and economic egalitarianism, not only are modern liberal democracies based on the principles of freedom and liberalism, but more recently, on principles of justice and equality. I see the issue of a wealthy person paying a higher proportion of taxes, in order to satisfy and promote social betterment for the poor as acceptable, and not an encroachment on an individual's freedom. You'd probably disagree with me there.

With that being said, I only think inequality is permissible when it is to the advantage of those who are less well off.

So it is too much freedom when that freedom allows others to suffer. Does that about sum it up for you?

Because most of the services that the government provides are generally in the public interest, that is, for the betterment and welfare of the community at large. To me, the only other alternative is privatization of said services, which generally results in poorer service delivery, higher costs, and an organization whose interests may be at odds with those of the community.

I don't have the studies in front of me, but I'm pretty sure you are 180 degrees out of phase here. Private industry always beats out gov't services. Fedex and UPS are so much more efficient and profitable than the US postal service, that they are required by law to charge at least double the postal rates in most instances, and are prohibited from carrying letters. Lasik surgery is not covered by most insurance, so has had to find ways to be more efficient. As a consequence, prices have dropped as quality and innovation have increased. Prisons all over America are privatized because of lowered costs & increased efficiency. Many cities & states have privatized road systems & allowed private companies to maintain them as toll roads because it saves money and improves conditions.

The one thing government programs do is make services available to everyone, at the cost of increased costs and inefficiency.

 

[Accountable]

I see the issue of a wealthy person paying a higher proportion of taxes, in order to satisfy and promote social betterment for the poor as acceptable, and not an encroachment on an individual's freedom. [...]
With that being said, I only think inequality is permissible when it is to the advantage of those who are less well off.

People should limit themselves to services that they can afford. I believe that the government should step in and assist those who cannot afford the bare essentials. I don't have a problem with paying taxes to provide the disadvantaged with some assistance in the form of food stamps, disability insurance, etc.

If people pull their weight, become employed (provided that they are able), and put an honest effort into supporting themselves then I believe the government should provide a little help if they are unable to quite make it.

Is there anything that the government should do when someone is clearly taking advantage of government largess and not putting forth effort to take care of himself?

 

[Accountable]

We retain all the freedoms that we're unwilling to delegate to our government. We give our government it's power. Problem is, I don't think the government realizes that anymore and takes what power it wants. I think Americans are fairly evenly split on whether the individual should delegate their basic responsibilities to the government.

I agree. We can blame religion, in that people believed Kings were looked upon with favor by God (otherwise they wouldn't have won the war, would they?) to look after His land. The king then took what God gave him to oversee and delegated others to help him take care of it, the assumption being that taking care of the land meant taking care of the people on the land. All things flowed through the king from God, so all rights and freedom were gifts granted by the king, the government.

The US was founded on a different idea. We The People were in charge and made all decisions. The government was to serve Us and the people that ran the government are Our employees. Unfortunately, we didn't pick a better name to call it instead of government, and everyone started looking at the European and American governments as the same kind of organization.

 

[Accountable]

A very interesting question Accountable. Thanks.

Personally, I value my freedom, and want as much of it as possible. But you have to remember that someone's freedom to do something takes away someone's freedom from that thing.

Take things like gun ownership. You have the freedom to own a handgun. What about my freedom from handguns? Freedom from the dangers of handguns? Freedom can be such a subjective thing. To put it another way: I'm free to throw a party in my apartment, but my neighbour has their freedom to a peaceful nights sleep taken away by me doing so.

The two examples are so disparate that they can't possibly make the same point. My gun impinges on you only in that you want the right to dictate what I may or may not own, simply because it makes you nervous. That's a far cry from noise I create preventing you from sleep. They don't equate in any way at all beyond involving the same two people.

You put a lot of weight on what is essentially consumer choice, like with the recent healthcare debates. To me personally, I don't give a monkeys uncle who provides my healthcare as long as it works, and is available to everyone. For you, if the govt supplies it you've had rights removed, if it's private sector, your ability to choose between HMO plans gives you freedom. I don't really equate consumer choice to freedom at all. One crappy HMO is not that much different from another. The freedom to choose between the two, for me, is practically inconsequential.

Of course you care who provides your healthcare. If the gov't started making unrealistic demands on you to continue receiving healthcare, you'd holler but wouldn't be able to do very much about it. At least with a crappy HMO, there's hope that a less crappy HMO will come around offering less crappy services in direct competition. You would then be free to make the choice to drop one in favor of another. It's not likely that a less crappy government will come in to offer you a choice of governments. They tend to be resistant to coexistence, unlike crappy HMOs.

My personal belief of freedom is that, as of this moment, none of us a free. We're all subjugated in one way or another, mostly by money, bosses, corporations, the media and so forth, and to a lesser extent, the govt. Freedom cannot, in my mind, exist without 100% equality. !00% equality can never exist in any kind of capitalist structure, or traditional statist socialist structures, nor with any kind of representative democracy structure like the ones we all suffer under right now.

In that sense, freedom, as I would like it to be, is a long, long way off.

You have less freedom than I, being under a more micre-managerial government, but you do have freedoms. Take something innocuous, like fast food. If you want a hamburger, you can go to restaurant A, B or make one yourself. If restaurant A doesn't offer hamburgers on their menu, you are not free to demand one anyway, that's true. Likewise, you aren't free to determine the price of the hamburger if they do sell them. But you are free to go to restaurant B or make one yourself, based on whatever criteria you deem important. However, if the government decided that it should take over the care and feeding of its citizens, you may very well lose even those minor freedoms. You may not be allowed to have a hamburger when you want one because the law has dictated you've eaten your quota for the period.

Admittedly, that's an extreme example, but in my opinion every government I can think of has already crossed the line of acceptable infringement.

 

[Peter Parka]

I basically think that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting anyone but themself.

 

[nova]

I see the issue of a wealthy person paying a higher proportion of taxes, in order to satisfy and promote social betterment for the poor as acceptable, and not an encroachment on an individual's freedom. You'd probably disagree with me there.

I do disagree with you for the simple fact that money = time. People trade time, which can never be replaced for money. When you take a greater portion of one persons money than another persons, you are in essence taking more of their time.

How does it fit into the ideals of justice and equality if one person spends 30% of their time "working for the gov't" and another person spend 5%, 0% or in some cases -10% of their time working for the gov't?

To me thats fundamentally unjust and unequal not to mention a infringement upon the basic liberties of man. Legally requiring one group of people to spend a greater portion of their lives for the benefit of others is no more right now than it was 150 years ago...