Liberty is bad??

[Ana the Ist]

I've had this idea for some time now, wanted to make a thread on it but honestly I've been afraid I'd be unable to explain this idea correctly. In short, I think a nation founded upon the idea might be a bad thing.

By "a bad thing" I mean detrimental to mankind as a whole. Sounds a bit silly right? Bear with me...

My nation, the USA, was founded upon the idea of personal liberty being what is most important to the state. The idea that every man/woman can choose for themselves how they want to live. They can prosper by their own work or sit idly by and watch as life passes. So long as you don't break the rules by which we have mostly agreed are necessary for keeping this liberty, you're free to do as you wish. Of course, we can come up with exceptions to this and the government restricts personal liberty at times for various reasons which might include providing security or a safety net for those with the least means, but largely we have a great amount of personal liberty.

The result of this is not what our founders had intended I think. Wealth amasses within a few while an increasing number of poor will inevitably struggle to get by for most of their lives. I don't see any method of changing this without denying a great deal of personal liberty. Our environment becomes more toxic with it now reaching levels of danger previously unimagined. Other problems like overpopulation haven't yet reached us...but they undoubtedly will as they have in China and India. Problems that mankind will face in the future (and now) would require a great deal of cooperation between everyone...something I don't see happening in a nation of personal liberty. Instead, the trend seems to be that when a great deal of personal liberty is allowed, the less individuals care about anyone but themselves or those they know immediately.

Sure, personal liberty for a while allows individuals the best possible life they can make for themselves...but at what cost? Will we simply burn through every resource until this planet is nothing but a dead husk, with humanity barely clinging onto it like a shadow of its former greatness? Obviously, the alternative is a loss of freedom. A loss of choice in what we want to do for what should or needs to be done...but I don't see anyone lining up ready to make that sacrifice. It would have to be forced upon them.

Perhaps this has to do with one's personal view of mankind in general. Does anyone else think liberty is not the most important foundation for a nation to be created upon?

 

[RDKirk]

Perhaps this has to do with one's personal view of mankind in general. Does anyone else think liberty is not the most important foundation for a nation to be created upon?

The federal government was set up to allow states to run themselves as their state constituents pleased. Liberty at the state level varied greatly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The federal government was set up to allow states to run themselves as their state constituents pleased. Liberty at the state level varied greatly.

Probably not as varied as you think. Imagine a nation where many of the choices you make daily are made for you. How much and what you can eat. How many children you can have. How much electricity and oil you can use. How many hours you work. How much waste you can produce....

Everything is carefully portioned and maintained for the maximum efficiency and resources and what is produced is directed towards the betterment of all mankind. Science and technological advances are prioritized by possible benefit.

In my opinion, its staggering to imagine how much further ahead we might be as a civilization...how many problems might not even exist....how much better off we might be.

The differences between California and Texas don't really compare.

 

[RDKirk]

I meant at the time the US Constitution was ratified. The differences in personal liberty between Massachusetts and Rhode Island in 1789 were significant.

 

[RDKirk]

Science and technological advances are prioritized by possible benefit.

So we would not have penicillin for sure (that was the result of an accident) or anything we've learned through our study of radiation or electricity (both of which were mere scientific curiosities at first). Probably be missing a lot more.

Maybe I need more electricity than my neighbor because I'm developing the first personal computer--which nobody in government thinks is necessary.

Who would make the choices about what kids studied, and more importantly, which kids got to study what?

Who would make the choices about how many doctors would be allowed and what specialties they'd be allowed to pursue?

Who would make the choices of what religions would be allowed?

We've had totalitarian societies before. They haven't worked yet.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I meant at the time the US Constitution was ratified. The differences in personal liberty between Massachusetts and Rhode Island in 1789 were significant.

Fair enough.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So we would not have penicillin for sure (that was the result of an accident) or anything we've learned through our study of radiation or electricity (both of which were mere scientific curiosities at first). Probably be missing a lot more.

Maybe I need more electricity than my neighbor because I'm developing the first personal computer--which nobody in government thinks is necessary.

Who would make the choices about what kids studied, and more importantly, which kids got to study what?

Who would make the choices about how many doctors would be allowed and what specialties they'd be allowed to pursue?

Who would make the choices of what religions would be allowed?

We've had totalitarian societies before. They haven't worked yet.

I'm curious as to why you believe those scientific discoveries wouldn't be made.

As for who would "make the choices" I couldn't say. Ideally, it would be those best suited to make them.

As for totalitarian societies, what do you mean "they haven't worked"?

 

[Received]

No government believes in liberty as an absolute value. This would mean everything's permitted, no laws, therefore no government. With the US, liberty is better understood as liberty primarily related to property rights; hence the original draft of the Declaration by John Locke: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property."

 

[pjnlsn]

And in the modern US, liberty is better understood as: the appearance of liberty, and also freedom and elected representatives which serve the interest of the people, but the reality of the people having no significant power whatsoever.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No government believes in liberty as an absolute value. This would mean everything's permitted, no laws, therefore no government. With the US, liberty is better understood as liberty primarily related to property rights; hence the original draft of the Declaration by John Locke: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property."

Right. Complete liberty would be anarchy...not everyone realizes that. Still, I think at its founding, liberty took the forefront because the amount of liberty given the individual was perhaps unprecedented.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And in the modern US, liberty is better understood as: the appearance of liberty, and also freedom and elected representatives which serve the interest of the people, but the reality of the people having no significant power whatsoever.

I'm going to have to disagree with part of this. I think its true that a lot of the "power" the individual has in the US to affect their nation is illusory. I cannot agree though that people have no significant power. Quite the opposite, people have all the power...whether they realize it or not. The "trick" to capitalism seems to be convincing the masses to settle for less than they could have...and convincing them that whatever they lack is entirely their own fault. I think the "illusion" of certain liberties plays a big part in that.

 

[Received]

Right. Complete liberty would be anarchy...not everyone realizes that. Still, I think at its founding, liberty took the forefront because the amount of liberty given the individual was perhaps unprecedented.

I'd say so, sure. But at the same time, all governments are about doling out liberty. Broadly it's a question of liberty versus order: people are free insofar as this freedom doesn't significantly undermine an order ideal by the government (and if it's democratic, then by the people who constitute the government).

With the US, this freedom is pretty clearly for the people with the most property, and initially for white males at that. There are plenty of folks who want to uphold this ideal, sans racism and chauvinism, in today's society. And I think that when we compare this property ideal to other industrialized countries, it's not that good an ideal; other countries respect this right to property, but don't grant quite as much liberty for it. And I think that if you think about it, this original property ideal is pretty much materialism with a smiling face. Yes, people should be free to be materialistic, but they shouldn't be free to the point that it significantly undermines the freedom of others to be materialistic, or even to have basic needs securely met. And that's the current growing problem in America with concentration of income and wealth.

 

[pjnlsn]

I'm going to have to disagree with part of this. I think its true that a lot of the "power" the individual has in the US to affect their nation is illusory. I cannot agree though that people have no significant power. Quite the opposite, people have all the power...whether they realize it or not. The "trick" to capitalism seems to be convincing the masses to settle for less than they could have...and convincing them that whatever they lack is entirely their own fault. I think the "illusion" of certain liberties plays a big part in that.

Quite.

However, I too will have to disagree with a part of this; Power itself is an illusion, I would say. It's a trick, a shadow on the wall. (Those who know what I just referenced, I congratulate you!) And so if the people believe they have no power, then they actually have no power. There is the potential that the people could seize, as it were, significant power, but they don't currently have it.

Also, there is another barrier to the people having significant power. One is the capitalists, as you mentioned. But the other is that the politicians commonly elected to a wide variety of offices belong to their own special strata of society, like the capitalists, and they have their own illusions they perpetuate to the public, for their own purposes.

(More particularly politicians running for some federal or national office; And also state-level offices, to an extent)

But certainly if the people as a whole came together and had the will to effect change, things would, for so long as that will lasted.

 

[AlexBP]

My nation, the USA, was founded upon the idea of personal liberty being what is most important to the state. The idea that every man/woman can choose for themselves how they want to live. They can prosper by their own work or sit idly by and watch as life passes. So long as you don't break the rules by which we have mostly agreed are necessary for keeping this liberty, you're free to do as you wish. Of course, we can come up with exceptions to this and the government restricts personal liberty at times for various reasons which might include providing security or a safety net for those with the least means, but largely we have a great amount of personal liberty.

The result of this is not what our founders had intended I think. Wealth amasses within a few while an increasing number of poor will inevitably struggle to get by for most of their lives. I don't see any method of changing this without denying a great deal of personal liberty. Our environment becomes more toxic with it now reaching levels of danger previously unimagined. Other problems like overpopulation haven't yet reached us...but they undoubtedly will as they have in China and India. Problems that mankind will face in the future (and now) would require a great deal of cooperation between everyone...something I don't see happening in a nation of personal liberty. Instead, the trend seems to be that when a great deal of personal liberty is allowed, the less individuals care about anyone but themselves or those they know immediately.

I think you've got everything exactly backwards. A nation that has more political liberty can expect to have fewer people living in poverty, less pollution, and more scientific and technological discoverities, as compared to a nation without political liberty. For example, here's a major American city:

Here's a major city in communist China:

Admittedly that's anecdotal evidence, but it suggests that in China, where everything is carefully portioned and maintained by the government, the air quality is worse than in the USA.

On the issue of new science and technology, consider what was invented by Americans seeking personal profit: the telephone, the light bulb, the microchip, the personal computer, the assembly line, the metal detector, the transformer, large-scale electricity, the airplane, the air conditioner, the vast majority of medicines currently in use, blood transfusions, artificial insulin, online auctions, the nuclear reactor, the tractor, ... Obviously this list could go on for quite a while. By contrast, totalitarian countries with command economies, such as China and Cuba, have not invented a whole lot.

In terms of wealth, just ask yourself one thing: how many Americans currently can't afford electricity or running water? How does that compare to the percentages in China or India or other heavily regulated economies?

I'll acknowledge that the USA is not now, and never has been, perfectly dedicated to personal liberty. But it has always been vastly better than most other nations, and both Americans and other peoples have benefited as a result.

 

[RDKirk]

In terms of wealth, just ask yourself one thing: how many Americans currently can't afford electricity or running water? How does that compare to the percentages in China or India or other heavily regulated economies?

India is not a heavily regulated economy--it's less regulated that that of any Western industrialized nation.

While I will agree that command economies have extremely poor records in terms of managing their ecologies and their research and development efforts, poverty is not an inherent product of command economies.

Nations which have totally non-regulated economies have the same dismal results, and worse, as those with total command economies.

 

[AlexBP]

As for totalitarian societies, what do you mean "they haven't worked"?

Every totalitarian society does one of three things: ceases to exist, gradually shifts towards greater freedom, or becomes a miserable ****hole that no one in their right mind would want to live in. in the first category would be Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; they just aren't there any more.

In the second category would be countries such as China and Vietnam. While they are still very much unfree, their have made considerable progress since the days of Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh. They simple couldn't remain entirely communist and still survive.

In the third category would be North Korea: the only totally communist country on Earth, and a place of constant starvation and horrible human rights abuse.

As for who would "make the choices" I couldn't say. Ideally, it would be those best suited to make them.

Marxism and other totalitarian political ideologies are based on the assumption that we can find a leader or a small group of leaders who are well suited to being in control of everything, and then give them total power, after which everything will go smoothly. The American way of life is based on the truth of original sin, which all Christians know. Nobody is perfect, and generally speaking people aren't even decent. If anyone is given absolute power, it will corrupt him. Because of this truth, societies based on liberty always fare better than those based on tyranny.

The Founding Fathers devised a government of limited powers, where no individual could gain too much power. As a result, the USA became the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. You say that in the USA, "an increasing number of poor will inevitably struggle to get by for most of their lives". It's worth remembering that to be 'poor' in the USA means a higher standard of living than the 'rich' have in many countries. From a global perspective, virtually no one in the USA is truly poor.

 

[AlexBP]

India is not a heavily regulated economy--it's less regulated that that of any Western industrialized nation.

According to the Index of Economic Freedom, India received the following scores:

Property Rights: 50.0
Freedom From Corruption: 31.0
Government Spending: 77.9
Fiscal Freedom: 78.3
Business Freedom: 37.3
Labor Freedom: 73.6
Monetary Freedom: 65.3
Trade Freedom: 63.6
Investment Freedom: 35.0
Financial Freedom: 40.0

By contrast, the United States received these scores:

Property Rights: 85.0
Freedom From Corruption: 71.0
Government Spending: 47.8
Fiscal Freedom: 69.3
Business Freedom: 90.5
Labor Freedom: 95.5
Monetary Freedom: 75.0
Trade Freedom: 86.4
Investment Freedom: 70.0
Financial Freedom: 70.0

So India is far behind the United States in eight out of the ten categories. India was much worse off in the 60's and 70's. Though it wasn't a communist country, communists had major influence. Taxes on business made it basically impossible for Indians to start a business. Regulations prevent foreigners from investing. In those days the "starving children in India" made the ountry synonymous with poverty. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the communists faded from power and India started liberalizing its economy. Hundreds of millions of Indians have risen out of poverty as a result, but an even larger number remain stuck at the bottom of the economic ladder. There's still an army of bureaucrats that makes it nearly impossible to start new businesses, while inefficient state-run enterprises waste most of the country's wealth.

Looking at the Index of Economic Freedom in its entirety, it's clear that the countries with the most economic freedom are first-world countries where everyone is prosperous, while those with the least economic freedom have virtually their entire populations living in grinding poverty. Many sources, including the original post of this thread, take it for granted that economic liberty leaves people in poverty, which may be convincing to those who don't question authority. For those of us who take time to get the facts, things look different.

 

[Paradoxum]

By "a bad thing" I mean detrimental to mankind as a whole. Sounds a bit silly right? Bear with me...

Depends what you mean by detrimental.

My nation, the USA, was founded upon the idea of personal liberty being what is most important to the state. The idea that every man/woman can choose for themselves how they want to live. They can prosper by their own work or sit idly by and watch as life passes. So long as you don't break the rules by which we have mostly agreed are necessary for keeping this liberty, you're free to do as you wish. Of course, we can come up with exceptions to this and the government restricts personal liberty at times for various reasons which might include providing security or a safety net for those with the least means, but largely we have a great amount of personal liberty.

A great amount of personal liberty... though old and sick people are still unnecessarily forced into torturous and undignified deaths against their will.

The result of this is not what our founders had intended I think. Wealth amasses within a few while an increasing number of poor will inevitably struggle to get by for most of their lives. I don't see any method of changing this without denying a great deal of personal liberty. Our environment becomes more toxic with it now reaching levels of danger previously unimagined. Other problems like overpopulation haven't yet reached us...but they undoubtedly will as they have in China and India. Problems that mankind will face in the future (and now) would require a great deal of cooperation between everyone...something I don't see happening in a nation of personal liberty. Instead, the trend seems to be that when a great deal of personal liberty is allowed, the less individuals care about anyone but themselves or those they know immediately.

Economic inequality and environmental destruction if the fault of economic liberty, not personal/social liberty. So I don't see why personal liberty needs to be reduced for anything you have mentioned here. In anything we need to increase social liberty.

Sure, personal liberty for a while allows individuals the best possible life they can make for themselves...but at what cost? Will we simply burn through every resource until this planet is nothing but a dead husk, with humanity barely clinging onto it like a shadow of its former greatness? Obviously, the alternative is a loss of freedom. A loss of choice in what we want to do for what should or needs to be done...but I don't see anyone lining up ready to make that sacrifice. It would have to be forced upon them.

Again, economic freedom.

Perhaps this has to do with one's personal view of mankind in general. Does anyone else think liberty is not the most important foundation for a nation to be created upon?

Well I would say that it is something more like 'equal liberty for all, such that it is consistent with the liberty of all'.

 

[grasping the after wind]

A great amount of personal liberty... though old and sick people are still unnecessarily forced into torturous and undignified deaths against their will.

I was wondering what evidence you have for this accusation? If such a thing is occurring shouldn't someone be made aware of this unlawful undertaking?

 

[AlexBP]

Economic inequality and environmental destruction if the fault of economic liberty, not personal/social liberty.

Economic liberty is a part of both personal and social liberty. Economic liberty means the right to buy and sell as we choose, own property, start businesses, hire and be hired. Plainly if we're denied these things, then we're being denied our personal liberty. Since economic decisions are always part of social life, denial of economic liberty is also denial of social liberty.

I was wondering what evidence you have for this accusation?

I'm kind of wondering that too. It can't be a reference to health care, since America's Medicare system gives seniors much more money for health care than any other nation.