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.”
They should have known better. Government cannot and should not protect people from themselves.
“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.
And I believe if a private entrepreneur who wants to sell lottery tickets to idiots who would buy them should be allowed to do so. Just as I believe psychics and tarot card readers should be allowed to do business as well.
“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.
Tax-collecting is an involuntary, coercive measure to generate revenue to maintain functions of government. You’re only a ‘partner in the scam’ if you voluntarily participate.
“…if I avail myself of the public school system as a parent of a school child, I become a beneficiary of the scam.
“…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)? … but what about the hundreds or thousands of parents with such beliefs who have children already in the schools?”
Since I grow tired of explaining the same thing in different ways to both of you, I’ll simply refer you to my earlier response: “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.”
“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?”
I’m clear on his point, but as I said before, I disagree. Shouldn’t individuals be able to decide for themselves what his or her needs are? Shouldn’t individuals determine for themselves the value they place on items they desire? Or should we leave that to Mr. Hood?
You can scream at the top of your lungs about your views on parental preparedness before having children, but you haven't once responded to the real point of that part of Mr. Hood's article and what I have pointed out to you about seven different ways: What about parents who already have children in the schools and are forced now to take on extra expense to remove them? Were they supposed to be clairvoyant ten or twelve years ago and know that the government would start funding the schools with the proceeds of their gambling monopoly? Don't be ridiculous.
Your arguments have no merit and are simply self-indulgent. Have a great day.
Tax-collecting is an involuntary, coercive measure to generate revenue to maintain functions of government. You’re only a ‘partner in the scam’ if you voluntarily participate.
That is true on some level. If we did not have a participatory form of government, but rather a coercive system where the citizen's conscience is wholly ignored, taxes collected and spent without any consultation with the taxpayer, then, of course, the taxpayer is also wholly absolved of any moral responsibility whatsoever. In some areas of government it is true. For example, military matters are decided in considerable secrecy by the military and top political leadership, and the citizens are largely absolved from guilt if the US military enterprise commits wrongful acts.
But issues like state lotteries and funding of public education are supposed to be up for discussion and a democratic process of amendment. The lottery can be voted out of existence, and the public schools can be emptied. It is then valid to pose the question thus: what if the taxation for public schools were liberalized, for examples, through vouchers. Does it then become a moral duty, and not a mere option, to withdraw from the public schools if lottery is used to pay for them? The answer is, yes it does.
If you construe my position as a condemnation of today's taxpayers to hell, then my position appears to be wrong. But if you interpret my position correctly, as a public policy argument against state lotteries, then you see that it is a reasonable position.
I tend to discount historical conspiracy theories and take ideological writers at their word unless they are obviously propagandizing.
In general, I agree. Some Straussians go way overboard in their obsession with "secret writing." However, even in their excess they often reveal facets ignored by the standard interpretations. For instance, Locke is always said to have been a student of Hooker, the Anglican divine, when there are significant reasons(detailed by Paul Rahe) to believe that Locke creatively misquoted Hooker. Locke is also often contrasted with Hobbes, taking at face value Locke's lumping him in with "other justly decried authors." In fact, Locke works from within a state-of-nature framework that shows a strong Hobbesian influence, instead of the traditional Hooker-type natural law theory.
My point about the corporate aspects of salvation alludes to the Christian Church as the Body(corpus) of Christ. I meant it in the ecclesial sense, not in the strictly physical one. Locke's egalitarian philosophy favors a type of Christianity more compatible with "low church" pietistic congregationalism than the "high church" hierarchical and liturgical churches.
There's a million dollar question. American libertarianism is a coat of many colors. However, if we restrict the field to just those libertarians among the founders, then the answer is that Locke was an influence on libertarian thinkers of the period, but, IMO, to cast him as proto-libertarian seems to be going a little far. For example, Locke placed much more emphasis on the universality of the social contract than did our founders. The framers of the Constitution surely felt that the social contract of Philadelphia was most certainly different than that of Charleston and to attempt to mold them as one would result in tyranny.
Locke operated as a social contract theorist. The fact that adherents to that theory had a common ideological forebears with the state-of-nature theorists seems to me to be a red herring. Locke adopted the social contract stance because he felt that anything else led inevitably to government born of tyranny. He felt strongly that the governed must have some sort of formal agreement with those who govern them. To assume that Locke discards the categorical imperative because he rejects certain aspects of a natural law stance would be hyperbolic.
As for the corporate Church, being a Protestant (not an anti-Catholic), I have to say I agree with any who favor congregationalism over hierarchy and liturgy. I have no problem with Locke's stance on that, if that was his stance. I don't recall any writing by him on the subject, though. More specifically, Locke was a proponent of religious tolerance. There are several theories as to Locke's actual religious beliefs, but they will likely remain theories since he lived under a theocracy that had a nasty habit of burning dissidents.
I’m not screaming, and I have already answered this question about seven different ways. Every American couple with children or who are thinking of having children should have operated from the premise that it is their responsibility to educate their own children and to prepare for the costs associated with it. If they haven’t, then that’s their fault and they cannot complain about how the public schools are funded when they enroll their children, or if funding changes have taken place, such as additional subsidies from a lottery when their children are already there.
I see. So if the state decides to fund the schools from the proceeds of child pornography and white slavery, it is these stupid parents' fault for not foreseeing that eventuality and they have no right to complain. What color is the sun in your universe?
Now who's being ridiculous?
How, exactly, is that ridiculous?
Are you saying that the issue is not whether parents should object to how the schools are funded but rather on what grounds they should and should not object? How do you manage to decide where the line of arbitration happens to be? To some parents, leaving their children in schools funded by gambling proceeds is not a whit different than leaving them in schools funded by the proceeds of activities I mentioned above. To them, gambling is no more or less evil than any other vice. Now will you say those parents are being ridiculous? Are they ridiculous simply because you want to play the lottery and you seem to be able to make some abstract distinction between levels of vice?
Eventually, you will have to admit that Mr. Hood is correct. Your personal agenda has removed political neutrality from the word freedom and you can only see the issue from the narrow scope of your own personal desires. Such is the way we end up with socialism and its attendant tyranny.
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.