Upon my recent readings of The Chomsky Reader edited by James Peck (recommended by BoF), I came across Chomsky's view of the relationship between equality and freedom which I found to be in line with many socialist (in this case libertarian socialist) viewpoints which is that as equality is increased, so does freedom as Chomsky puts it:



This Marxist-esque philosophy is obviously opposed by those who adhere to classical liberal, libertarian, or conservative philosophy which dictates that as equality increases, that freedom decreases as stated by the likes of economist Milton Friedman:


From these two men we get two very different ideas of what "freedom" actually means. One makes the point that human beings have the freedom from want, hunger, or poverty while the other makes the point that humans have the freedom from coercion of government. This leads us to our very interesting questions!

Questions for Debate:

1) What are your personal definitions for the concepts of equality and freedom?
2) What do you think is the relationship between freedom and equality?
3) Should one be emphasized more than the other?

1) What are your personal definitions for the concepts of equality and freedom?

I don't have any. Unless you talk about an exact situation with exact parameters, they are just feel-good terms used to sway people, like "family values".

2) What do you think is the relationship between freedom and equality?

Depends on the situation and what freedom/equality you're talking about.

3) Should one be emphasized more than the other?

Again, it depends on the exact situation you're talking about.


I don't like to talk in generalities when it comes to economics and gov't policy, because it doesn't always make sense for every situation.

Tampering with a free market sometimes is necessary because in reality laissez-faire typically results in two classes, rich and poor. People seem to think that the market solves all problems, but the market doesn't educate the poor and middle class, the market doesn't make sure companies don't dump mercury into the water, etc. etc. I think there's room for gov't interference when appropriate without limiting the incentive to be productive citizens or companies.

America originally had much of this under wraps as i can see. It put down fundamental rights a person has to his or her own liberty as a person, much of which came to be laws that one could break in a simple fact of breaking another persons liberty, much of why i think lead to the idea that no group or creed was specifically giving power or power to discriminate against any group or creed was ever worded in the constitution, moreover you could be a lesbian Satanist and to be such in society alone as under our constitution means you broke no laws.

Of course people have a way of mucking things up in terms of serving self interest or interest groups really.



1) What are your personal definitions for the concepts of equality and freedom?
For equality I would define that you have worth that is equal to the person or persons around you in your society in a base sense, that just because you are not rich that the legal system will still work for you, or because you are Irish and that you population in a specific period of time packed prisons that felons would lose the right to vote. As for freedom it would be just that, that ability to be alive and capable of committing actions, learning and of course various other bodily functions like going number 2.

2) What do you think is the relationship between freedom and equality?
I think its full of issues really. Say if I was a business owner and I did not want to hire certain people because of sex or creed or nationality, I have the freedom to do this but in that way being our society in terms of capitalism operates on jobs really for survival I would be seriously hurting other peoples well being, more so if this practice was widespread. I would be destroying there freedom and equality in society by my actions, leaving them in poverty unless somehow the were able to procure resources from the nether to operate from. This is just one example or reality of the untold amounts of issues the two share in. Realistically a person or persons could survive in a suitable ecology being nothing more then hunter/gatherers, but socially we do not live like that anymore and pretty much its illegal to be such in America, or you run a high risk of being illegal. So we choose or people with power choose a system that people were to live by, and in this system such people are to both have freedom and equality, but of course like so much we find ignorance and confusion on a human level as to what this actually means, or means in real life with the fact many people seem to find themselves with little freedom or equality, such as our satanic lesbian probably would find issues in lots of aspects socially in our society, so we preach one thing but really its freedom and equality for certain acceptable philosophies and death to others, even if that other does not break any persons liberty.


3) Should one be emphasized more than the other?
Personally I think the two are so closely bound because they really are the same, or you really cant have one without the other, or really that might be what liberty was about... If you rob a persons home you broke there liberty, there equality and freedom in our society, therefore your punishment falls along the lines of you losing both.

Thanks for quoting Chomsky. I think it's educational to point out the fallacies in that old communist's thinking.

Freedom is fundamentally different than "equality". The only equality that a free society must guarantee is that we're all equal under the law and that the rules of society are fairly administered.

What Chomsky advocates isn't "freedom". It's the "free lunch". When you distill his nonsense down to the base elements, what he really says is that the producers in a society must carry the non-productive citizens on their backs in a way that guarantees their "equality" of socio-economic status.

Such a view is fundamentally warped.

One can make an argument that the productive citizens have an obligation to create the social safety net for those incapable of competing in a free society. I have no problem with that.

But, people like Chomsky, out of their obsolete Marxist world-view, put the "masses" into that category, not the truly needy.

The US version of capitalism is the most successful economy and most prosperous society that man has devised to date. Those following the thinking of Chomsky have proven, time and time again, to be, to coin a phrase used by ex US Congressman Richard Gephardt, "miserable failures".

History speaks for itself. Societies that are "free" prosper. Those who confuse "freedom" and "equality" suffer.

What's rational is to understand the concepts of freedom and equality in ways that history justifies, not condemns.

I imagine if everyone in America became rich, if such was actually even possible, that America would collapse. Who and why would people be giving jobs when everyone is rich? So in that light which I find accepted in opinion then by more then myself currently as society stands you need people to work, to produce from natural resources items needed in terms of modern survival or society, such as toilet paper and the related plumber profession.

So why should people realize then that there life may and many times will be marginalized a great deal by what economic bracket they fall under if society needs itself as it stands for not only the rich to be rich but for people to have what is necessary to survival such as toilet paper? Regardless of label society never really escapes the need for itself in order to function, you cant have a leader without having followers, or a ceo without employees. You then have motivation that is not directly centered on overall social well being, you have motivation for personal well being, which I agree with save that society becomes occupied and economic growth to an individual can become loaded with barriers, such as what options does a 19 year old kid without college hold for jobs in the city of Detroit. This situation alone holds a very significant impact on the future of that person, one could find the person moving in a certain circumstance, should economic migration of peoples on our land be a fair practice to assume? So basically the point being is regardless if America is build on liberty or not, which it is or attempts to be for the most part, humans still live in a society, this provides a system, not a wall less entity in which tomorrow you can be in a hot tub counting your millions online, well maybe if you win the lottery or something. This society again if you will needs the people in it to perform various functions or stations in order to keep running, thus the successful strategy that is a strike, and of course unions. Such issues like those previously stated in my post not only reflect basic ideas of communism and socialism but just look at taxes and the ease that can obtain those labels. Its not the idea of such social constructs like communism and socialism tried to deal with it’s the reality that America has to face being a social society even if we give it another name, we need people to work as doctors and those people need electricians and those people need people to clerk at the local grocery store which many would like to see a police officer patrol.

It stands to reason that such people in the least should never have to fear about healthcare maybe? Or education of there children possibly? If I do not make enough for cutting edge medical procedures and related should that be an issue that’s just left like such?

Of course population density increased will of course increase the need for resources and ecologically there will be a roof or limit the environment can bear or support in any one way, and of course you can see this economically speaking that at some point healthcare has to receive funds to operate in our system or way of life and people to operate such and the relation between the two as it stands for healthy societal function currently, but in that light the idea of resource consumption and overpopulation are not noticed just people more or less worrying about the money and not really the life support system society is. This is one of the reasons behind the crying over illegal immigration I imagine, even if bushes strategy is simply to aid in counterterrorism the reality of trying to handle such a large influx of people into our system over a better life is awesome in scale, but that’s another point, many Mexicans that would not attempt to immigrate may not feel that way anymore but hey, hope that some radical new disease is not introduced we currently cant treat, but it could make its way illegally so it’s a null point, it would be better to find it at the border legally.

Back to my issue, the lines of freedom and equality get blurred on many levels in society, but we need society in order to be America, its social issues really are just that and trying to pass them off is not important is like simply never attending to your vehicle maintenance wise as a sound policy. The most pressing issue to the future in my eyes for all of this will be of course population growth and need for more in terms of resources in the many forms that covers, being society again as a life support system for itself. It might be no wonder why internationally speaking so many barriers have been removed for financial growth, but in that scene what is the stance of me first going to create?

Back to our society of rich people, they can always burn money to stay warm, until the lighter breaks, then its beating rocks, maybe naturally the cold will motivate for change and money might be less important, even if just in a temporary sense.

Equality is simple enough. It is when the playing field is level. When all human beings, regardless of gender or ethnic origins or nationality are governed by the same set of rules and laws.

Freedom on the other hand is merely an abstract concept which has come to be a political buzz word. Essentially there is no such thing as freedom, for to be really free would mean having no bindings, neither legal nor moral. I used to think insanity was a form of freedom, for being inasne would release me from all constraints, but then I realised that the insane are held by chains far more potent than any social contract, so even that doesn't work.

Living in any social system has its advantages and disadvantages and I think what works best is what works best. That each society can find its own way of solving problems and that this works better with many small states rather a few large ones since it is easier for smaller states to sort out their affairs and more difficult for them to import their troubles abroad.

An example of what I mean by this is the domination of American style culture as opposed to Danish style culture.


Equality is the closest thing to what people mean when they talk of freedom. In popular tales regarding American slavery, there is always a point in the story when the black man is unshackled and he holds up his hands in wonder and makes a decleration regarding freedom.

If we are honest then he is not really free. He has merely moved from one social level to another and exchanged his physical bonds for social ones. There is no doubt his elavation from the status of property to citizen is one to applaud, but essentially he is still not free. What he really should be declaring is his equality.


Easily. Equality is a good idea. It could liberate us and help us build a world without suffering.

Freedom on the other hand is just an illusion used to motivate people.

1) What are your personal definitions for the concepts of equality and freedom?

Equality: All people are treated the same under the law.

Freedom: Just another word for nothing left to lose.

2) What do you think is the relationship between freedom and equality?

Freedom can exist without equality, and equality can exist without freedom. If the two exist together, neither is perfect.

3) Should one be emphasized more than the other?

Yes. Or maybe not. Depends.

I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread with respect to freedom.

It's not just an abstraction.

It's EVERYTHING.

If a man is not free, then he's a slave, a subject, or a servant. Freedom is the prerequisite to "equality", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The fact that people would consider trading "freedom" for "equality" is insane. The fact that pseudo-intellectuals like the over-paid and over-hyped academic quack Noam Chomsky can warp the meaning of "equality" to subvert freedom is absurd.

Our founders got it right. I can't really say it better than this...



We're equal under the law. But liberty is the underlying principle that makes it all possible.

But the playing field is never level or every football game would end in a tie. Equality I argue is also another buzz word.

"We demand equality!" shout the women for the ERA. But what does that mean? Men can never bear children, so is it possible for equality? Men are better at math, so can women ever be equal? Men have more upperbody strength, women can multitask....women didn't have to work, but men didn't have to babysit and do dishes.

Only under very, very specific parameters can you determine freedom and equality. Freedom to vote, for example, is very easy to define. Equality of marriage rights is something easy to define.

But in a broad generalization, they both are just buzz words. Obviously fairness appeals to people and so these two words will always be attractive, regardless of how hollow they are.

Are the Iraqis really more free? Maybe, but is this really good? Are we looking for the best situation or one with more equality and freedom?

To paraphrase Animal Farm, in the US people are equal....some more equal than others.

LH.

Are you saying liberty is the same as freedom?

I would disagree vehemently with both of these points. Perhaps if you take the concept of "freedom" in the absolute sense of the word to the point of anarchy you would both be correct. But in the minds of reasonable thinkers who recognize the necessity for government in certain areas of human relations, I think freedom is a very real concept which I will discuss later.

1) What are your personal definitions for the concepts of equality and freedom?

First, equality. There are two popular definitions for what equality truly is. First, there is the definition understood in liberal circles which is "equality before the law". This definition means simply that the rule of law is enforced by the government and that those laws apply equally to ever person that the state governs. Targeting specific groups negatively or positively is a violation of this principle. The second definition that can be found in socialist or collectivist circles would be "equality of conditions." This type of equality subverts the true definition of "freedom" (which ill address later) and equates it with the freedom from want or hunger. It also perverts the concept of "justice" by calling it "social justice" to take from Peter and give to Paul.

Freedom, like equality, has different definitions. I tend to agree with Abraham Lincoln when he said: The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people just now are much in need of one. We all declare for liberty: but in using the same word, we do not mean the same thing...Here are two, not only different but incompatiable things, called by the same name, liberty. In its earliest and correct definition, freedom meant the freedom from coercion and the arbitrary will of others. This could also be labeled as individual liberty or civil liberty. But if we go for the core, freedom deals essentially with the relations between men and other men and how the will of other cannot be forcibly imposed on you. The other definition of freedom comes from the progressiion of collectivist thought of socialism and communism. It is more similar to Chomsky's view that freedom occurs when the masses control the means of production and when the wealth of the nation is distributed in such a way to make equality. This view combines two seperate concepts.

The problem with this definition is that it relates "liberty" with "power" as the Chomsky quote establishes. Basically that because i may have more wealth than you, that means I am more free than you. This twisted take on liberty exists under the assumption that if my choices are large and your choices are limited, that there is a violation of freedom. But the amount of choices that i have to make in my life however large are no different then yours as long as we are both free from the coercive power of others. To use a contemporary example, if i go to college because i am from a upper-middle class family and get a good job after school and you come from a poor family that cannot afford college...yes the situations are inequal, but that has nothing to do with each person's individual liberty. We are still both free to pursue our own self-interest within our given framework. What would be a restriction of liberty would be if an arbitrary power said that I must give my earnings to another for an arbitrary reason.

2) What do you think is the relationship between freedom and equality?

The relationship is extremely important. It is my point of view that when freedom is increased, so it equality and that when equality is emphasize over freedom, that as Milton Friedman says, we will lose both. This is for a very important reason. When freedom is maximized and the rule of law is adhered to, there is maximum equality of opportunity. Meaning that everyone is treated equally before the law and everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed free from the will of others.

However, when equality is emphasized over freedom, it will in effect decrease freedom. This is because, as my signature of Hayek puts it, the only way that equality of conditions can be achieved is through the coercive powers of government. It means control over the means of production, what one can buy and sell, and where the resources go. These are arbitrary forces trying to control an uncontrollable environment. In order for it to be achievable, the shackles of democracy must be freed because the system poses a problem to those who wish to impose their will on others. I think ill let FA Hayek take it from here:




By my definition...yes.

Then why did you ask us what our definition of equality was? It's apparent that the word is subjective and dependant on the context in which it's talked about.

True, there is a debate about equality in regards to law as well as regards to class. When people shout "give me equality!" usually the context ferrets out what the meaning is.

I guess I find this thread a bit confusing. When you ask what our definition of equality is, what do you mean? Are you asking what we think equality means in the women's rights movement? Or equality in terms of taxes? Or equality in regards to prison sentences?

What context are you referring to when you ask for these definitions?



But I wouldn't doubt that both men would agree that the other is correct in their assessment of what they think freedom is. It's not like one guy is saying the sky is green and the other guy is saying the sky is blue. They're just making value judgements on those particular "freedoms" and which is really the best type of freedom. Like moif said, freedom can be seen from many different angles.

This twisted take on liberty exists under the assumption that if my choices are large and your choices are limited, that there is a violation of freedom. But the amount of choices that i have to make in my life however large are no different then yours as long as we are both free from the coercive power of others.

quoted from lederuvdapac

In that idea though your ability to make decisions from any station in life you hold, which really means place in society thus labels like rich or poor become to exist from if you will coercion from others. Just like you said, born into a poor family vs being born into a rich, its no choice you made but holds a great impact on the many choices one can come to make. Sure in the sense someone working at minimum wage is free, a wage set by others or how much a person is willing to pay them, and then this relates to what that person can do, attempt to save for college while surviving in the societal system we have, such as utility bills and rent for shelter, gas and auto insurance as required by others it pretty much leads you to the fact that people live and die by others in a society, or the relation cannot simply be negated overall. Communism and socialism and capitalism and democracy can never escape the fact that humans currently live in societies, and this then applies that need for such systems like capitalism or democracy as purposed means of survival in a larger sense. Its not that any particular take on it is right or wrong in emphasis on the point I am trying to make but the root cause for these systems to exist is the simple fact of the societies existence being what it is.

Much of this of course be could applied to understanding or vice versa if a factual understanding of the human organism existed, but like many things it does not, we don’t even have that for ants currently.

So to accept the idea that we live in a society, with systems and laws, then layers of such on other human levels such as terms that lead to bias, you can find that both equality and freedom are paramount or share in my view a symbiotic relationship. If I have no equality period in society i will never have any freedom period, if only my equality is cared for my actions and future will not be of any freedom but just that, and attempt to do such have to be accepted by all that live in a society and well drag the entire society down.

The idea of trying to create equality via controlled resources may not be a superiorly bad idea. Society probably does gain a certain advantage by such, who knows what all progress could be attributed to people that were able to receive financial aid for college as but one example. The other idea of none of these checks and balances would leave power free to ever protect itself and control society for that means, for in that scenario people who are not in power will only be able accept minus revolt to work towards supporting those people. We can see this in our society by the wiliness of people to outsource in order to make a larger profit, people will try to capitalize which i am not against. Capitalism with democracy has a high adaptability, which is superior in my opinion, it also has to freedom to do whatever it wants overall.

If we then move to the idea that society needs what it currently has in order to maintain, then society should not be so easily allowable to let any of its people live in some form of torment such as only being able to afford medical coverage when they need to run to the ER. Communism did not practice preventive medicine while being a communist system, this lead to a much larger cost overall to maintain health care for its society under that system of government. Yet in the U.S socially we basically practice the same with those that for whatever reasons are not able to afford medical care along with every other aspect of life a person has to maintain in our system or society in order to function, such as paying bills as needed from whatever resources they are able to obtain.

Its not really philosophy at that point but a fact of life, I can want a personal laboratory all day long, I can work for it too, but financially speaking they way society is structured along with my choices and ability does not ever have to grant me the ability to obtain it, this situation applies to most everything in our society being we are capitalist. Even if I hypothetical made all the right choices if such was really possible.

America would fail or collapse if all of its people become rich, America does not have the resources in the first place for everyone to become rich. SO eventually you have to accept the idea you can have freedom in the giving spot in the ecology you can successfully survive in, and attempt to move up the web or chain if you will, but this ecology does indeed hold a definite impact on not only your freedom but your equality.

So to me, it comes down to the idea like an ecology that nothing is truly independent of that ecology, if I wipe out a specie or change the ecology in other means it holds an impact on that ecology in a whole or in some form or another. If we create a new tax, or abolish and old tax, this action will radiate and hold an impact in a great many ways, just as the creation of a new technology would. In this sense though it provides me still with the idea that the nature of true non independence within a system needs to be taken into account being its all needed in one way or another for society to live and be fit. You cant run a hobby if no one will work in the plant that makes the golf clubs. So in that particular light, should the desire for utter freedom be able to overtake any means of trying to provide an overall equality for the people in that system? Being such is really not making you free from others, its just changing how those people impact your life, or how society impacts your life. Just now in america we have a sharp demand for those people that will work in the role of a nurse, how should this issue be viewed and acted upon by society or the people that make it up.

There is a great deal of perceptual speculation in the issue from humanity in a whole, leading to actions and results, in this I find ignorance of reality or the natural world if I can and again why I would subscribe the scientific method at least to aid in such, i doubt though for such to occur anytime soon though.

*Emphasis Mine
Your post was eloquently put gordo. But, the problem i have with the bolded line of your post is that if we accept this premise, then it gives the state the legitimacy to control all the aspects of an individual's life. If every action that I make could possible have a negative effect on another then that means my actions need to be regulated by an arbitrary power to ensure that the "common good" is upheld. What is the "common good" will obviously be up to the arbitrary will of either an individual person or of a minority group of people who believe they know whats best for all. This is the root of tyranny whereas the root of freedom is the ability to make decisions that affect me and for you to make decisions that affect you. This is why the upholding of contracts is so important for the survival of a free society. It is also the unpredictability of society that must be protected. From Hayek:


And nothing that you have said gordo is by any means wrong. I believe you have presented an accurate account for the realities of society. You can work as hard as you possibly can and make all the right choices but still not achieve success. Someone else who has worked half as hard can come across some dumb product that the consumers love and buy in bulk. This would make him more successful and more valuable than you even though his merit is obviously less than yours. But this is essential to liberty. Deciding the the value of one's "merit" is just impossible. It cannot be done unless by the arbitrary will of another. Thats why in a free society, it is the consumers who make the choice and not a government entity. I promised myself i wouldn't keep quoting Hayek, but he makes it so clear:

In reply to lederuvdapac


I also state in my post that any means to fully create a system based purely on equality would destroy and sense of freedom and in my opinion would collapse that society in many ways. Moreover its just my opinion that both have to be taken into account in respects to a person having liberty in a system or society, because no matter how you cut it people live in societies which brings along coercion by any name, simple as a child learning english from a english speaking society, or coming to understand why flames painted on a car is cool or what not. This coercion if you will simply cannot be negated and it takes its forms in liberty, freedom or equality regardless of any system brought along to manage if you will a society. To simply just accept freedom can care not about equality will destroy freedom really for untold amount of people.

Just one example being healthcare, if I cannot afford healthcare what does that say about my freedom then? I can only work within the walls of society and it would be on that society then ultimately just as much as the person as to why I could not afford healthcare really. We have people that work hard everyday in America to exist on or barley above the poverty line, this does not change other aspects of reality around them, such as how much healthcare costs, or the electric bill, if they use to much juice they get charged just the same as a richer person for the same amount of resource allocated for personal use. Moreover I guess my point is simply that no system can escape the reality of living in society, which if I may provides all the reality of that fact that nothing is truly independent of its environment. In this context to only care about freedom and no concern for equality will destroy freedom simply because they share in each other.

When I wake up tomorrow and the day after I have to operate in society and any laws that govern it, my choices and what I can make them with and from come to reflect my future reality, but those choices are not purely independent of that environment, I cannot decide I want to pay myself x amount of money or live at any particular place, just like any other living thing I have to go out and make my way in which is fully connected or not independent of any environment it or I may come to live in. So if we make a society were the only thing that matters is how much power you have because that equates to freedom, it will destroy any sense of equality and for many that will mean freedom.

Its like a mill worker. An environmental policy gets passed that individuals life has become completely changed possibly, maybe even endangered. IS this right? many will cry breech of freedom and really its breech of that persons equality then. The same thing is behind in many ways feminist movements and civil rights movements, simply because the denial of equality detracted or made freedom impossible.

So overall if I may I think its of brutal importance to recognize that in a system or society its basically impossible to live free from it, or to gain any real form of independence. You could have all the money in the world to buy a boat, but if no one will sell you one or work to make them its not something you will have. In that sense also you can work as hard as you want but society does not ever have to allow for that person to obtain real freedom because of energy expended in the means society created for its people.
So with that to me to respect that idea means you should not only respect freedom because its essential if not naturally wanted by people, but that same system could simply destroy that freedom by caring nothing for the equality of the people that inhabit it.

I could care less to ever live in a communist or socialist system, I do say the more freedom the better and truly I would only care to have the scientific method lead to policy simply because its truly hard to corrupt, simply meaning I recognize and care a great deal about the environments relation to me, but I do simply understand that living in a system or environment is simply the fact that I am not truly independent of it, and moreover its gross to think about how many people wake up everyday to the prison that is minimum wage, or the fact that such has to even be a law. Just like this debate is greatly influenced by others outside of ourselves in terms of perception on the issue. You made a very nice post, and I agree with you full heatedly that freedom should not be destroyed by a system that cares only for equality, but I will see that same danger in a system to its own freedom by caring nothing for equality simply because both become a reality or share in a civil or supposedly civil society. Maybe a system that best suits our nature needs to be created for whatever that is, but at this point such would be impossible simply because many times proved true ignorance is not bliss.

LH,

Everything is an abstraction as well. Abstractions make up our realities. To put it into a very simple context, what is pain? What is pleasure? What is comfort?

Pain: an abstraction in the consciousness that comes as a result of nerve stimulation. Pain signals a problem with the body and/or mind.

Pleasure: an abstraction in the consciousness that comes as a result of nerve stimulation. Pleasure signals something positive going on with the body and/or mind.

Comfort: an abstraction in the . . . signals a balance in the body/mind.

At the more complex levels, we have equality and freedom. BTW, it was Kristofferson, not Chomskey, who came up with that lyric (Bobby McGee).

So, we can look at Iraq. We liberated Iraq and the people got freedom. What came with freedom is chaos, so freedom doesn't necessarily mean security, and actually, the two are different sides of the coin. Freedom and security are compromized to achieve a level of comfort.

And so, we sacrifice an amount of freedom in various ways to achieve an amount of security. We buy houses, cars and so on. To do that, we give up an amount of freedom to make money.

During the process of making money, we give up an amount of equality. We don't tell the boss exactly what we think all the time, which is part of the social behaviors. We might if we get soused at the office party, and we are free to do that, but it's not very smart.

Sure, and you're free to drink Drano, too.

And that brings us to the ultimate freedom: nothing left to lose. We all get it at the grave.

We try to get equality under the law, but it's pretty tough. At least now minorities get to vote. There's still more to be done, and we can backslide too.

There's also the problem of everyone getting equally shafted, except the economic minority on the top.

Talking about abstractions does not belittle reality. It's very difficult to talk about reality without using abstractions, because that's how we know it.

1) What are your personal definitions for the concepts of equality and freedom?

To me, freedom is the ability to, as much as possible and without unduly infringing on others, live your life as you see fit. Some of the most important factors are the ability to speak your mind, and the ability to follow through on economic opportunity. Equality is related in that everyone should have the same freedoms.
2) What do you think is the relationship between freedom and equality?

I think they are related as described above, and that everyone should be equal in the freedoms they have. These are primarily freedoms of opportunity. This does NOT equate to equality in results. In fact, to me, things that seek to enforce equality of results almost always reduce freedom of opportunity (robbing Peter to pay Paul).

3) Should one be emphasized more than the other?

So long as the emphasis is on equality of freedom and opportunity, then they are the same, and should be given equal emphasis. Generally, if there is a difference it comes about when attempts are made to enforce eqaulity of results. When that happens, I think equality of freedom should be considered far more important than equality of results, for, as I stated above, I think attempts to enforce equality of results often reduce freedom of opportunity somewhere else. To put it another way, I think one of the surest signs of the success of capitalism, which is essentially freedom of opportunity in action, is a large discrepancy in results. Attempts to enforce equality of results therefore reduce overall economic benefit, reducing the level for all.
I would add that I am strongly in favor of actions which reduce the results gap due to removing impediments to opportunity for those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, for the very same reasons. Such actions also raise the overall level for everybody, are an indeed an enhancement of both freedom and equality.

As such I clearly agree with Friedman, and would point out that Chomsky couldn't publish his works if Friedman's definition of freedom weren't employed (if freedom were truly illusion, how would Chomsky explain his ability to publish his thoughts?). Chomsky suffers from using incorrect analogies.



His statement inherently infers that all workers work solely out of necessity, with no other choice. To be blunt, this is complete balderdash. Workers have a wealth of choices throughout their lives, and in where they choose to sell their services. Any theory built upon complete balderdash is also complete balderdash, as its fundamental assumptions are completely flawed. There may have been a time when such an assumption had some merit, but that time has long since passed.

I would also disagree with the following statement, from our earnest host.



I don't believe at all that as equality increases that freedom decreases (maybe there's a little Chomsky in me after all? )). Eqaulity and freedom can, and should, rise simultaneously. In fact, with my definitions, freedom cannot increase at the expense of equality...it can only exist in an environment in which everyone is 'equally' free. As such, freedom and equality MUST increase simultaneously. I stress this because the above logic is often what is used against employing Friedmanesque policies; which I strongly believe decreases both freedom and equality for all.

First, I don't believe the two writers are talking about the same exact thing, so I don't believe the two writers, necessarily, have opposing views on the same topic – or, I should say, these quotes don't, necessarily, illustrate opposing views on the same topic.

Second, I don't believe that Friedman's statement means that "as Equality increases, Freedom decreases." He is talking about focus – about approach. He states, if you put Equality first, you lose both. If you put Freedom first, you increase both.

I believe that Equality can be best achieved by, as Friedman states, "putting Freedom first". Chomsky may be further extending Friedman's belief by stating that Equality should be a necessary product of "putting Freedom first." For what is Freedom if there are no "conditions for the exercise" of it (Equality)? Illusion and mockery.

I agree with both Friedman's statement and, what could be perceived as, Chomsky's extension of it.

But surely there is a difference between coercion of social and peer pressures and coercion through the barrel of a gun. Things that while pressured are still individual choices made and in the end, they are not arbitrarily harmed if they choose the opposite. If a a child is coerced into learning english, not learning english will not land hte child in jail. It just so happens that the failure to learn the majority language will make life more difficult. But those consequences can be foreseen before the actual choice is made. If we were under arbitrary power, I would not know what choices were good or bad until i have already made them.

It is my contention that a focus of equality of material condition will in fact destroy freedom and that an emphasis on individual liberty would enhance the equality under the law and lead to greater material equality.


But yet what is the alternative? Obviously someone must bear the burden of cost correct? I suppose logical thinking would say that the wealthiest citizens should bear more of the responsibility for the rest to promote the "common good" or "social justice." But are these not moral terms? What if the "common good" conflicts with my own personal self-interest? Should i be made to comply in order to serve whats in the best interest of others? It is a true shame that healthcare has become unaffordable to many in this country. But i think that the reason for it is not because of capitalism but other factors that can only be discussed intelligently on another topic on the subject. I believe that with the growth of knowledge and speed of technological progress that our best hope is to allow these advancements to go full speed ahead and that it will benefit the most in the long run. If we throw a wrench into the machine that is progress in the hopes that it can help people now all we are doing is hurting people in the future.



Which is why i quoted Hayek earlier to discuss the created connection between wealth and power and how this supposedly relates to freedom. Just because we are subjects of our environment does not mean that we are not free to make our own choices within that environment without government coercion. This is also why i emphasized the unpredictable nature of society as opposed to an arbitrary power dictating how society should run.



And i agree with you...that is if we are talking about the same thing. In my view, freedom from coercion go hand in hand with equality under the rule of law. When i made the claim that if equality increases, that freedom decreases i meant that as equality of conditions is increased through government enforcement (only way that such an increase is possible) that freedom must decrease.



As i stated with gordo, my answer to your argument depends greatly on what definitions of freedom and equality you adhere to. If you believe that freedom is really freedom from government coercion and that equality is defined not by material possession but equal treatment under the law, then we are in agreement. But if your definitions are different, then we do have a strong disagreement.


But we must also keep in mind that Chomsky's view of the worker's control of production is radically different then the views of Friedman who would probably label such an arrangement as totalitarian. So i would put foward that there ideas of freedom and equality are vastly different. Perhaps not best illustrated by the two quotes i chose, but certainly from each's various works.

So Lets take freedom of equality then. That every person in America should have the freedom of choice in his or her environment. I agree with this very much, personally if someone is making policy of a speech of some aspect of control not related to the hard sciences with scientific method in heavy I get pretty scared of fascism personally, just personal note. Ok back to freedom of equality then, how in any way does the environment, or to reduce very much just the social environment of a society play into freedom of equality in regards to personal liberty then? Small business to big business, a Korean family to an Italian family in Los Angeles? I think it would be hard to even grasp how that applies overall to freedom of equality as imposed environmentally in just that aspect alone. Now why not as direct an impact as a socially appointed group to take from you via force resources you may have obtained via your own actions its none the less a large and powerful entity in regards to your freedom of equality overall.

We can see very easy in America that freedom and equality very much do relate and both become focal points in the idea of keeping America a place with liberty for all.

Take for example the military, the police force, or FBI. They are an entity regulated by the government via money obtained from the populous at large that pays taxes. Why is this? What’s the need or root of the need? Why does healthcare differ from that. Also on that note, we see that the need for this to exist in society that it takes many forms that require certain conditions to be met for accessibility, or else we have people going to Canada for medicine. We live in a society or environment that is governed by people that requires civility and acceptance of such in order to maintain function. All of the above is products of this, the simple aspect of saying that Americans have freedom of equality does not in itself automatically negate social variables or impacts society has on peoples freedom of equality. Take prostitution for example, from some peoples perspectives I have no freedom of equality to engage in such, and why? How much other stuff do you think relating to that exists in society, can I be free from others in any sort of way save leaving society behind, will my personal beliefs alone not have a heavy impact on my freedom of equality by attacking one or the other which is attacks on both? SO if America cannot escape this social reality what does that say about the social reality of freedom of equality being people have to operate in such a society of system or environment? It says your have freedom of equality that is acceptable in a current sense, just as one point it was ok to own slaves.

Any society you take into account can never bring tranquility past these issues, people will always need healthcare just as much as the society will need a police state. We see this societal needs manifest regardless of culture, be it a which doctor or what not. SO if America does not care for all of its people to be able to obtain healthcare is that saying the system the people have to function in does not care about that direct need to the well being of individuals or families that come to inhabit it and operate in it for survival. To go more into this the only thing that saves society from accepting that some of its people needs cannot be met and in order die or suffer and cannot operate is the ER room, and at which points healthcare needs are typically bloated past of what they ever needed to be more often then not, which hurts society more in terms of resources then applying healthcare as available in the first place for such people.

This burden directly lies in the path of freedom of equality of both separately, such in my opinion is maybe what the idea of general warfare of the people may have pertained to even if such language is open to logical gymnastics and socially acceptable perceptions. What does that mean, general welfare of the people? That a general level of welfare for the people is to be kept or maintained possibly? What should that general level of welfare be, the ER room with bloated cancer... Being the reality of whatever freedom of equality comes down to is the overall opinion of the environment any person may come to occupy space in, or such matters hardly even exist in a solid state.

This is the definition of welfare from dicitonry.com

n.

Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
Prosperity.
Welfare work.

Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
Corporate welfare.

Idiom:
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.

------------------------------------
here is liberty from the same source

The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.

----------------------------------

So to me what I see is simply the system butting its head with itself, moreover confusion really brought along over ignorance. Even libertarians will subscribe a lawful society or environment to live in, so will a libertarian republican and of course a leftist, which is much different from liberal which also will subscribe a system or environment for society, and that society left alone will do much the same. So its not with me a debate on the merits of communism or socialism vs. capitalism and or democracy, just the simple aspect of not really ever being free from the environment, and how should people react to this even while in the grips of ignorance.

gordo, I think this is just another case of two people looking at the same exact thing and seeing different things. When one is born into a family...there is no choice involved. I being born into an Italian-Hispanic family in New York City to my current socio-economic status was neither the choice nor the will of anyone. It was just a series of unpredictable events that govern the lives of every human being. The environment that I am born and brought up into is void of morality because it is what it is and cannot be changed. Now because every person is brought into this world in the same manner (basically a luck of the draw) it is that we all have freedom in our individual environments that is important. Those born into a wealthy family are no more guilty of some sort of responsibility as those born into a poor one.

The form of coercion that I speak of involves such control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but serve the ends of another. Free will needs to based on data which cannot be shaped at will by another due to its unpredictable nature. Coercion of course cannot be avoided because the existence of the state in the first place implies coercion. But in order to safeguard liberty, minimizing coercion should be the top priority. This is why we adhere to the rule of law. So that we know the rules and laws beforehand and know the consequences of our actions. The rule of man (arbitrary power) would be based on the whims of a few and their morality would be imposed on the populace.



On the first note, it is my contention that the government has a very strict and limited set of obligations and responsibilities towards the public at large and two of the most important ones are protecting individuals from a foreign threat and protecting individuals from eachother. A military and police force are necessary to protect individual liberty or someone else would take it away. Ill comment on the healthcare issue more in my counter to your next paragraph.

On the second note, I think the fact that prostitution is illegal does show evidence of freedom being restricted as do other laws. But in no way does this reflect negatively on the stature of our liberties in the US. There are certain social conditions that are still considered a vice and the paternalistic nature of government through the support of the people has allowed for these laws to be perpetually upheld. The US isn't perfect by way of protecting inidivudal liberty but it is certainly better than most any other country on earth. I think its just a testament to the difficulty of democracy and the fact that with freedom there needs to be responsibility.


There are two common misconceptions regarding free health service for all. First, the belief that medical needs are usually of an objectively ascertainable character and such that they can and ought to be fully met in ever case without regard to economic considerations and second, that this is economically possible because an improved medical service normally results in a restoration of economic effectiveness or earning power and pays for itself. There is no objective standard for judging how much care and effort are required in a particular case. The real issue is whether the individual concerned is to have a say and be able, by an additional sacrifice, to get more attnetion or whether this decision is to be made fro him by another. We nay dislike that we have to balance immaterial values like health and life against material advantages but the choice is necessary due to facts we cannot alter. The fact that some can afford healthcare and others cannot seems like a cold and heartless fact that we have to live with, but by stagnating economic and technological progress, we could very well doom us all to discoveries that will either be delayed or never come.


I don't have the answer gordo to what the general welfare of the people should be. I don't believe anyone does. Thats why i don't think anyone should have the power to determine it.

1) What are your personal definitions for the concepts of equality and freedom?

Freedom is a gut level word, that is actually used in street speak as a synonym for liberty. But freedom, doesn't appear in our foundational documents much. So we think freedom in street speak, that is not that synonym, means absolutely unconstrained behavior for any and all. Said this way, it's pretty similar to anarchy, and we will let it be so, for us herein!

Liberty on the other hand does appear in our foundational documents. We think it means all the freedom we can maximally give equally to all the citizen population, while limiting that freedom by demanding equal payment by each and every member of the population for the costs of maintaining that liberty.

These costs are of three types: dollars, time in service of the machinery of liberty, and time in service with the equal sharing of risk of death, disability, wounding, etc. by all members of the citizen population, in service of the machinery of liberty. This last is mostly the burdens of war, fire, police, etc.

The citizens are also equal under the principles and machinery of their "government". One could say in the above terms of costs, that they bear equally costs of injustice, so work hard and diligently to make that cost zero.

I thus see two Equalities: that of equal before the "laws", and that of equal costs burden, with both to be for each and all!

2) What do you think is the relationship between freedom and equality?

From 1) above, they are the two equal foundational parts of Liberty!!

3) Should one be emphasized more than the other?

No, they are equal for Liberty!! to work.

Leder- I have a couple questions of you on this subject before I wiegh in on a wieghty matter- - with a couple statements that are really questions, not neccesarily my own views-

1) Okay- the American myth that everyone can achieve financial success- do you believe wealth is finite or infiniate
2) how is teh wealthy chosen to be wealthy- is it through great financial prowess, or simply a genetic- your father and mother were rich, thereby perpetuating a more monarchist society within the confines of a republic, though codifying thier ability to retain that wealth through no effort of thier own into law?
3) So who deserves the wealth
4) are the wealthy MORE free, due to virtue of thier legislated, protected wealth that they didn't really earn through "bootstraps" means?
5) Is freedom a commodity to be purchases and traded if #4 is true?

This gets to the real crux of libertarian debate within the party.

Let's look at the current crop of thieves we have running our country.

ken Lay never spent a day in Jail. he died a rich man. His wealth kept him more free than I would be for a far lessor crime and charge. So his taxes went to buying inequality and freedom that i may never have.

Should all folks, at age of acsension, be reduced to a net worth of "O"? That way, we are all truly equal, and wealth can be achieved strictly through ability, rather than wealth enshrined in law that has nothing to do with the ability to earn, the ability to create wealth from humble beginings?

I have a great deal of respect for Ross Perot and Bill Gates- though more for BG, since he essentially created a million billioni jobs.

But, to a degree, he started out equally free as myself or you.

CruisingRam, excellent questions that I would be happy to answer.

1) I am a firm believer in the idea that anyone could achieve financial success but that not everyone will achieve it. All things being equal, competition obviously means that some will do better than others. But whats important to remember in this regard is who is choosing who succeeds and who doesn't. Should it be the free will of the consumer to choose a better product or service that they calue more? Or should it be the decision of an arbitrary power who tries to assign value to merit and not to the product or service? Is that not a moral judgment? For instance, if you and I open up bakerys across the street from eachother and you and I do the same amount of work thus equalizing our merit...does that mean anything when it comes to who will be more successful? We can have equal merit and my bakery may be deemed more valuable by consumers and thus i get more business. Or i could even have less merit than you and still be favored in value by consumers. Is that fair? Well what is fair? Its a moral judgment. What is ultimately fair is for the consumer to be able to freely choose where they want to spend their money and that that is the true moral issue.

2) Wealthy are not chosen and more than poor are chosen. Its luck...its randomness. Maybe your bakery is 100x better than mine and your merit truly shows in your display and work. But then i have a new pastry of some sort that everyone loves so now I get all of your business. Thats random, its luck. One has no knowledge of what value people will place on certain products and thats what keeps us free. If a scientist works his whole life on some amazing invention that will make him rich but he is never able to achieve it, is it fair for another scientist who while working on an entirely different project stumbles on the very invention of the former scientist and gains the glory? No its not fair. But again...fair is a value judgment. What would truly be unfair is if an arbitrary power makes the decision instead of the consumer.

3) Whoever creates a product or service that the people freely deem valuable.

4) With this question we must seperate reality from the ideal. In the ideal, individual liberty would apply to all absolutely and wealth would have no real bearing. But reality is slightly different and i wont be so naive as to take the ideal for our reality. But even so, it is not the business of the government to discriminate in any way. Whether it be to put down a certain group or to assist a certain group. Its when people start using government as a personal tool for a moral crusade that there have been problems with government.

5) Freedom is absolute for every individual from the wealthiest down to the very poorest. Equal protection under the law is just that and everyoe deserves it. And what do people mean when they say freedom can be bought? Perhaps a better lawyer if they get in trouble? Well does everyone have a right to good lawyer? What would make a lawyer "good" or "good enough". Is it even practical for such a thing? People are afforded counsel if they cannot pay for a private one. When we get into the question of fairness, we are just trading jabs at personal morality.

Justice is an area in American that is certianly not equal, nor free. You only have to go to court to find that out.

If I could wave a wand and change any single aspect of american culture and law- i would "nationalize" lawyers and they would all be state/federal/local goverment employees, and every single person would get EXACTLY equal access to lawyers regarding civil law (except small claims) and criminal law.

That means Exxon would be on the same par with me when we walked into court.

AS pointed out in the Jon Bennet Ramsey case- if they were poor, they would already be convicted and in jail serving long sentences.

Justice is one area of this country that is an oxymoron and truly un-free. Possibly the most dictorial/police state part of our culture- even more than the nanny state sector

Public safety, justice and public use infrastructure are really three areas I believe are completely corrupt and un-free or anti-free if given the profit motive and caplitalism.

When you talk maxium freedom in a society, so that human beings don't neccesarily have EQUAL RESULTS but at least have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY-

The debate i get into this in my own libertarian circles is "Utopian ideals of freedom" vs "The reality of how much freedom you have"

Put like this-

Which is a more free society- a highly armed one that it's citizens are afraid to leave thier family compounds due to territorial warlord type communities, or one that is not free to have guns, but the average citizen doesn't have to worry about a stray bullet and can leave thier house reasonably safely at night?

I am not trying to get into a gun debate over whether society is better served with or without guns, or what happens when a society is not armed- but rather, in the context of those two scenarios- who is truly more free?

It is similar with the corporate debate- are we more or less free with corporations having all citizens rights, the same as any citizen, equal, perhaps more so since they have enormous money- with the exception of the right to vote?

The goverment can't search our trash without a warrant- why is a corporation allowed to? Is it good to allow corporations to do things we DON'T allow goverment to do, indeed, is considered an egregious civil rights violation when goverment does the same things?

Noam Chomsky has really opened and framed this debate quite well, as usual for possibly the greatest genius of our time, and his observations on equality and freedom are pretty hard to debate, because they involve some pretty heavy brain lifting on our part-- but he has a very good point of what is IDEAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL freedom, and how much ACTUAL PRACTICAL FREEDOM THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF POEPLE IN A SOCIETY CAN ENJOY-

It is like the hitler debate or stalin debate- what is the real life definition of those forms of goverment- I don't thinks a totalitarian state is defined by an economic model term

Or like with liberal and conservative and hawk vs dove- you can have a hawkish or dovish liberal-

The practical applications, how society actually IS FREE vs how we choose to define this system or that.

for instance, i would say, overall, most European citizens are MORE free than most American citizens- for a variety of reasons, despite high taxes on the wealthy and on most goods. I would say that America is far more of a "nanny state" than ANY European country, because of goverment intrusion into everyday life over things like smoking and litigation or obesity etc US vs America.


So yes, I would say ol' Noam is probably right, as his model results in more freedom for the maximum population.

I will concede CruisingRam that our legal system is nowhere near perfect. But i ask you to consider the alternative. What would make the system more free? If defendants were guaranteed a top attorney? Is that even practical? Again i ask what will be the qualities of a good attorney? Only one that will get them off the case? In the Scott Peterson trial, he had what most considered on of the finest lawyers in the country, but he still got the death penalty. So in this context, I believe it is not I who are looking at the ideal system but it is you. The reality is that it isn't a perfect system but that there has yet to be an alternative that while possibly increasing equality in one area would decrease freedom in another.



Well based on that little bit of information, either scenario could be more free or less free. In my mind, freedom means freedom from coercion or being forced to do the will of another rather than your own. You assume that because there are no guns on the streets that you are automatically safer, which would be a mistake. What despotic governments have done in order to take complete control of their nation was to disarm the populace because obviously only the government will have the weapons. I cannot debate the freedom in either society, just the level of safety.



I would argue that we are more free, but that is for another debate.


Yes absolutely. Corporations have no coercive power. They cannot deny you of liberty like the government is able to do. If you defy a corporation, perhaps decide not to buy their product or protest outside their store...the corporation has no power to make you comply. A government however that possesses arbitrary power can do whatever it wants and deny your freedom by throwing you in jail or something to that effect.


I would argue that Hayek addressed most if not everything that Chomsky contends well before Chomsky even contended them. One must first agree with Chomsky's idea of libertarian socialism...an idea which many find to be an inherent contradiction.




I think it most certainly can be. Is it a coincidence that many if not all totalitarian governments also have a centralized, complete control of the economy? Of course. Because the government does not want the people to be able to buy and sell goods freely or to make contracts free of coercion. Those are signs of individualism and individual expression. These liberal ideas are opposed to the collectvist views of the fascist or socialist (two sides of the same coin).




I would agree that there is definately a more conservative social agenda being pushed here in the US than in Europe. But Europe's denial of liberal economic policies imo have led to a detriment to their freedom as well. It goes hand and hand.

Well.... yes.

Allow me to point out two major differences in the Canadian legal system, which according to most international studies, makes it significantly more fair and equitable than the US system.

If you qualify for Legal aid in Canada (note this varies slightly provine to provine, but is essentially the same) you get a certificate which then allows you to go hire your own lawyer, of your choice, on the Government's dime. Every lawyer must accept a certain number of legal aid cases per year. Thus, instant equal access to law. The system works extremely well in Canada (as well as several other European countries), I cannot imagine a reason why it would not work equally well in the US.

The other law in Canada prevents lawyers from offering 'free if we lose' services. In the US, it is common for ambulance chasers to offer their services free if they lose, but taking some 40% or so of the settlement if they win. This moe than anythign else is responsible for the lawsuit fever that exists in the US. Sue for everything, sue even if you are in the wrong, sue on made-up cases. Why not? You can only gain, not lose...


Two simple laws, but with profound effects. That is part of the reason why there are already strong movements amongst the legal community in the US to adopt one or both of the above laws there.




I'm not going to get into the 'gun control' side of the debate, because its off topic ( and a very messy topic) but I have to address this one point.

This factoid above is a complete and utter fiction invented by the NRA. In fact, gun control in Germany was effected, not by the Nazis at all, but by the Weimar republic (a democratic regime) in an attempt to curb the roving armed gangs that wandered the streets of German cities. It worked by the way. Hitler did nothing but make these laws permanent.

Same with Castro, he did nothing but tweak pre-existing gun control laws that were already on the books, enacing no new ones himself.

Stalin on the other hand, enacted gun control in cities, but thats all. There was limited to NO gun control in the USSR, which is one of the reasons untrained peasants did not fare so badly when thrown into the war, many of the rural ones had some limited firearm experience. yet the rampant presence of guns did nothing to encourage resistance to Stalin at all, thus debumking another NRA sponsored myth, that an armed citizenry somehow encourages democracy.

So pro-gun control, anti-gun control, whatever. But this historical fiction created by the NRA should be confronted by BOTH sides as absolute lies.

*Emphasis Mine

Is this not a use of government's coercive power? Who is the government to tell me how I should go about my practice? What if I don't want to accept any legal aid cases? Should I be forced? This is just one example of freedom being taken away for the prospects of equality that I mentioned in my previous post. I am sure it works fine. But why should anyone be coerced into doing something they do not want to?



And example number two of freedom being taken away in the hopes of equality. In this case, the freedom to make a contract. If I am a lawyer, should I not have the right to make any contract with my client regarding the collection of damages and fees? Why not?



The nature of the government at the time the abolition of guns was made policy is insignificant. The fact is that the guns were taken away from the populace and they were then headed by a tyrannical government. Cuba, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union...three states of a totalitarian nature. A democratic government can be just as tyrannical as any dictatorship if individual liberties are not protected. The argument i made was that government, any government that abolishes the private use of arms leaves the populace defenseless against government aggression.

Uh... well I suppose from a certain point of view you are right, bu compelling Lawyers to accept a certain number of cases they are technically less free. But By compelling employees to follow their bosses orders or get fired, those employees are less free. By compelling citizens to follow 'laws' those citizens are less free.

Simply stating a infantsimal freedom has been removed is not in and of itself an argument unless you can show actual harm resulting. In this case there is no harm and there is a MASSIVE greater good, a fair legal system. Freedom is unequivocally not absolute unless you are the most radical of anarchist, the question is a balance of law and freedom to the best outcome. It seems to work quite well in a number of other countries after all. Nominal moe choice should not be an excuse for bad laws which create an inequality in society.



Same thing. I'm not disagreeing with your statement, I'm just saying, so what? In contracts, there are horribly repressive laws taking away the 'freedom' of people to ignore or violate contracts. Should we eliminate those laws because it would technically make people 'more free'?

Here we have a simple law, with no harm and enormous benefit. I don't see the problem.



Again, you mistake me. I am not taking a position in the argument, just corecting and oft-used and utterly invented historical fact. Hitler and Castro did NOT 'take away the guns' in fact they imposed nearly no new gun control laws, simply maintaining the ones that already existed, and Stalin's Russia had few to no gun control laws at all. To assert otherwise, as the NRA often does, is a deliberate falsehood.

You are comparing two different things. The relationship between the state and the individual is different than that of the individual and another individual. The employee and the employer have a private relationship that occurs through consenual contracts. The employer makes an offer and the employee accepts it. If the employee does not like the offer, he/she can simply refuse it and go somewhere else. The employee is not compelled by any coercive force to follow their bosses orders. They are only compelled only by their personal ambition to maintain their job or be promoted. When it comes to the relationship with the state, there is coercive power since their law is executed by the police who can take away your liberty by throwing you in jail.

And you most certainly correct that having laws in the first place make people less free. But we as a people accept government as a necessary evil to protect our other freedoms. In the face of legislation that hopes to sacrifice a little bit of liberty for some equality will lose both wind up with neither.



It may be considered an infantsimal amount of freedom in the case...but could not the same use of logic apply to every other policy? You say that in this case it doesn't matter much and I will agree that in this instance the loss of freedom is minimal. But the logic behind it is still dangerous. Furthermore, there is the assumption that the Canadian system is any more fair than the American one. I have yet to see any evidence of this claim nor have i seen how the laws you mentioned are more conducive to a free society.



I am not quite sure I am understanding your contention. The importance of the contract is as important as freedom itself. From Hayek:


If I want to go to Wal-Mart and work for $1 an hour and the employer