An Odd Definition Of Liberty
Feb 5
Glen Dean longs for a time when segregation was the norm, women weren’t allowed to vote, and minorities had few rights. He doesn’t exactly say as much, mind you, but he does make the risible argument, in a time when habeas corpus has been suspended and when the government can spy on US citizens without warrants or oversight, that the passage of the sixteenth amendment (the income tax) is “the greatest threat to individual liberty this nation has ever experienced.” Further, in comments, he argues that Americans had more liberty before 1913 than they enjoy today — a statement I don’t think is true even if you limit the discussion to white males.
Glen is of the somewhat curious opinion that government action of any kind necessarily restricts individual liberty, and I just don’t see how any reasonable person could believe that’s true. Best I can figure, he’s buying the tired, old “taxation is theft” argument that many [L/l]ibertarians like to parrot.
It is my opinion, however, that notwithstanding recent abuses of the justice system, Americans have more freedom now than they’ve ever had. And I’m not just talking about freedom from government oppression. I’m also talking about economic freedom, and personal freedom.
Think about it: If you could choose to live now or in 1912 (or even in, say, 1960), what would you choose? I’d choose now. Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be.
#1 by Glen Dean at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Well that’s not exactly what I am saying or longing for, but thanks for the link. I have never heard the argument that we are more free because of government, but hey, different strokes for different folks. I always thought that freedom was something we were endowed with, and that governments could only take freedom away, not grant it. Oh well. I guess I could be wrong.
#2 by Ted at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
“I always thought that freedom was something we were endowed with, and that governments could only take freedom away, not grant it.”
What about protect it? Seems to me there are a myriad of ways one can have his or her freedom restricted by non-government entities, and an important function of government is to keep this from happening. And I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong.
#3 by tgirsch at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Think about the freedom to travel, which is guaranteed in the constitution. Are you more or less free to travel because of the Interstate Highway System? That system simply would not exist without federal involvement. And it couldn’t have come about without the income tax, either. Increased freedom as a direct result of government action (and enabled by income taxes).
#4 by Morris at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
“Are you more or less free to travel because of the Interstate Highway System?”
You are no more or less free to travel because of the Interstate Highway System. The ability to travel faster and more conveniently is not an increase in freedom. I hope you posted that with tongue firmly planted in your cheek.
#5 by tgirsch at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
I wasn’t aware that “freedom” was strictly limited to the right to do something, and had absolutely nothing to do with the ability to do something. To my mind, it’s both.
#6 by digglahhh at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Mark your calendars folks…
I think I’m going to have to agree with Morris here, at least in the theoretical.
Certainly things like highways make the freedom to travel more meaningful, in a practical sense. But, the highway system has no intrinsic relation to the freedom to travel itself. For one, it’s mere existence does not ensure freedom of travel. The fact that it is designated for public use (or better yet, not restricted to private use) does.
Secondly, as it relates to freedom, the (material) means by which a state may (attempt to) enforce limitations on one’s right to travel would benefit equally from means and systems of travel like highways.
#7 by tgirsch at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Certainly things like highways make the freedom to travel more meaningful, in a practical sense.
And this is irrelevant exactly why?
The point is, the interstate highway system enhances your freedom to travel, and it does so without infringing upon essential liberties. It is a direct counterexample to Glen’s claim that all government action always restricts liberty.
#8 by digglahhh at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Ooh. Upon re-reading, this may turn out to be technical discussion about the difference between rights and freedom(s).
TG did, in fact, use the word “freedom” and not “rights” in post #6. I think that point probably does hold up pretty well as it relates to “freedom.”
I’m don’t think that the absence of a highway system would mean that we didn’t have the freedom to travel though. I think the whole analogy is a little weird, actually.
Of course if I was truly a constructive part of this site, I would offer a better one…
#9 by digglahhh at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
And this is irrelevant exactly why?
Because discussions about abstract concepts usually take place in the theoretical/philosophical.
I don’t know if I would say the highways “enhance your freedom to travel.”
Does the microwave enhance your freedom to cook?
I’m not sure if improving the efficiency of systems to accomplish something actually increase the freedom to do that thing. They just make making the choice to exercise such freedom more attractive. It could a relative thing to, that what extent the lack of efficient means actually acts as a barrier to exercising said freedom.
This could be a good discussion.
#10 by digglahhh at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Sorry, edit. Sentence should read:
It could be a relative thing too; to what extent does the lack of (easily usable) means of exercising said freedom act as an actual barrier.
I’m not saying it well, but you know what I’m trying to say.
#11 by Ted at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
I have to say, Tgirsch has left the reservation on this one. Within the original context of this thread, I’m not buying highways as “enhanced freedom”. To be honest, I’m not even sure if I can accept the concept of enhanced freedom. One could argue that within any specific context, one is either free or restricted. In other words, freedom is an absolute and can not be enhanced. Sort of like uniqueness. Either you is or you aint.
Disclaimer - I have not thought this through and could well be missing something..
#12 by tgirsch at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Put it another way: What good is a freedom that you have no practical ability to exercise? (It’s worth noting that in this context, I’m not just using “freedom” in a purely political sense, but also in a practical sense. I’m ever the pragmatist.)
And in any case, set aside the idea of “enhanced” freedom. In what way does the Interstate Highway System meaningfully restrict freedom, as Glen would seem to argue?
#13 by Ted at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
“And in any case, set aside the idea of “enhanced” freedom. In what way does the Interstate Highway System meaningfully restrict freedom, as Glen would seem to argue?”
Well, just to give you an answer, in order to build it, people had their property taken away under eminent domain. This probably doesn’t pass the “meaningful” test - unless you happen to be one of the folks who lost their property (assuming they had a strong attachment to it).
I certainly agree with you that govenment can enhance the quality of life of its citizens through public works. But again, we were talking about freedom.
#14 by tgirsch at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Ted:
The eminent domain part is indeed a valid point, and one that I’d overlooked. Good point. (You’d think I’d remember this, as there’s a spot in Milwaukee where my Mom used to point to the freeway and say “that’s where our house used to be.”)
It would be interesting to see, however, if Glen would amend the constitution to take away the eminent domain power from the government. My guess is, probably.
But again, we were talking about freedom.
And as I mentioned above, we seem not to be in total agreement about what “freedom” means.
#15 by Ted at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
“And as I mentioned above, we seem not to be in total agreement about what “freedom” means.”
Perhaps we should consult Aretha Franklin…
#16 by tgirsch at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Ted:
#17 by Ted at February 5th, 2008
| Quote
Or, and this is before your time, Richie Havens. Would have included him before but Ravi Shankar had somehow overwritten Havens’ storage location in my brain and I couldn’t come up with his name. Until I totally stopped thinking about it and then it popped right up.
#18 by digglahhh at February 6th, 2008
| Quote
TG,
I was going to say what Ted about freedom being an absolute, but I hadn’t fully thought it through either. He is braver than I. The problem is that I do actually believe in degrees of freedom in the practical sense, so I’m kinda on the fence here.
But, how can the existence of a highway restrict your freedom? We’ll I’ve been pulled over and been the victim of illegal searches while driving on the highway. That’s not a valid response in the sense that Ted interpreted the question, but it seems like one in the sense you do, TG. Let’s run with your take.
I brushed on this general concern in my first post. The existence of the highway does nothing to benefit those seeking freedom disproportionate to what it does for those who may seek to curtail freedom (freedom in general, not just to travel, per se).
Do you consider large corporations to be a threat to your freedoms, at least in the sense, magnitude, and direction they influence public policy? Well, those corporations benefit from a transportation infrastructure more than you do.
It can be argued that, indirectly, these systems don’t enhance your freedom, but restrict it.