How much Freedom is Too Much?

[edgray]

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.

No the point remains the same - your freedom TO can impose on someone's freedom FROM.

Your gun doesn't impinge on my right to dictate, it imposes on my idea of safety. Gun ownership, in my opinion, a safe society does not make.

They examples show that whatever freedom you desire is bound to step on someone else's toes, essentially taking away a freedom of theirs.

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.

Of course I'd holler if the govt started messing up my healthcare. I'd do the same if I was private and they messed it up too. The freedom to drop a private HMO in favour of another is not that disimilar to my ability to use my vote and pressure my MP to improve my govt healthcare. Both amount to the same thing.

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.

Well this point is really the center of the arguement, isn't it? Basically what you're saying is totally correct, where we might differ on opinion is how we would define an "acceptable infringement."

As you know, I'm a libertarian so ideally would like to see the dissolution of all structures of power, govt included. But at this time, with our current societies, that simply would not work. So, my level of acceptable infringement is solely based on the "greater good", that is, what is best for society a whole.

In your example, I could only condone a govt take over of food in very extreme circumstances, say in times of natural disaster, war etc. This happened in Britain of course after WW2, and lasted until the 50s. Everyone hated it, but it was necessary for the country. If the govt didn't step in and ration, food would only go to the rich and the poor would have been buggered. In that instance, I would accept that infringement on my freedom to ensure the survival of my society in the fairest manner.

You have less freedom than I, being under a more micre-managerial government, but you do have freedoms.

As a short side, I'd love to hear what freedoms you have and I lack. I've lived in the UK, Canada, The US and Spain and never noticed a difference in the general freedom. Perhaps the UK and Spain are far more lenient on drug taking than the US, which is a freedom I certainly approve of, but other than that, the level of freedom between western countries is nigh on identical.

 

[dt3]

Of course I'd holler if the govt started messing up my healthcare. I'd do the same if I was private and they messed it up too. The freedom to drop a private HMO in favour of another is not that disimilar to my ability to use my vote and pressure my MP to improve my govt healthcare. Both amount to the same thing.

They're not even remotely the same. If I want to change insurance carriers, I can call mine today and drop them, and call another one with coverage starting tomorrow. Your method has to wait an entire election cycle, and then you have to hope that enough other people share your views to put that MP into office.

 

[edgray]

They're not even remotely the same. If I want to change insurance carriers, I can call mine today and drop them, and call another one with coverage starting tomorrow. Your method has to wait an entire election cycle, and then you have to hope that enough other people share your views to put that MP into office.

yes this is true but the changes will then last a nice long time thanks to that election cycle. The timeframe is different for sure but the point remains the same.

Of course, I have the freedom to go private at any point...

 

[Dana]

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.

God i've been saying this for a long ass time.

 

[nova]

No the point remains the same - your freedom TO can impose on someone's freedom FROM.

Your gun doesn't impinge on my right to dictate, it imposes on my idea of safety. Gun ownership, in my opinion, a safe society does not make.

No it prevents you from imposing your idea of safety on anyone else. However stupid that idea may be, you can still continue to think it, the very essence of freedom.

Freedom is the ability to act according to one's desire without outside interference, not a guarantee that that things will always be exactly as you like them.

The only place "freedom from" makes any sense is in the idea of "freedom from oppression" ie freedom to be be free.

 

[All Else Failed]

When narcissism and solipsism pervade society.

 

[Accountable]

Of course I'd holler if the govt started messing up my healthcare. I'd do the same if I was private and they messed it up too. The freedom to drop a private HMO in favour of another is not that disimilar to my ability to use my vote and pressure my MP to improve my govt healthcare. Both amount to the same thing.

They're not even remotely the same. If I want to change insurance carriers, I can call mine today and drop them, and call another one with coverage starting tomorrow. Your method has to wait an entire election cycle, and then you have to hope that enough other people share your views to put that MP into office.

yes this is true but the changes will then last a nice long time thanks to that election cycle. The timeframe is different for sure but the point remains the same.

Of course, I have the freedom to go private at any point...

En contraire, mon amigo. You have the freedom to ADD private insurance IN ADDITION TO the crappy government insurance you've decided not to use. That's worlds away from taking your money from one entity and giving it to another. Plus, you're right that your way, should enough people agree with you (otherwise you're screwed), would last a long time. What if your second choice is likewise inadequate? Then you start all over again hoping enough constituents are dissatisfied with your crappy service.

Come to think of it, your way doesn't change the service at all; only your customer service advocate gets replaced.

 

[Accountable]

No the point remains the same - your freedom TO can impose on someone's freedom FROM.

Your gun doesn't impinge on my right to dictate, it imposes on my idea of safety. Gun ownership, in my opinion, a safe society does not make.

No it prevents you from imposing your idea of safety on anyone else. However stupid that idea may be, you can still continue to think it, the very essence of freedom.

Freedom is the ability to act according to one's desire without outside interference, not a guarantee that that things will always be exactly as you like them.

The only place "freedom from" makes any sense is in the idea of "freedom from oppression" ie freedom to be be free.

I had to quit a forum because one mod actually claimed that by squelching any public disagreement he was preserving the forum members' freedom from disharmony. :wtf:
Ed, should we all bow to those who are afraid of dogs in the same way? Motorcycles? Skateboards? Rock music?? I've had neighbors use similar arguments against each of these.

Are all of these examples of too much freedom??

 

[Accountable]

*snip*


Well this point is really the center of the arguement, isn't it? Basically what you're saying is totally correct, where we might differ on opinion is how we would define an "acceptable infringement."

As you know, I'm a libertarian so ideally would like to see the dissolution of all structures of power, govt included. But at this time, with our current societies, that simply would not work. So, my level of acceptable infringement is solely based on the "greater good", that is, what is best for society a whole.

In your example, I could only condone a govt take over of food in very extreme circumstances, say in times of natural disaster, war etc. This happened in Britain of course after WW2, and lasted until the 50s. Everyone hated it, but it was necessary for the country. If the govt didn't step in and ration, food would only go to the rich and the poor would have been buggered. In that instance, I would accept that infringement on my freedom to ensure the survival of my society in the fairest manner.

I disagree pretty much categorically. Libertarians are not necessarily anti-government - well, let me step back from that, because we have some real difference in our definition and function of government.

I definitely disagree about the "greater good" phrase, since that's the reason that's brought up for everything from nuclear weapons to helmet mandates to unwarranted phone taps to universal healthcare.

I also disagree about any gov't takeover of the food supply, full stop. Woulda coulda shoulda, there's no way to know how the British people might have pulled together under adverse circumstances because the government didn't trust its own people enough to try.

As a short side, I'd love to hear what freedoms you have and I lack. I've lived in the UK, Canada, The US and Spain and never noticed a difference in the general freedom. Perhaps the UK and Spain are far more lenient on drug taking than the US, which is a freedom I certainly approve of, but other than that, the level of freedom between western countries is nigh on identical.

I see any "service" provided by the government as an infringement on my freedom, because it takes away my right to make choices in that particular matter. Some I'm fine with, such as national defense, international relations, etc etc. But that list is very short, and I consider my representatives, my employees, on a very short leash concerning each of those items.

As for the freedoms I have that you lack, I left my list in my other suit but the things that come to mind include any services that are privatised here that your government does for you. You're right about the drug thing; little drives me more nuts than throwing good tax dollars away on protecting adults from harming themselves with their own stupid behavior. The gun issue you're already well aware of. Oh yeh, and we elect our head of state ... not always well, but at least I get a say in the matter.

I'll toss up some more as I think of them.

 

[Accountable]

When narcissism and solipsism pervade society.

Not to mention thesauri.

Cogito, ergo sum

 

[kelvin070]

I just want to put it simply. If you look at any organization chart you will notice some are Tall Structures while others are Flat Structures. Tall Structures are sometimes called top heavy. What matters is it enhances the decision making and comminication process. In the US its too much of a bottom heavy with the common people having too much power. Striking a balance is not enough, it should be top heavy and govt could expidite in policies and decision making, even unpopular policies which are beneficial to the people in the long run.

 

[Accountable]

I just want to put it simply. If you look at any organization chart you will notice some are Tall Structures while others are Flat Structures. Tall Structures are sometimes called top heavy. What matters is it enhances the decision making and comminication process. In the US its too much of a bottom heavy with the common people having too much power. Striking a balance is not enough, it should be top heavy and govt could expidite in policies and decision making, even unpopular policies which are beneficial to the people in the long run.

Beneficial in what way?

When my idea of beneficial for me clashes with the government's idea of same, how can you be sure that the government is always the wiser or the, um, 'righter'?

 

[kelvin070]

Beneficial in what way?

When my idea of beneficial for me clashes with the government's idea of same, how can you be sure that the government is always the wiser or the, um, 'righter'?

Well, the brightest people here are all with the civil service. They make sure policies are carfully studied, all loop holes covered before implementation and at the same time no govt can please everybody.

 

[kelvin070]

When you have a group of the brightest people assembled for a common purpose it is very unlikly that policies can go wrong but if you gonna have some unruly dogfights in congress and occassionaly a drunkard involed then things gonna go haywire. But if a drunkard man speaks then listen to him carefully cuz a drunk man tells no lies

 

[Accountable]

and .... you believe that?

So in your view, how much freedom is too much?

 

[kelvin070]

and .... you believe that?

So in your view, how much freedom is too much?

Its hard to tell cuz I dont know US that well but lawmakers in US have to look behind their shoulders while making policy decisions - thats a sorry sight.

 

[Accountable]

I didn't ask what you thought about freedom in the US. I simply ask you: How much freedom is too much?

 

[Meirionnydd]

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

Well, sort of, I think a more appropriate term in place of 'allows' would be 'causes'. So I do believe too much freedom would be when that freedom causes others to suffer, because in that case, the freedom of the people who are suffering is somewhat more limited.

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.

I'm sure both of us could cite case studies reinforcing our points. Indeed, in some cases, privatization of some services would be desired over government control, however, said privatization isn't always a slam drunk for better service. For example, when my state government de-regulated the energy industry, business leaders put on the mantra of "It will reduce costs, and improve service". Unfortunately, that didn't happen, the price of energy has consistently increased, and there's been no discernible improvement in service to customers.

The same thing happened when the government privatized our telecommunication giant, Telstra, in the past 10 years since privatization, costs have gone up measurably, service delivery is poorer, and the company has been plagued by very poor managerial practices.

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.

Actually, private prisons are not more cost effective and efficient than their public counterparts. In fact, some studies have even suggested the opposite.

Private prisons are frequently accused of poor management practices, and in some cases, the poor treatment of inmates. Staff are not as highly trained as their counterparts working in the public system and there are generally fewer staff employed in private prisons, which can lead to an increase in violence and escape attempts.

It's a bit of a stretch for someone to justify prison privatization, just about every criminal justice expert and criminologist disagrees with the whole premise. Think about it, if a prison is paid on the amount of inmates they house, then they a vested interest in incarceration rates, the higher amount of inmates in the system, the more possible money they can make. However, if the prison population drops, so does their ability to make money. Therefore, by definition, it would be against the interests of the private prison industry for the prison population to decrease, something which is at odds with the interests of the community.

Anyway, here's an interesting article on the issue - George Monbiot: This revolting trade in human lives is an incentive to lock people up | Comment is free | The Guardian

Oh, and in regards to toll roads. Nothing pisses me off more than being charged by a private company to drive on a road my tax dollars helped pay for.

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

Call me a Communist/Socialist/Marxist or whatever, but I agree with that premise.

 

[Accountable]

Well, sort of, I think a more appropriate term in place of 'allows' would be 'causes'. So I do believe too much freedom would be when that freedom causes others to suffer, because in that case, the freedom of the people who are suffering is somewhat more limited.

"Causes harm"?? In what way does a person keeping his money cause harm to someone who has none? I mean, that's the person being penalized in this situation: the person with money - the government determines - to spare.

I'm sure both of us could cite case studies reinforcing our points. Indeed, in some cases, privatization of some services would be desired over government control, however, said privatization isn't always a slam drunk for better service. For example, when my state government de-regulated the energy industry, business leaders put on the mantra of "It will reduce costs, and improve service". Unfortunately, that didn't happen, the price of energy has consistently increased, and there's been no discernible improvement in service to customers.

The same thing happened when the government privatized our telecommunication giant, Telstra, in the past 10 years since privatization, costs have gone up measurably, service delivery is poorer, and the company has been plagued by very poor managerial practices.

Was there any real competition present? Because without both privatization and competition, I can see how there wouldn't be improvement. Our phone system was a monopoly years ago. The gov't broke it into competitive pieces and we have great service at very low rates. Seriously, I think we can at least agree that having a choice in communications providers is not too much freedom, can't we?

Actually, private prisons are not more cost effective and efficient than their public counterparts. In fact, some studies have even suggested the opposite.

Private prisons are frequently accused of poor management practices, and in some cases, the poor treatment of inmates. Staff are not as highly trained as their counterparts working in the public system and there are generally fewer staff employed in private prisons, which can lead to an increase in violence and escape attempts.

It's a bit of a stretch for someone to justify prison privatization, just about every criminal justice expert and criminologist disagrees with the whole premise. Think about it, if a prison is paid on the amount of inmates they house, then they a vested interest in incarceration rates, the higher amount of inmates in the system, the more possible money they can make. However, if the prison population drops, so does their ability to make money. Therefore, by definition, it would be against the interests of the private prison industry for the prison population to decrease, something which is at odds with the interests of the community.

Anyway, here's an interesting article on the issue - George Monbiot: This revolting trade in human lives is an incentive to lock people up | Comment is free | The Guardian

Oh, and in regards to toll roads. Nothing pisses me off more than being charged by a private company to drive on a road my tax dollars helped pay for.

I agree with you on both of these counts, actually. Like I said, those examples were off the top of my head. If we can't ensure there can be real competition for the profits, it makes no sense to privatize something that the gov't already runs, however poorly.

Call me a Communist/Socialist/Marxist or whatever, but I agree with that premise.

So do I, within very strict and restrictive limits.

 

[kelvin070]

I didn't ask what you thought about freedom in the US. I simply ask you: How much freedom is too much?

Its hard to quantify. We don't have your kind of freedom and yet we are a progressive nation. We have less freedom than US but certainly more freedom than China.