Federal Court Female Draft Decision: One More Reason To Learn To Peel Onions

USAToday reports today that a federal court in Texas has ruled, or decided, or whatever we call what they do that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to require men to register for Selective Service without requiring woman to register.

A quick, albeit careless perusal of the linked article reminds me no amount of time is as wasted as that time spent determining constitutionality, unless we learn to peel onions. Let me explain.

Apparently, neglecting to register for Selective Service when a man turns 18 leaves him unable to get a bunch of goodies from the federal government. I wouldn’t know, I was in the Army before I even turned 18. That was back when I was old enough to know better, but young enough to do it anyway. Women, oppressed as they are, are not allowed to register for the draft, but they still get the goodies, among which are college loans and fat federal jobs after graduation. Men among us have decried unfairness and sued the government for relief and apparently won. I’m not sure what winning looks like in this case. The decision isn’t one where the government is forced to reconcile its laws accordingly (which begs the question why anyone bothered). Maybe it sets precedent. Ask a lawyer.

Common sense says we’ll get one of three possible outcomes from this decision: women will have to start registering for the draft, men won’t have to register but will still get the goodies, or the whole thing will be ignored. My money’s on the whole thing being ignored, but I’m cynical that way. There’s no way that the government will stop giving out goodies… that’s what they do.

What’s that got to do with peeling onions? Aside from making me want to cry, it reminds me that this is one more issue in the news that will be wasted because people won’t “peel a layer from the onion” and ask themselves the more important, underlying question: is conscription constitutional? A standing army isn’t constitutional. Neither is slavery. How could being forced to donate your life potentially, your labor assuredly, and your freedom completely to “serve” in an unconstitutional organization be constitutional? I’ll tell you how: we’ve traded the simple reading of the Constitution as it is written for the opinion of 9 lawyers in black robes. No reading comprehension necessary. Get back to Dancing With The Stars.

If I had my way, we’d all be asking our ourselves how the hell they think they have the power to force our sons and daughters to fight in undeclared wars anyway. But I’ll be wasting my breath if the rest of us spend all of our time arguing whether or not it is fair for women to be denied combat roles in the military, or whether or not women should have to be at risk of being drafted in order to get the same goodies as the men, or whatever the conversation will devolve to instead of getting to the real issues.

I’ll be peeling onions around here. Hopefully more than I have been over the couple of years since setting this site up. Why don’t you join me? Head over to the Facebook page and rant a little. Thanks for stopping by, and come back again.

 

Paradox, Shmaradox: A clearly amateur but hopefully compelling debunking of Schrödinger’s Ballot Box

Today FEE.org put out a post about something called “Schrödinger’s Ballot” which posits that there is an inherent contradiction, a paradox, in the concept of democracy. Here is the link. I’ll briefly sum it up and then address where I believe that the contradictions really are.

Philosopher Richard Wollheim published an article call “A Paradox in the Theory of Democracy” in 1962. He sets up the scenario something like this:

A committed democrat (note: lower case “d”) sincerely believes that social policy should be decided by a democratic process.

This person expresses his personal belief on the issue by voting for or against. In this case, let’s say he votes against a policy.

After to votes are counted, imagine we find that the measure passes. This is the opposite of what the committed democrat wanted to have happen. Here is the paradox:

The committed democrat has to believe both that the policy should be adopted because the democratic process produced the result, and he has to also believe that it should not be adopted because of his personal belief concerning the matter.

Now I’m not sure if that constitutes a paradox at all, but there sure is an argument, well…at least half of an argument that I hear all the time. Democrats said for the eight years of the Obama presidency that Republicans were mean spirited racists any time they disagreed with an Obama policy. They said that Republicans needed to stop complaining and accept the “will of the people” and a “mandate” that Obama was doing what the people wanted. In other words the democratic process did what it was supposed to do, damn the hard feelings on the other side.

These days Trump supporters gleefully remind the Democrats (and democrats: small “d”) of the same. And D(d)emocrats aren’t walking all that talk any better than their R(r)epublican counterparts did while they (we) were getting Obamacare shoved down our throats. So I’m wondering if there is a paradox at all, frankly, concerning how people rectify the complications of a democratic process for accomplishing ANYTHING.

You see, here’s the thing: both sides of this wrangling are lying when they say that they believe that a democratic process ought to decide policy. Both sides only say that when their guy wins, or the policy they support is decided in their favor. When they lose, all Hell breaks loose like it was a waste of time anyway.

Democrats, and to a lesser extent Republicans like to pretend that their positions are reasonable, and the other guys’ positions are the wacky ones. They both paint the other side as advocating a violation of their rights, and that they are just trying to protect “religious liberty” or “the right to choose.”But the truth is that both would rather use violence to get their way than to accept not getting their way at all. I know, I know what you are thinking. “There he goes with all that talk about violence again. I bet he’ll remind us that ‘taxation is theft’ before he is done as well.” Hey, I’m sorry but face it: if it was such a good idea, and if “the American people have sent a mandate to the President” then WE WOULDN’T NEED A LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. Really. People would just do it. Or not do it. Or whatever. The mere fact that you want a law against marijuana use, or for a Constitutional amendment that bans flag burning means you think people will disagree with you and do it anyway. And you are willing to use government to stop people. (Those who know me are wondering why I didn’t use the hyperbolic phrase, “men with guns and badges” right there instead of “government.” Hey, I’m trying to lighten up a little! Sorry, inside joke I guess.)

Anyway, I think that explains all the crazy reactions we have seen from both sides in recent history concerning elections, executive orders, regulations, etc. If people really believed that some democratic process was good for anything except a car load of kids deciding what fast food place to hit on their way out on a Friday night, people would live with the results of said election(s).

Nope. Democrats and republicans use the democratic system as a facade that gives legitimacy forcing people to do what they want them to do. I don’t think there is a paradox at all. A paradox would mean that people really believed that the democratic process is the way to resolve these things. None of them really do.

Hey, thanks for reading today. Tell your friends if you think this is worth other people reading. I’m not very good at it yet but who knows, maybe with a little practice and some constructive criticism I’ll get better.

ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORMAL AND EFFECTIVE FREEDOM: Why libertarians and progressives don’t communicate about freedom.

I’ve touched on this before. I blamed semantics for my inability to communicate the message of individual liberty to progressives and conservatives. “Surely,” I thought “if we can just agree on what liberty is, we can come to some agreement on how to get there.” A recent, short Facebook exchange with a very smart progressive online acquaintance prompted me to dig a little deeper into this divide. I’m glad I did.

What I’m about to write about will be inadequate. I have skimmed a number of scholarly articles about this but I have barely scraped the surface, so if any of this grabs you I encourage you to do your own research.

Bottom Line Up Front: Instead of accepting my own definition for freedom, I’m going to use the term “formal freedom” for the standard libertarian term, and “effective freedom” for what progressives use. I didn’t’ make these terms up by the way. Smarter people did. I’ve been trying to argue that there is only one freedom and prove that my version is the real one. I now accept that there is two ways to define freedom. And here’s the rub: both are legitimate. Libertarians and progressives just need to work together to encourage effective freedom in ways that we can both live with.

Libertarians see liberty from a “freedom-from” position. To a libertarian, a person is free when he no one is forcing him to do something he doesn’t want to, or using force to keep him from doing something he wants to do. Of course, all bets are off if what he wants to do includes using force on someone else. That would be logically inconsistent.

Progressives see liberty from a “freedom-to” position. To a progressive, a person is not free if he doesn’t have the means to do that thing that he is otherwise free to do. Progressives and libertarians agree on a lot of things that a person is free to do/ not do. Where we part ways is how we go about empowering people to do what they want, but don’t have the necessary tools to actually do it.

For example, contrary to some of the progressive rhetoric about libertarians wanting to see poor people starving on the street, sacrificed on some kind of “free market alter,” nothing could be further from the truth. We love people just as much as progressives do. That’s why we encourage free market capitalism so strongly: we really belive that it is the best way to ensure the least amount of people end up in that condition as possible. We really do, progressives. Really. And there is science to back that assertion up. So bear with us a little.

Alternatively, I’ve been convinced that the progressive agenda was really about “soaking The Rich” and that issues like poverty or access to necessities are really just excuses. But the vast majority of progressives just want hungry people to have food, and they see market capitalism as the reason they don’t have it. What I am starting to realize is that they look out into the economy and examples of market capitalism failing to do what libertarians (and conservatives) say it should do. Further, if government is supposed to secure liberty, progressives expect government to intervene in order to end the disparity. When resources are moved from where they aren’t being used to the betterment of society toward where they are being used that way, the mission of “securing the blessing of liberty” is clearly made evident. The evidence is right before everyones’ eyes.

Libertarians are quick to point out that what we are talking about when we say “market capitalism” is a far cry from what we have now. What we have now is a far cry from true free markets. But where libertarians advocate moving toward free markets, progressives advocate more central management of the economy instead. I get it: more of the same gets more of the same. When progressives advocate more central management of the economy, libertarians see more of what keeps the system from working. More of the same gets more of the same, again. And we stare at each other incredulously wondering why we would be willing to sacrifice people over “politics.”

Here’s the rub: both of us want a different system in place to allocate resources fairly and equitably. Both of us want it because we want people to be prosperous. Both of us want people to be free. Both of us believe that it is the proper role for government to ensure we are all free. So why the arguing?

Back to the different versions of freedom we espouse. How is a person free to eat if he can’t get any food? How is a person free to own a home if he can’t get a mortgage? How is a person free to go to college if he is too poor to pay the tuition? To a progressive, the answer is simple: government exists to ensure people are free. Government should ensure that people have the resources they need to do the things that they have a right to do. Effective freedom.

Libertarians on the other hand believe that formal freedom, freedom from coercion is the best way to ensure effective freedom. That is because we believe that the greatest enemy to freedom is the government itself. Government has a necessary monopoly on the initiation of force, and when it uses that force in ways that restrict our freedom, even if it is to provide the resources that proponents of effective freedom advocate, we see a reduction of liberty, not an increase in freedom. At best what we see is a transfer of “freedom” from one group to another. And I can see where that might seem “fair” to some people, it comes with enormous moral hazards. I submit that those moral hazards tend to make the problems worse rather than better. I wish libertarians and progressives could get past the yelling and investigate these occurences together. Conservatives are unwilling to do it at all.

We libertarians get a little carried away with rhetoric sometimes. “Taxation is theft!” isn’t helping our image with progressives, for sure. As I have said, there is a certain shock value we hope to gain when we say it, but let’s face it: there has been too much shock and not enough value, so I hope libertarians reign that in a bit. I’m trying to myself.

So here’s what I hope we can do, we libertarians and progressives. I hope we can come together and balance our approaches to government involvement in the betterment of people’s’ lives. I’m willing to meet you in the middle. Let’s start by understanding that we really want the same goals accomplished: human and civil rights protected. Economic prosperity made available to everyone. Then let’s respect each others’ concerns about the second and third order consequences to possible solutions to the problems we face. We have a lot of work to do and we’ll never get it done if we can’t talk to each other.

A Libertarian States His Case for Immigration:Not to say it is ALL libertarians case, by any means.

So I’m libertarian. That means I believe it is immoral to initiate violence against someone. Even if a bunch of people agree that they should. Even if that bunch of people become organized through a democratic process and call themselves government. Let’s call that the Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP.

Juan is in Mexico walking north. John is in the US and is looking south, anticipating Juan’s arrival. Juan is looking forward to getting to work on John’s chicken farm. John is looking forward to someone willing to work on the farm. Work on a chicken farm sucks, and profits aren’t so hot, so pay will be pretty low. Most of the kids in town like big diesel trucks that blow white smoke, and those things are hard to buy on chicken farm pay. Plus their parents make sure they have video games to play.

John and Juan worked out an agreement. They agreed on a wage and the conditions of employment. Both are satisfied with the arrangement. Juan looks forward to working at about 7 times the wages he an get in his village. John looks forward to making enough profit that he can build more coops in a few years. With money from that coop, John might be able to pay someone to run the whole deal so he can spend more time in Ormond Beach, Fl with his family. He won’t have to keep doing that second job in town that is wearing him out, either. With the higher salary, Juan looks forward to saving enough money that he can get his kids out of the village and closer to nicer schools. Who knows, maybe someday his son can do something like run a chicken farm for an American who wants to spend more time at the beach.

When government is used to stop this transaction, both Juan’s and John’s rights are violated. It is no different than if you were to point a gun at either one of them and threaten to shoot them if Juan didn’t head back south. Using a man with a badge to do the gun-pointing changes nothing. Neither does backing the act up with a law that says it’s okay. That’s because government only legitimately exist to protect rights, not to infringe on them. And it makes no difference whose government we are talking about or where it happens to be located. But it especially needs no special pleadings in the US, where our country is young enough to actually be founded on that principle. Go read the first few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence…I’ll still be here when you get back.

Welcome back! So, we should be able to agree on two things right now. First, that if you stop Juan from working for John you have used force to accomplish it. Second, our government protects rights, it doesn’t infringe on them. All we have to do now is agree that Juan and John have a right to enter into this contract. That part should be easy, since clearly neither one is violating anyone else’s rights with their arrangement. So they should be left alone. But it isn’t so easy to agree on that. Is it? Can we at least agree that using force to stop someone from exercising a right sucks?

Getting around to agreeing that keeping Juan and John from associating through a contract that both of them consented to honor will have to be for another post on another day. This post isn’t about convincing you I’m right. It’s about explaining my case for immigration. There are economic reasons as well. National security reasons. Other reasons you probably don’t agree with about immigration as I’ve laid it out. I just wanted you to know this guy’s (me, that is) reason: because it’s none of your business what other people do as long as it doesn’t violate your rights. And that is good enough for me.

Think about it, and let me know what you come up with, will you? I hammered it out pretty quickly so there bounds to be spelling, grammar and/or logical consistency errors. Let me know. Thanks for reading.

 

Should Public Policy Support Abundance or Scarcity?: Frederic Bastiat knew, we should, but we apparently don’t.

With sincere apologies to Frederic Bastiat…

Are we better off with more options or less? More food, water, clothing, housing or less of  those things?

The answer is obvious: abundance is in the interest of people. But there is some confusion about how we accomplish the goal of abundance. The public policies being promoted by the Trump administration and supported by the people at large lead to scarcity instead. Why would we do that? Frederic Bastiat had the answer more than 200 years ago and it is as applicable today as it was then.

In the first chapter of his work, Economic Sophisms, Bastiat poses the question, “Which is preferable for man and for society, abundance or scarcity?” Anyone but a Luddite would agree that society is better off with more, rather than less food, water, clothing, housing, etc. Choices, even beyond the necessities of life are synonymous with a growing, successful society. No one could sensibly argue that it is in the interest of a man or of society that he struggle against shortages and high costs to achieve the things that make life better as long as the opposite is possible.

Bastiat contrasts two theories for satisfying the interest of society, the theory of scarcity and the theory of abundance.

The most popular then, and I suggest now as well is the theory of scarcity: a worker becomes richer in proportion as he sells his labor more expensively. He sells his labor more expensively as the commodity he produces is scarce. Scarcity enriches him.

Applied generally to all workers, we can deduce that all workers will be enriched by artificially inducing more scarcity in what they produce. This scarcity is the result of higher prices. This will enrich all workers. You can apply the same theory to producers of any kind, not just laborers. What you are left with is the theory of scarcity logically acceptable.

Just how do we go about creating this scarcity in what is produced? In Bastiat’s time, people were known to destroy tools that were invented to increase efficiency. The increase in efficiency meant fewer people were needed to get the same amount of work done. Or, more production occurred in the same amount of time-and increase in goods available for sale. Tariffs were placed on imported goods in order to protect domestic jobs. Pleas that “they will dump their goods on our shores and ship all of our money back to their ports” was common. Deliberate interference in markets either by the State or by the workers themselves with the goal of limiting or reducing the amount of goods produced was (and is) the accepted method for enriching society.

But what of abundance? Did we not agree that abundance of goods is what is in the interest of society? The most sensible, but unfortunately least popular theory, the theory of abundance posits that the consumer becomes richer in proportion as the amount of goods available increases and is made available more cheaply. Abundance enriches him. Applied generally, society is more enriched as all goods are made more abundant and purchased at a lower cost.

How do we go about creating this abundance? By doing just the opposite of what we do to create scarcity: we encourage innovation so that tools are developed and used that increase efficiency in production. By opening up the borders to as much trade as markets will bear. By realizing that men eat food, and use goods to enrich their lives. Abundance is created by lowering prices. If a good can be imported and sold at a lower cost than it can be produced domestically, we are fools to keep people from buying it. No one can eat the money that leaves our shores anyway.

Both syllogisms are logically correct in as far as what is stated, but they are self-contradicting. They proscribe opposite means to reach the same end. Only one can truly lead us to an enriched individual or society. We can only deduce which one if we understand how exchange works in markets.

If the entirety of society were only Robinson Crusoe, alone on an island, an understanding of exchange would not be necessary. Crusoe could consume only what he produced. If gathering water to drink for a day took two hours, he could not gather water for one hour and expect to have enough to drink. A plank needed would have to be carved from a tree in order to exist. Unless one were to wash up on shore. Would any reasonable person believe that the best way for Crusoe to enrich himself would be to kick it back into the ocean in order to protect his valuable labor? Of course not, we can all see immediately that abundance benefits Crusoe, and that the means to the end of the benefiting of society must necessarily bring abundance as well.

But none of us are Crusoe. We live in together in society. Because of the gains of the distribution of labor, each member of society is both a producer and a consumer at the same time. In fact, we produce in order to consume. But few us spend most of our productive time producing WHAT we consume. We all produce all or part of what ANOTHER consumes.  Both production and consumption must be encouraged but if we are to generate public policy that encourages a means that results in the general enrichment of society, we must look to the secret desires of those who would benefit from each of the two theories before we pick one.

The secret desires of the producer are anti-social: taken to the fullest extent, what benefits the producer would lead to no goods at all (after extreme scarcity at extremely high prices). If the producer of the world were to have complete power to make laws that promoted the theory of scarcity there would eventually be no goods produced. Producers would follow their secret desires that less and less was produced at higher and higher prices. Does that sound like the foundation of an enriched society? No goods at all?

But the secret desires of the consumer are vast amounts of goods at the lowest possible price. The secret desires of the consumer are obviously social: taken to the fullest, even if only theoretically possible completion, there would be unlimited goods available at zero cost. Who could complain about that?

Bastiat’s message to the people of France so long ago, and to us today is that it is easy to fall for the syllogisms that public policy that benefits the producers like tariffs, minimum wages, limits on technological innovation, and deliberate shortages caused by policies that pay people to not produce in order to keep supply low and prices high are not in the self-interest of the members of society. Even as we seek what would be an initial, if impermanent benefit as individuals, the end would be poverty and scarcity instead of abundance.

Thanks for reading.

Trump Has a Phone and a Pen As Well: Executive orders are a double-edged sword

I’ll post a link to the particulars, but it appears that some of the particularly controversial parts of the Affordable Care Act were empowered by executive order instead of written directly into the law. Okay some of you knew that already. The more astute among you for sure. But regular people probably didn’t realize it and might not understand the implications, so here we are.

My guess is that it happened for things that wouldn’t pass congressional muster. Like I said, you can go get the particulars if you want to. Legislating by executive order is executive over-reach. It is one of the many ways we have seen the executive branch use power that is reserved to the other branches, the states or the people. This has been going on for decades. It appears that the president took advantage of this power and began the process of unraveling the ACA’s more controversial requirements.

Another problem with it is that it becomes harder for people to obey the law. As more laws becomes regulations, they becomes more open to interpretation. The State likes it that way though, so don’t expect to see less of it. Don’t get too excited when you see a new president use executive orders or regulation re-interpretation in a way that you agree with over the last guy. Each time it is used, it transfers power from all of us to the president. And it seems to be a one way transfer.

So here is a link to an article with specifics. If you don’t like the source, Google your own. Trump’s Executive Order On Obamacare Means Everything And Does Nothing The author of this article seems to believe that the Order “does nothing” and he is right in the context in which he says that: it doesn’t grant any power that the president doesn’t already have, but as I said: every time a power is executed by the president that should be a law passed by Congress, it solidifies that power in the executive. My opinion I guess, but the evidence seems pretty clear to me. You be the judge.

Thanks for reading. Share if you like.

Theft and Taxation: Why I call taxation theft and why you should not be offended.

Libertarians are wont to call taxation theft. Progressives who advocate government reallocation of wealth get livid when we say it, and Conservatives who generally hate taxes but want a strong national defense sometimes resort to the biblical admonition to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” as they give up on the logical inconsistency of holding both views at the same time.

I recently admitted to a particularly intelligent, if hopelessly opinionated progressive that I am a little hyperbolic about taxation being theft. I thought I would take a minute to explain.

Theft is taking someone’s property without their consent. If a man with a gun came to your house and demanded that you give him 40% of your paycheck, you would agree with me. You would clearly feel threatened and would call the police when he left because you did not give the money willingly. You did not consent to it. You were coerced.

If the man came back on the evening of the next payday, he would not need to show you the gun. You would know that the gun was there because you saw it last week. Would you still give him the money? Of course you would. You are still being coerced, and you still aren’t consenting. You give it because you are afraid of the consequences of not giving.

Eventually, the collector could merely call you on the phone, as long as the threat of violence for not complying was real. He could even arrange to have the money taken out of your check before you got it. As long as you haven’t consented, you are still being coerced. It is still theft.

“But wait,” you say, “I like having government take a portion of my income and giving it to other people to spend.” Is that still coercive? Maybe not as far as you are concerned. I mean, I guess you can decide after the fact that you are okay with the system as it is. But what about the rest of us?

“But taxes are the price we all pay to live in a free and productive society” you might say. I might agree to an extent, but what if I disagree? When did I become obligated to participate? I had no choice where I was born. I had no choice where I would live, at least for the first 18 or so years of my life. I was brought into a system that I never agreed to, but am somehow obligated to participate in financially…regulated by the whims of the majority through a democratic process. I never consented to it. And I face the prospect of imprisonment (or worse) if I don’t comply. That, ladies and gentlemen, is coercion, whether or not I see the gun when my money is collected.

What I’ve described is called “social contract” theory, whereby it is assumed that all the members of a particular society automatically agree to participate. But contracts require a few things in order to be legitimate: both sides must understand the terms, both sides must enter into it willingly, and both sides must sign it. Social “contracts” are not contracts at all.

Do I personally believe so strongly that taxation is theft that I refuse to participate? Of course not. Aside from the prospect of life-time incarceration, I recognize that at least in the present time and place we need government and government needs funds in order to operate. So why the “taxation is theft” hyperbole? Because the legitimate power to FORCE people to give up their property, particularly their wealth, is an enormous power to have. Unchecked, that power has the capacity to rob us of all of our rights. And because of the nature of how government goes about collecting that money, it is easy for people to lose sight of how that money is being used. Often, the money makes the problem it is supposed to solve WORSE, not better. Without an option to opt out, the people are powerless to stop government and to address the problems in ways that make things better instead.

So consider my rants about theft and taxation a cry in the night if you must. Call me the crazy voice in the darkness, all worked up over so little. But maybe, just maybe, we need a few guys like me reminding everyone that there is a limit to what can be solved by throwing money at problems, and unintended consequences of blindly giving anyone, government included all the money they want whenever they want it. Good ideas don’t need coercion to get people to participate. Resorting to violence, or the threat of it is at least lazy and potentially immoral. There is no room for it in a free society.

Thanks for reading, and share with a friend if you think I’ve said something worth sharing.

Freedom Defined

Yesterday, I lamented that conversation is difficult when people don’t share common definitions for words. This should go without saying. The problem is exasperated when people become emotionally attached to their definition.

I’m guilty of this. I have a definition for freedom that I’m emotionally attached to. I spend much of my time convincing…okay, attempting to convince people that my definition is the correct one. Here is my definition:

Freedom is that state of existence where the individual does not experience coercion from another person or group of people unless he attempts to use coercion against another person.

Here’s another definition that floats around out there: “Freedom means being able to do what you want to do unless you hurt someone”. Or, “Freedom means having maximum choices”. I disagree with these definitions, and here’s why.

First, I don’t like limiting freedom to what a person can or cannot do. Freedom means refusing to do things you don’t want to do as well. I think that European models for freedom fall into this trap. People feel free as long as they aren’t kept from doing things that are on a sort of list of acceptable things. Since what they are not allowed to do is reasonably listed, they avoid those things and generally get to stay out of a cage. But what happens when something we like to do gets put on the list because someone else just doesn’t like it?

Further, without a firm definition for “hurt”, you can see we have another problem. Is hurt feelings enough reason to limit someone’s freedom to do something? Is it enough for one person in an entire population to be “hurt” in order to enact a new law?

What about the “maximum choice” argument? Does more freedom necessarily mean more choices? It seems like it would. Surely where there is less freedom, people have less choices. People in North Korea have less choice for dinner than people in South Korea, generally speaking. But should we define freedom that way?

How does one make these choices? One way, and I would argue one very important way is through economic exchange. If we limit our definition for freedom to our relative ability to make choices we find that one way to increase freedom is to provide a way to economically enable people to make choices. Now, I agree that limiting a person’s ability to trade what he has for what he wants can be a violation of his freedom, but can we say that advocating for freedom means necessarily enabling that person to get what he wants?

Does making people more free mean providing healthcare? A living wage? A college education? Any good idea we all agree helps people be “better off”?

No. Because in order to provide these things, another person’s choices must be limited. To provide free healthcare to one person, other people must pay for it either with their money, their property, or their time. Same with all scarce (finite) goods. So while freedom tends to result in greater choice, we can’t say that we can increase freedom for the whole by giving more choice to the individual. Choices don’t create freedom, freedom results in choices if that makes sense.

I’ve given you my definition for freedom. I’ve explained why I disagree with definitions submitted by people I end up arguing with. What I have not done is to propose a way to get past this disagreement so we can find common ground. I’ll get into that stuff in the next post.

Thanks for reading. Share with a friend if you think it is worth it.

 

Words Have Meanings: Are You Hearing What I’m Saying? Communicating the Message of Liberty.

One problem with communicating the message of freedom is that Americans don’t even know what freedom is. Ask an American and you will hear any number of rambling answers that approach the general area but are so different from each other that conversation on any level approaching civility seems to require a definition of terms. And then almost always an argument about whose definition is correct.

This was recently made more clear to me as I discussed speech rights with a young man from Austria a few nights ago. We were discussing how Europeans see Americans and how that vision differs from how we see ourselves. In the conversation he said that Europeans are “as free as Americans”.

“No, says I” I interjected. I asked him if people could be arrested for a Nazi salute in Austria (I have no idea personally except that the young man I’m talking about told me that it is true). He said yes and I said that in America the vast majority would find it in poor taste but that it is not illegal. He seemed incredulous. We discussed gun laws and some other things that constituted activities or possessions that are illegal in Europe but legal here. We discussed social programs that provide “free” services in Europe but that are contentious political issues here. The ACA for example. I pointed out that most people in America are not against the services being provided in some way, just not by forcing people to pay for them though taxation. America was founded by a tax revolt, after all.

I could see the gears spinning in his head. He got it, superficially at the very least. But he still contended that Europeans were just as free as Americans.

Fighting back the urge to launch into a dissertation, I allowed the conversation to move on to other things, but it has been on my mind since then. Nagging me. How can he think Europeans are as free as Americans if they can’t do the same things, have the same things or keep as much of their income as we can? Clearly they aren’t as free as we are.

Here’s the thing: his definition of freedom is different than mine. And his definition for freedom is very similar to what just about all American non-libertarians apply to freedom.

I’ll get into those definitions in another post. But for now I submit that a big part of the lack of civility in political discourse is caused by people who can’t resolve how stupid, or how evil someone on “the other side” must be if they can’t clearly see that our argument is the only moral one. There is no reason to be rational with a sociopath, after all. Those people just need to be beat down. It’s the only language they understand.

So I’m going to devote some time and mental energy toward ways we liberty advocates can communicate ideas about liberty to people who bring different definitions to the words we are using. Words like violence, coercion, the State, and liberty. Most people in the liberty movement share common definitions for these words. People outside the movement don’t, and we need to do something about it if we are going to spread the message. The world needs it.

Thanks for reading. Thanks in advance for participating by leaving comments and inviting other people to read it as well. Conversations require two way communication. Let’s have a conversation.