Posted on 05/02/2005 12:49:36 PM PDT by NCSteve
RALEIGH – How dare he exercise his freedom of choice? He’s denying me my freedom to choose!
Judging by a range of controversies in North Carolina right now, plenty of people exhibit just this sort of confusion about the political definition of freedom. That’s the first problem, by the way: when I say the political definition of freedom, I mean to distinguish it from other, everyday uses of the term. But the distinction is often lost.
The government does not forbid my son Alex from eating his dessert before his vegetables. Thus, as a political matter, he enjoys an expansive freedom to dine. But, of course, my son is certainly not free to do so. Furthermore, government regulations inhibit but do not eradicate my freedom to find employment and thus to earn the money necessary to feed Alex his vegetables. But that doesn’t mean I am free to work wherever I wish – my prospective employer has something to say about that.
When discussing public policy, freedom must have a precise meaning. Since government is coercive by definition – it takes rather than bargains, and commands rather than requests – freedom in this context represents a shield against coercion. It protects my right to decide what I shall attempt, and with whom. It does not give me any power to ensure that my attempt succeeds, or to compel others to assist or agree with me.
Basically, a free society protects its citizens’ right to choose. They may choose to do the right thing, as you or I see it, or they may choose to do the wrong thing. And if the society is truly free, its citizens will reap the rewards or bear the consequences of their choices, which will serve as an effective means for many, at least over time, to learn how self-destructive bad decisions can be and how to make good ones.
Consider these recent examples of how twisted the political rhetoric about freedom has become:
From these and other examples, it becomes obvious that many political actors do not really think “freedom” is a neutral term. They extol freedom when it is likely to be used by their fellow citizens in ways that they approve of, or at least find thrillingly provocative. But they refuse to recognize that freedom extends to the private actions of individuals, such as pro-lifers or conservatives, with whom they disagree.
Although there can be difficult cases (which usually involve public property, a good reason to minimize it), the principle of freedom isn’t really all that hard to define and enforce. You have the right to think, say, do, or not do anything you like without being forcibly restrained or punished. I do, too – and my freedom extends to judging you according to what you say or do, and deciding whether I want to have anything to do with you as a result.
If we followed this freedom principle, most of us would still sometimes be frustrated, dismayed, or enraged by the actions of others. But the level of public discord would still subside, allowing political leaders to focus on the (few) tasks we truly need them to perform on our behalf.
-30-
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation, publisher of Carolina Journal.com, and host of the statewide program “Carolina Journal Radio.”
As I'd always heard, "MY freedom extends to MY fingertips - beyond that, I infringe upon that of OTHERS."
Hmmmm....not bad, but that definition includes your womb (for women).....
I think you missed the point.
Since it is a government-run lottery (and a monopoly to boot) and the proceeds are specifically designated for school funding, those who do not care to be associated with the operation, either on religious or political grounds, have no escape other than to take their children out of the public schools. Furthermore, the government does not require you, by law, to buy a lottery ticket, but it does require you to send your children to a school recognized by itself.
Finally, it is rather silly to compare your "right" to buy a lottery ticket with your "right" to educate your children in the way you see fit. No one really cares if you gamble. If you really want to, you can zip over to Cherokee or up to Atlantic City. But if the government runs a gambling operation as monopoly and you are completely unable to opt out of the association, the government has impinged on your freedom.
You are arguing convenience against necessity and that boat won't float.
Read the whole paragraph. I don't see an assertion by Mr. Hood that indicates he believes it should be a neutral term. It is a statement of apparent fact, not an opinion. The rest of the paragraph is a discussion of the subjectivity of the application of the term. Mr. Hood argues that such subjectivity is only used to self-serve a political end.
This article only strenghtens my conviction that contemporary relativism finds its seeds in Lockean political theory.
I hope you were wearing a parachute when you made that leap. I don't think Mr. Hood (nor has Mr. Locke, for that matter) made a single argument that would tend to deny a categorical imperative. Lockean political theory is based on a simple idea: you have the basic right to be left alone as long as you are not impinging on another's right to the same. What you do with regard to universal morality is between you and your creator. Christianity's relationship with freedom has to do with the individual's will to sin or be righteous and to reap the consequences of that choice. In that regard, Lockean philosophy and Christianity are in complete harmony.
What is the basis for this idea? Has it any proof? Yes, I've read Locke, though admittedly not very recently. I found his arguments unconvincing.
If the attitude you present is really a teaching of Locke, (I don't recall it in his work, it strikes me more as Hobbesian) then American law hasn't been Lockean until the past four decades or so. Look at all the morals legislation on the books, from Blackstone to the Blue Laws of early sixties Boston.
What you do with regard to universal morality is between you and your creator.
And between me and my fellow men. To quote a great Christian poet, "No Manne is an Island." Note the polytheism or atheism implicit in that statement, "your creator." I may be reading too much into it, but if one is a monotheist, there is only one Creator.
Christianity's relationship with freedom has to do with the individual's will to sin or be righteous and to reap the consequences of that choice. In that regard, Lockean philosophy and Christianity are in complete harmony.
Which Christianity? Salvation, in orthodox Christianity, has many corporate aspects that cannot be subsumed under the catch-all of individual choice. I know many revolutionary-era preachers were persuaded by Mr. Locke into thinking that his philosophy was that of St. Paul, but I see no reason to believe they were correct.
Do you critique Christian theology on the basis of Lockean philosophy, or the other way around?
And what do you make of the Straussian interpretations of Locke? Paul Rahe makes a convincing case that Locke promulgated the arguments of the unitarian Socinius, and of course the Straussians all argue that Locke was a closet Hobbesian atheist whose writings were more propaganda to ensure the free practice of philosophy than philosophy "proper."
bttt
In short, if you don't like it -- get your kids out. If you can't afford to, then you should have thought of that before you got yourselves pregnant and that's the fault of nobody else but yours.
I'd also like to comment on your use of quotes while typing the word right. By using those quotes, are you insinuating that buying something in a legal marketplace -- a lottery ticket in our example -- is somehow not a right?
Am I to assume that in your mind, it must be written somewhere on legal parchment or an ancient relic sitting in the National Archives for something to be a right? You may find it "silly" that one individual's desire to purchase a lottery ticket is comparable to another's desire to choose particular avenues of education. But to each, their desires are important to them individually. You cannot compare the value of both and decide what is more or less important. Freedom works both ways.
The schools are funded by all American taxpayers, and by real property owners disproportionately so. Shouldn't all taxpayers have a right to consult their conscience and influence how the schools are run, or else get their taxes rebated?
On that and more, I agree completely. However, you are not mandated by the government to go buy lottery tickets. Parents are, however, mandated by the government to send their kids to school. You are free to gamble or not gamble. Parents are not free to choose whether they send their children to school or not. They must send them and if the state changes the rules such that some aspect of its schools are unacceptable, parents are forced to take on the expense of educating their children while still paying onerous taxes to educate everyone else's children as well. Sounds pretty unfair to me and counter to the principles of freedom.
You may find it "silly" that one individual's desire to purchase a lottery ticket is comparable to another's desire to choose particular avenues of education.
What I find silly is your insistence that you have some right to play the lottery. You have a number of rights granted by your creator, none of which includes a right to be entertained. What I find silly is your insistence that your perceived right to be entertained trumps a categorical right of parents to raise their children in a manner consistent with their beliefs and values.
Freedom does not mean you have the right to impinge on others, exactly the point Mr. Hood makes. So the whole issue of whose freedom is being impinged by the lottery depends on where you stand. For most people, the ability of one to purchase a lottery ticket is trivial when compared to any aspect of child-rearing. But as Mr. Locke has pointed out, freedom is not subject to the whims of the majority.
Yes, taxpayers subsidize public schools and certainly they should have a say in how schools are run. What difference does it make to the taxpayer that public schools are funded by their tax dollars in addition to proceeds collected from state lotteries? If anything, it’s a relief to taxpayers in that there is a new source of money that is not taken by force from the government. Instead, a voluntary system of revenue generation -- the lottery -- supplements public school funding, easing the burden on the taxpayer.
Let's take this paragraph for right now. Where is it written that your rights are so limited? What gives you the impression that rights to be entertained, as you put it, are not protected? We all have the right to enjoy the fruits of our labor. If I work for money, I have every right to spend it on anything I choose. No one, and no supernatural being can dictate to a sovereign individual how he or she spends their money, nor list the proper and improper ways it can be spent. Which part of rights to life, liberty and property don't you understand?
State monopoly on lottery is evil. I would not invest in a business that does evil stuff on the side, and I should not be forced to pay for schools that derive part of its funding from evil activities. It is bad enough that the schools are funded in this Mickey Mouse fashion, but forcing taxpayers who would not have anything to do with pulbic education in the first place, to partner up with state-run gambler establishments is completely idiotic.
You have a right to go to a private casino, if one is available, and play there. You have no right to demand that the state build you one, let alone arrogate a monopoly to itself.
In that we will have to disagree, since I believe in God as the supreme being and you, obviously, do not. I believe your rights were granted you by God and that he specifically did not grant you a right to be entertained to the detriment of others. For the rest, see annalex's comments above.
A quote from Locke to answer several of your questions:
"...by his [God's] order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's."
I tend to discount historical conspiracy theories and take ideological writers at their word unless they are obviously propagandizing.
You asked, "Which Christianity?" What a strange question. There is only one as far as I know. It is described in the books gathered under the traditional title of "The New Testament." In that collection you will find that the only corporeal aspect of salvation is the rejection of the flesh. I know of no "corporate" aspect of it. It is purely a matter of one's will to accept it or reject it. All aspects of the corporeal are subsumed to the will in accepting salvation. If no other lesson of the Gospels is crystal clear, that one is.
Finally, I have no reason to critique Christian theology and Lockean philosophy on the basis of of one another. They are separate ideals and I always "render to Caesar..."
First of all, no government should force parents to send their children to a public school. Nonetheless, if there is such legislation, and there are parents who have moral disagreements about the way public schools are funded and at the same time cannot afford private education, they have no business complaining if they still choose to bring children into this world under those circumstances.
...if the state changes the rules such that some aspect of its schools are unacceptable, parents are forced to take on the expense of educating their children...
Here is where I cannot seem to get my point across to you. The expenses of educating children should be prepared for, allocated, and ready to be dispensed by every American BEFORE THE DECIDE TO HAVE CHILDREN. If they cannot afford such provisions, then they have no leg to stand on if they have moral disputes with the funding of public schools that they willingly participate in by having kids they cannot afford.
"...while still paying onerous taxes to educate everyone else's children as well. Sounds pretty unfair to me and counter to the principles of freedom."
We can get into whether or not people who do not have children in public schools should have to pay for them with their taxes. On that issue, and the question of the validity of public schools in the first place, I suspect we may actually agree. But it sounds like you and I will go to our graves on our opposing definitions of freedom. If you believe freedom means subjecting everyone who benefits from the subsidies generated by state lotteries to the moral convictions of the very few, then God bless you, but I fear for the state of our country. And there is little value in arguing this point further.
OK, now we’re starting to get a little ridiculous here. Let’s see: Government collects money from all taxpayers in a big ‘pot’ to fund all of the essential functions of the state. Your money and that of everyone else’s is thrown in, and you complain that you and your money are somehow tainted because it’s accumulated along with proceeds of gambling? You could make the same argument from taxes collected from strippers, alcohol venders, adult video stores and anything else you have a moral problem with.
Since this thread is about freedom, tell me how your freedom and liberty are harmed by your money spent on the operations of government along with monies confiscated by those who do things you don’t personally approve of?
No, when taxes are accumulated into a general pot, I have no reason to protest. Proceeds from gambling are not taxes, they are money the government made on the market it rigged up to its advantage.
So what? The only people the government makes money on in this case are people who play the lottery. That doesn't include you, and hence, your freedom isn't infringed upon.
First, the victims of the lottery scam are not just ill-informed players, who arguably should have known better. An entrepreneur who would like to set up a private lottery is prohibited by the state monopoly. The lottery advertising injects wrong values (of the kind "Live the American dream! Buy a ticket today!"), and such countercultural propaganda comes with the state's imprimatur. These are the same reasons that exist to protest any evil government function, not just the lottery, and by any citizen, not just a taxpayer, of course.
Second, if I avail myself of the public school system as a parent of a school child, I become a beneficiary of the scam. If I withdraw my child, or have none in the public school system in the first place, but pay taxes to support the schools, I become a partner in the scam.
Sadly, I believe it is you who are missing the point. How, exactly am I to retroactively decide not to have children so as not to have my sixth-grader subjected to the proceeds of something I might consider immoral (not saying I do)? Of course people who are planning families and object to lottery proceeds should factor that into their decisions, but what about the hundreds or thousands of parents with such beliefs who have children already in the schools? The value you place on your entertainment does not and should not exceed the burden placed on families who must now take on the expense of removing their children from the public schools.
That is Mr. Hood's point. Clear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.