Liberty or Prosperity?

[cynic]

Those who obsess about compulsion would probably find some reason not to give much voluntarily anyway. I guess if you believe in some fatalistic ideal where there’s a high likelihood of the poor starving and their kids going illiterate, then charity is only going to get in the way of this natural justice.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Those who obsess about compulsion would probably find some reason not to give much voluntarily anyway.

That comment is very similar to the logic abusers use to blame their victims, or that dictators use to dominate their subjects.

It isn’t OK to take away someone’s freedom just because they’re not using it in the way you want them to.

I guess if you believe in some fatalistic ideal where there’s a high likelihood of the poor starving and their kids going illiterate, then charity is only going to get in the way of this natural justice.

No idea what you’re talking about here…
you might want to consider thinking about happy things for a little bit…hummingbirds are nice, or maybe butterflies?

 

[cynic]

That comment is very similar to the logic abusers use to blame their victims, or that dictators use to dominate their subjects.

Except that abusers and dictators are motivated by personal gain.

It isn’t OK to take away someone’s freedom just because they’re not using it in the way you want them to.

I think you romaticize ideals of struggling at the breadline, making your own way in life and succeeding without reliance on strangers, in a “it’s me against the world” kind of way. That’s a good attitude to have. Too bad there are real people involved ; children who won’t receive schooling, the elderly who won’t receive a pention. A theory devoid of concern for the results is a heartless one, and libertarianism is one that no country currently puts into practice.

If you were someone who couldn’t afford to take care of their parents, or lost your job and couldn’t pay your kids school fees, then you might not be so concerned with absolutes.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Please get back to discussing the topic instead of each other.

 

[scarlet19]

Prosperity comes from liberty. It is rulers and legislators, desiring more power for themselves, who destroy our prosperity by stealing our wealth (taxation), murdering us (war, abortion, death penalty), and setting themselves or the state as gods or god by barring honest discussion of religion. As Chesterton says “Once abolish God and the government becomes god.”

 

[steveandersen]

So you are with Sallust?

Who/What is Sallust?

 

[steveandersen]

Liberty doesn’t require isolation so long as social structures operate on a voluntary basis, such that no one is compelled to participate in anything against their will.

Voluntary?

Did you volunteer where to be born or in what circumstances?

Do you suppose that a system will work if folks can volunteer about which rules to follow and which to ignore?
(although a smart society will not make unenforceable rules)

Again, this is fine so long as membership or cooperation with the larger group is voluntary.

If prosperity is best achieved by participation in a larger group, then it should logically follow that the larger group should not have any trouble finding people who want to participate voluntarily.

If people don’t want to participate on a purely voluntary basis, then chances are that they don’t believe the large group is the best way to achieve prosperity.

Or that prosperity is not a priority for them

In this case, the larger group is diminishing one person’s prosperity in order to increase the prosperity of another. That is, one man’s prosperity comes at the expense of another man’s liberty.

Fortunately economics isn’t a zero sum game.

That might mean taxing the rich to help the poor, or it could also mean enslaving the poor to serve the rich.

Ultimately, universal prosperity is impossible without universal liberty. …….

I would like to think so
The Chinese seem to be bucking the long held Western position that only a free society can produce prosperity.

Of course we will never have universal prosperity or liberty in this world.

 

[Contarini]

Julius Caesar in “The Gallic Wars” wrote:
“Human nature is universally imbued with a desire for liberty, and a hatred for servitude.”

Sallust, a contemporary who witnessed Caesar end the Roman Republic, wrote:
" Only a few prefer liberty - the majority seek nothing more than fair masters."

Considering the events of our time and the issues under debate in the election, I think there is a dilemma for us in these ancient voices.

Who was right? Do we really want liberty with all it implies, or do we want prosperity no matter the sacrifice of liberty?

I’m pretty confident that people on both sides will be voting a week from now based on a desire for liberty–and others (or even the same people) based on a desire for prosperity, again on both sides.

The question of what policies will bring about prosperity and the question of what policies preserve liberty are both under debate in this election. It isn’t an either/or.

Edwin

 

[Oscarthecat]

Voluntary?
Do you suppose that a system will work if folks can volunteer about which rules to follow and which to ignore?
(although a smart society will not make unenforceable rules)

You’re mistaking a voluntary society for anarchy.
People engage in voluntary societies just fine right now- in fact, you probably participate in all kinds of voluntary systems every day, and the conditions of that participation often places specific obligations on you.

For example, the Church is a voluntary society. Participation is voluntary, because people have the freedom to join or to leave it- but participation in the Church carries the responsibility to follow the Church’s rules.

For that matter, even the act of driving is a form of voluntary participation- no one can force you to drive a car- and your participation in using public roadways requires that you consent to specific rules governing the roadways.

A compulsory society, however, does not respect voluntary participation, but rather claims the authority to take, use, and tax all property, all labor, all commerce, and all people living in or traveling through arbitrary geographical regions.

Or that prosperity is not a priority for them

Or that respect for the rights of others is not a priority for them?
Or that others’ freedom is not a priority for them?
Or that other people are so inept that they cannot be prosperous unless they are being controlled by you and people who think like you?

Fortunately economics isn’t a zero sum game.

That’s exactly right…and that’s exactly what I was pointing out. The OP makes the assumption that liberty and prosperity are mutually exclusive- which is just another trapping of the compulsory society. Even taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution is justified by the claim that economics is a zero sum game- the right of the “haves” to benefit from their labor must be diminished in order to secure the right of the “have nots” to get what they need. Compulsory societies have to convince people that one must lose for the other to win.

Alternatively, voluntary societies, like the Church, teach that giving freely to one another actually increases the prosperity of all.

The Chinese seem to be bucking the long held Western position that only a free society can produce prosperity.

Really? Is that what you call it when more than 2/3’s of a country lives in huts?

The illusion of Chinese prosperity hides a lot of things- religious and political freedom, numerous human rights violations, complete disregard for the importance of the family, abolition of personal property-

Maybe you should try a different example…

 

[cynic]

There are of course practical concerns, like how you fund nuclear power plants, hydro-dams, roading, water utilities etc without state investment.

 

[Oscarthecat]

There are of course practical concerns, like how you fund nuclear power plants, hydro-dams, roading, water utilities etc without state investment.

I can’t see how this is on topic- so I’ll answer it in the hope that you’ve got a way to tie this back to the OP’s original issue.

You mention two basic issues- roadways and utilities

There are privately owned examples of everything you mentioned-

First, several communities in the country consist entirely of privately owned roads- including the community where I live here in Texas. The roads where I live are funded entirely by private ownership- not by taxes.

Here’s an article about another city with privately owned roads- North Oaks City, MN - digitaljournal.com/article/256574. In fact, the entire city is privately owned and operated- meaning that the city government does not own any property, nor does it claim ownership of or exert any authority over private property.

Second, in regard to utilities- privately owned power and water companies are everywhere, so I’m not going to bother with the idea that they can’t exist without government. The claim that government subsidies are necessary to offset the cost of power plants is nothing more than a scam. Where do you think the money for those subsidies comes from? TAXES! And where do those taxes come from? The same people who are in the service are of that power or water plant.

Government subsidies to fund power or water plants don’t reduce costs at all. They just mask the real cost of the utility because people end up paying two groups for their energy or water needs-the utility company, who is actually providing the service, and the government bureaucrats who are just passing money on to the utility company after they skim their cut off the top.

If you want to go a step further, government is the number one factor limiting the growth of the private utilities market because of the common practice of granting monopoly rights to utility companies. The reason most people in the US only have access to one power company and one water company in their local area has nothing to do with the viability of these companies to exist without government subsidies- it is because these companies have convinced the government that their infrastructure is incompatible with competition- essentially, they have been granted exceptions to the rules against monopolies.

Despite this, there are still numerous examples that fly in the face of the myth that utility providers cannot be privately owned or that they cannot benefit from market competition.

For example, Lubbock, Texas has several competing power companies. If you don’t like one, cancel their service and contract with another. The first company will come out and take out their meter, and the new company will arrive and plug in theirs- no different than switching to a new phone or cable TV provider. The competing companies power to the grid in proportion to their share of the subscriber base. This has always been possible because electricity is fungible, that is, one watt is exactly like another watt, so various companies can share the grid. This same system can be used with water.

Anyway, now that I’ve explained that, how did your question relate back to the OP’s question about liberty and prosperity?

 

[cynic]

State investment has historically been neccessary for costruction of roads, water utilities etc. Some might now be owned and maintained by through the private sector. There’s no way private investors would fund contruction of a hydro-dam, for example. Think-big projects like this that are of long-term benefit to a country have always been funded primarily through government.