Replies

To start off, I'm glad to see that we both agree that liberty has lost ground. I think that is undeniable.

Given this, then, I think your post expresses the following:

Freedom = Liberty + Opportunity;

Freedom as you've defined it here is increasing on the aggregate, since opportunity is increasing, despite the fact that liberty is abated.

My arguments are based on this above equation accurately summing up your last post.

The bottom line of my argument - the summary - is that I don't think you can define freedom in this way. I therefore necessarily think that freedom as I've defined it (Freedom = Liberty) is decreasing, which means that I believe the trend of the loss of freedom does in fact exist, which is why I'm so critical of the Republicans and the compromise politics they practice.

While the common usage of the word "freedom" often varies, meaning in some cases the lack of restraint as you point out, we're talking about politics and hence freedom in a political context. Yes, people even use the word "freedom" within the political context as including liberty as well as opportunity, but this is only because they don't understand what government can and can't do, or more properly what the proper function of government is (or because politicians preach such platitudes knowing that they'll be effective at stirring up the support of the masses whose understanding of politics is lacking).

In other words, I feel that wealth increase does not and cannot come from government. In the case of government control over a society, government seeks to redistribute wealth. In the case of a free society, government seeks to create a framework of law so that individuals are free to enjoy the fruits of their labor, free to enjoy the benefits generated by their creative ideas, and free to bear the consequences of their poor decisions. In neither case does government create wealth.

I know you're critical of my use of the term "wealth". It's sort of a catch-all term that I use loosely, in a non-conventional way. Perhaps there would be a better word, but to make my use of the word clear, wealth comes in many forms. There is material wealth, intellectual wealth, and even cultural wealth.

An increase in any type of wealth represents an increase in the quality of life overall. We see an increase in material wealth, for example, by the emergence of new technology that improves our lives, as you've pointed out. We see in increase in intellectual wealth, for example, when new ideas come out, or when information in managed more efficiently. We see an increase in cultural wealth, for example, when individuals of different or even like cultures, societies, or communities bond together and live peacefully, cooperating voluntarily to advance themselves.

To look at it another way, wealth is material goods, enhanced by intellect and voluntary cooperation. Intellect on the whole necessarily increases over time, so wealth necessarily increases on aggregate, even if materials don't increase.

This wealth increase, however, does not at all mean freedom has increased - it simply means individuals, despite whatever the government has done to impede them (or to encourage them by getting out of the way) have improved their lot in life, and the lives of other, in seeking their self-interest.

The great patriot (and very talented brewer) Samuel Adams even distinguished between the two:

“If ye love WEALTH better than LIBEERTY, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countryman.” (emphasis mine)

So in looking at your equation again:

Freedom = Liberty + Opportunity;

"Opportunity" is the result of the idea of "wealth" - (intellectual and cultural wealth, even material wealth like expressways that make economic opportunity possible). "Opportunity" is spawned from "Liberty", and they can't be separate terms (liberty leads to wealth creation, leading to opportunity).

Being that wealth is not from government, and being that we're talking necessarily about how government action influences freedom overall, I eliminate the term "opportunity" from the above equation and arrive at (for the political context)

Freedom = Liberty

From before, it seems we both agree that liberty has been slowly lost over the years, thus meaning freedom has been eroded, thus suggesting a trend.

I've up to now simply provided my answer to your last post in an abstract sense. I had wanted to take some of the lines from your last post and refute them individually, but I think that the abstract argument, for now, will suffice (and must be dealt with in any case). I do hope that I haven't overlooked or misinterpreted any of your arguments, and that, in sticking to the absract, my post doesn't come off as too general to be applicable to what you've written.

Good to read your posts again! I appreciate it when people demonstrate the ability to as you do to maintain focus and strive to address the core disagreement. It's very rare.

To first summarize my point for you as you did with me, Defining freedom as just liberty seems to be in error, and even if it weren't, it would have little value outside academia when compared to the more broad understanding of Freedom.

I hope that I'm following the formula you suggested here faithfully:

Wealth = material wealth + intellectual wealth + cultural wealth + (I might add organizational wealth)

Opportunity = liberty + (wealth (or wealth recognized))

Freedom = liberty + opportunity

Freedom (in a political context) = liberty (because "opportunity" is not created by government)

Here's where I think the problems begin. Government does have a role in opportunity. Even in its proper form, it protects opportunity from threats. In a perhaps questionable form, it promotes technical standards across industries that probably enhance the economy. And even in its greatly enhanced form of today, it manages environmental resources with a long-term focus in a way that may or may not be possible in the free market. (Alternative environmental management theories abound, but AFAIK, none are even remotely proven.) Therefore, opportunity can't be removed from the equation.

But I'd like to put that aside just for a moment to mention the logical conclusion of the definition of Freedom = Liberty. If freedom is the ultimate value, then in a political context the ideal would be closer to primitive tribal communities in mountains of the Congo, an isolated American frontier in the 18th century or perhaps even lawless area like Somalia. It seems theoretically possible to have great liberty with very little opportunity, but that wouldn't be the ideal ground for man to live his life.

For those two reasons, logic and utility, I think the definition of freedom should include opportunity, even in a political context. And as mentioned earlier, I see no real freedom crisis. That's to say that erosion of liberty's not a concern, just that the current state does not justify a revolutionary opposition to the Republicans for their willingness to bend to political forces in order to remain in power.