Asymmetrical Information

Wow Jane you got it this time. Security and liberty are two different things. When the government tries to enforce security, liberty usually goes down hill (it means taking more from those who succeed to ensure that those who don't succeed don't get hurt).

However, conversely, if the government tries to guarantee liberty and allow the freedom for risk takers to prosper without punishment, that means the better off this nation is economically and then the natural flow of revenues (from taxation) into the government can take care of the defense of this nation. And also a strong safety net can be there for those who cannot provide for themselves. If the safety net is diluted by a cradle to grave social hammock then we only tear this country down economically and we are weaker and less able to defend ourselves from other nations.

Congratulations Jane. :)

What are the odds that this theme (of word-spin) would come up here at just about the same time both here and at the Volokh site? Over there, they are talking about the lack of politically-neutral terms to describe some ideas/things/actions, and how the descriptors can identify the political leanings of the author. Maybe I have been reading too much political stuff here in Washington, but this became clear to me very quickly. However, I don't think it can be said often enough - most people don't recognize it, especially when it is practiced by those most skilled - lawyers and politicians.

The redefinition of liberty is so much easier than the admission that one opposes it.
They want to keep the imagery of "free as a bird" while lamenting that the bird is actually enslaved by his inability to buy a fancy car or afford cutting-edge healthcare.
'Freedom to' vs. 'freedom from' is one of the oldest tricks in the Marxist book.

Wasn't it Franklin who said something along the lines of those who try to achieve both liberty and security fail to achieve either?

The distinction between liberty and security has been known for a long time.

Spoken like someone born white, upper middle class, with access to every bit of higher education available.

I believe it is Jane engaged in the newspeak; creating an environment that is inherently more fair than what currently exists is a noble and attainable goal for government. Should Eisenhower not have supported the Supreme Court's decision in Brown? Should we dispense with public education altogether?

Saletan does not substitute security for liberty; that's John Ashcroft. Saletan merely says what is anathema to the libertarians - that government can play a positive role beyond national defense. Perhaps you don't like his belifs, but you are the one reducing the argument to dictionary terms, not Saletan.

Yes Rex, But people on the left either don't know it or forget it. It is worth reiteration and teaching our children.

The Franklin quote is as follows.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Again, the people acting against liberty and for security are in the Attorney General's office. Look under A.

Saletan is suggesting that liberty should include opportunity.

Scott, You are defining us as we haven't spoken. Our position wasn't dispensing with public education altogether.....

There is a middle ground between where we have headed as a nation since 1954 (50 years) and how we could stop increaseing handouts so much and the position you stated which I haven't heard anyone state.

First of all, 94% of the education money is spent by the states. Secondly most states spend about 50%-52% of their budgets on education. While the mixing and mingling of federal roles and state roles continue in this country because people are not aware, it is important to note that the more you levy taxes on the citizens of a nation to provide security, the less freedom we have.

The debate is .... how much taxes should we levy, how much security needs to be provided and how much freedom should we have?

It is typical of a liberal to not get it, turn things into extremes as you did and define their opponent. Yet we may only be talking about a few percentage points here or there .............................

Scott,

You talk as if you know someone or you are someone who John Ashcroft has personally stripped of liberty. Name the liberty and name how he did it please...

Please be specific. And if you are, why haven't you been the first successful complaint detailing a legitimate abuse by the federal government because of the Patriot Act which was passed by many not unilaterally and has been reviewed and reviewed to see if there have been any abuses.......

This somewhat misses half of Salatan's piece. The federal government can increase individual liberty by reining in the coercive powers of non-federal corporate entities (the church, state government, corperations, etc.). And vice-versa.

Ashcroft hasn't targeted me or anyone I know personally, though I am not sure why that is important. The governments internment of Jose Padilla for 18 months without access to counsel is clearly a violation of habeas, if nothing else. But I guess, Pat, that unless it is a member of your immediate family it doesn't bother you.

As to your other comments, you are right I guess I don't get it. Saletan is arguing for a definition of government & liberty which actually creates opportunity rather than just declaring that we have it. I believe in that vision; over the past 50 years it may have been implemented poorly often (perhaps even most of the time). But I don't stop subscribing to the belief that government CAN be a positive good in the country just because it has done a lousy job so far.

What I do hear in this forum and other libertarian circles I have entered is a complete reliance on markets and economics. I find these policies to be self serving at best (to lower ones own taxes) and downright harmful at worst.

Duncan's got it...much more succinctly than I.

Duncan,
Honest Question....
Who do you think make up the church and state government and the "corporations"?

I'll answer...
It's us. The regulations on corporations (i.e., EEOC asking every corporation for paperwork and paperwork concerning the race and sex of the employees), is regulations on us.

I think like the libertarians. Make a simple set of laws. Until and unless someone breaks a law we don't need 400 federal entities breathing down corporations necks.

This country should be a nation of laws with the economic system of capitalism and safety net.

Unfortunately we've turned into a nation of too many laws to possibly follow with the economic system of capitalism but if you succeed too much you have a target on your back and a cradle to grave (almost but not as bad as Germany) hammock.

The definition of capitalism is the people deciding who gets what resources.

The definitino of socialism is the state deciding who gets what resources.

If a nation is corrupt like Mexico capitalism is doomed. But if a nation stakes out that it is a nation of laws capitalism is the engine that makes our economy better and gives us the ability to help the other countries in the world.

Scott, you're completely missing the point. I'm not saying that because security isn't liberty, we shouldn't have any of it. I'm just saying it's not liberty.

You (and Saletan) seem to be making a logical error:

a) Liberty is good
b) Therefore anything I think is good is also liberty

I think liberty is a good thing, which in a society composed of imperfect human beings, must be traded off against other good things, security chief among them. I'm not saying that elementary education is a bad thing; I'm just saying that the provision of elementary education is not the provision of liberty. We provide elementary education in the pursuit of other, also worthy goals. But to do so, we make substantial infringements on liberty: we take people's money to pay it; we tell parents they have to send their children there; we force often-unwilling children to spend their days there.

As a society, we have to make tradeoffs. These tradeoffs are difficult enough without having partisans from either side try to redefine the terms so that we can pretend the tradeoffs don't exist.

Scott,
Criminals who are considered to be picked up in a battle (war) haven't had access to counsel from time to time. FDR has followed this principle during WWII. Bush has followed this. It is nothing new. It is not an evil John Ascroft that is about to take away YOUR rights and your liberty.

I make it personal because you act like the people in America are "" this close to being jailed for 18 months. I have watched the debate on both sides of this equation on C-SPAN and read many articles on it. I don't believe liberals are getting it anywhere close to correct when they smear Ashcroft and Bush as people taking away your liberties.

The worst we've had to endure is longer airport lines at the security gate. And they took my screwdriver out of my bag when I forgot I had it in my laptop bag. Wah!

Again.. You define us conservatives and libertarians as people who would ENTIRELY rely on the markets and economics. While "people" should be the deciders of who gets what resources, I don't know anyone who thinks there should be no safety net or protections for people who need protections.

It's ok to get it wrong. But once explained to you, it would now be propanda to keep defining us as we don't believe. Hope you understand.

Who do you think make up the church and state government and the "corporations"?
I'll answer...

And what is the federal government, chopped liver?

There are clear mechanisms for federal accountability (that whole democracy thing) and no-one is excluded from exercising that string (in theory).

Nobody is a member of every state, religious body or limited liability corporation that might impinge on their liberty.

There are certain roles government is best suited to handle. These include providing courts, police, and national defense. Without government it would be impossible to maintain the rule of law essential to free markets. However, government is typically less efficient than the private sector. This means that it is important to limit government to the things it handles best.

Jane - what in the world are you talking about? Education does not equal security. Nor does the lack of public education mean liberty, either. I think you should seriously rework your original post - you are engaged in doublespeak. This security confusion is created by you. What you seem to suggest is that liberty=anarchy. Liberty should equal all rights up until those rights infringe on someone else's well being. Government makes rules and intrudes on people to ensure that some folks don't go beyond that invisible wall to destroy the rights of others.

Pat, I am so admonished. Your brand of libertarianism/conservativism clearly makes room for government involvement in people's lives. Likely you and I differ on where & how far that involvement should extend. But that would likely be a topic for another time...

As to the Ashcroft/Bush business - we are in a war without any foreseeable end. Their answer, and yours, is to give up rights such as habeas. Padilla, who it seems is guilty based on potentially coerced confessions, still has not been convicted of a crime (thus he is not legally a criminal yet). This situation opens the door for Bush/Ashcroft to deem me an enemy combatant. Such is how the purges began under Stalin, and how the Nazis began their consolidation of power. Of course, according to Ann Coulter, I want to destroy America, so maybe they should pick me up. (Perfect quote above for anyone at Faux News or the Washington Times to take out of context.)

Duncan,

Has a corporation ever taken your property? I don't think so. If so, you have a case.

The federal government has the power to take your property and so does the state.

My point was that we make up the corporations and therefore it we who are regulated by the state and federal government.

Also, it is we who pay taxes and therefore when the state or federal government raise "corporate" taxes, it is we who pay them. "Corporations" is just a term that gets people saying "yeah we need the federal government to do this or that".

There is no corporation without us. We are the corporation, we pay the taxes, we are the benefiters or the consumers.

What we as conservatives argue for is a good safety net, a good legal process to make good judgements when someone's liberty is infringed or someone is hurt by an entity.

But what is the set of laws that we should all make on each of us? That is the question. Should it be 100,000 pages of laws (there is more than that) or should there be 1,000 pages of laws that a single person can read and understand in thier lifetimes?

The simpler the set of regulations and laws the easier it is for us to not cross the line and be in trouble with the law.

Scott,

Jane is right on.

Those on my side including Jane are not saying that Liberty = No public education or anarchy. Why do you tend to define our arguments in the extreme (leftists tend to). It is merely a couple percentage points usually in what defines us. While I know that federal spending could go down (without impacting services rendered to us citizens) by about 5%-10% there are others including myself who would like to revisit what services the government provides.....
... But it was you who originally asked to what extend "dismantling the public education system"? You defined the argument and I don't know one conservative or libertarian friend of mine who has advocated that in the last 14 years that I have been involved in politics. Vouchers and an introduction of competition and allowing parents to choose a school with a voucher is far from dismantling the education system.

Jane is not confusing. You are.

Couple things:

First, I'm positing that there are more than two values in the world. Liberty and security are two that often have to be traded off together. Liberty and community are two others.

Second, I would argue that education is in fact the way we try to advance first, security (economic security for the child's future) and second, community (all American kids have to attend school until they're sixteen where they learn basically the same stuff). I think that these are worthy goals, worth abrogating various peoples' personal liberty to achieve. But I don't need to redefine liberty to include student loan programmes in order to promote student loan programmes; I can say, if I believe in them (I'm not sure I do, as it seems to me that they're a massive transfer from taxpayers to administrators and dorm-room upholsterers, but that's another argument), that they're worth doing for other reasons, and the consequent loss of liberty for those who don't attend college and pay taxes to send other people there, is trivial. (Which is true.)

Liberty is a negative right; the freedom to act without interference from others. Most important about it, as a negative right, is that one person's liberty rarely infringes on another's; and it requires no coerced action from other people. Defining student loans as "liberty" clearly violates both propositions; it requires taking taxes, which infringe on peoples' rights to dispose of their own earnings, and it requires positive action -- earning money to give to the student loan programme -- to achieve its ends.

I'm not one of those libertarians who think that property rights are so inviolate that taking a single dollar to educate a child is a monstrous injustice; but neither am I one of those liberals who thinks that all property in some sense belongs to society, which may therefore dispose of it as it pleases. I just think it's important that we be clear about the tradeoffs when we make them, rather than trying to obscure them by redefining hte terms.

I don't think that "absence of primary education" equals more liberty; I do think that "absence of taxation" required to fund those schools equals more liberty. However, I also think that "absence of taxation" equals less of other things, like police and schools and fire departments and armies and sanitation and protection for the disabled, that I think are more valuable than the rather minor loss of liberty they entail. I'm not trying to argue against hte things that Saletan talks about in his piece (though I might argue with some of them); I'm trying to argue against expanding, for PR purposes, the definition of liberty so far as to make the term meaningless.

Democrats are traditionally the party of greater (government provided) security; Republicans, the party of greater personal liberty. One could argue this, somewhat, as to decency statutes )but they're bipartisan), gay marriage, or abortion, which I think is a bad example because it involves yet another painful tradeoff between valid and conflicting values. But taxes affect a lot more people than gay marriage, so I think on net, the Republicans have a slight edge there, just as the Democrats have a slight edge on personal security, though again one could argue whether (for example) demagoguing Medicare really makes us all more secure in the long run, after the money runs out and no one's planned for it). Clearly, both sides would like to redefine the words so that they don't involve tradeoffs, because that enables them to co-opt the other party's territory. But I don't think it's healthy for us to blur the very important choices we have to make between these things.

Assuming that dictionary definitions are so fixed in stone and universally agreed-upon as to not bear quibbling over is naive. Whenever ANYONE uses a word they mean something by it that differs in numerous ways from the ways others use it, ways that are only uncovered through discourse. The Saletin quote beginning with "First, do you define liberty..." is an excellent example of how one goes about clarifying such matters. It is a standard technique in the fields of law, philosophy, and mathematics to bring explicit attention to clarifying terms with subtle meanings through use of those with more concrete meanings. And whether you do it explicitly as he does or unconsciously, it is in fact the only way you draw messages out of aphorisms such as that of Reagan's mentioned.

JG instead of using Saletin's analysis to embark upon an interesting discussion of what aspects of freedom of action are to be preferred from what types of perspectives, and how these relate to roles of government, gets caught up in arguing over what words mean, and in attempting to substitute some words carrying connotations that help implicitly support positions to her liking for others. And it has muddled the issue terribly.

For those that lost the truth for the trees in JG's blizzard of invective, Saletin's point is that liberty has abstract and practical sides. Every American is legally free to go out and buy a BMW, but only 5% can afford to do so. Perhaps there are alternate Americas where affairs are more or less regulated, where fully 25% can afford a BMW. (Tariffs aside, Germany?) Maybe there are some costs to this type of regulation that outweigh the greater practical freedom of people to buy BMWs, maybe not. This is an interesting debate (and I am NOT taking sides in it). Trying to obscure the difference between practical liberty and abstract liberty by bringing in the word "security" is in no way helpful.

In fact, I cannot even see the relevance of the word unless you interpret practical liberty as protection of some people (the weak?) from danger (the strong?), which is not only a metaphorical stretch but ignores a whole host of potential means by which a government might act to maximize total practical liberty. I fail to see how job training programs are "security", for example, unless you think of them as a "safety net", which implies vaguely there is something inherently inferior about the people that need it, which implies ...

Wow. The best post ever. That must've taken 4 hours to compose. Well thought out and articulated.

And there Scott goes with the Nazi comparison. Great job defending your argument.

Scott, you actually lost me right near the start when you talked about "creating an environment that is inherently more fair than what currently exists" - who exactly gets to decide what's "inherently more fair"? You? Saletan? Liberal elites who always seem to know what's best for other people, yet rarely (if ever) adhere to their high principles themselves? You could have been more intellectually honest by saying what you really mean, namely "an environment that is more egalitarian that what currently exists". But then, people would see your argument for what it really is even faster, wouldn't they.

And I think questioning you about your rather obvious, intense dislike of Ashcroft is entirely fair. Since you can't seem to come up with anything else than the Padilla case (which seems to get paraded around as the holy grail of Ashcroft hatred regularly) to support your position, your dislike of the man appears to be nothing but the knee-jerk reaction that it usually is when people complain about him.

Finally, to address your sad invocation of the Nazis: If Bush really was the next Hitler, people like you would have been herded into concentration camps for approximately two years already at this point in time. Oh well, I guess you can keep "hoping" for a second GWB term in case he doesn't get around to ordering your internment before November.

(Sometimes I wonder if "boy who cried wolf" means anything to some people...)

Has a corporation ever taken your property? I don't think so. If so, you have a case.

Corporations take my property (in the form of money) every day. Gotta eat - and I'm not a farmer. I don't have a lot of choice in the matter. In practice corporations have significant power over individuals, given the general lack of omniscience in the general public. This power can be sensibly limited by good liberty-enhancing regulation, enforced by a entity subject control by the general public.

The federal government has the power to take your property and so does the state.

With important, visible, caveats.

My point was that we make up the corporations...

You are not a corporation. A corporation is a specific legal device to limit financial risk, that confers significant benefits to those who control it. The law of the United States hold corperations to be discrete legal actors to those who might own them.

You are especially not all corporations which might which to lay claim to your property and freedoms.

I was referring to Jane's post.

Pat,

In response your post to Duncan about reducing laws - would love to see it happen if feasible.

I continue to believe Jane has completely muddled a straightforward piece by Saletan by suggesting that he replaced liberty with security. Jane's argument (if I understand it correctly - she doesn't do a good job of defininy liberty, just that says that Saletan redifines it) taken to its logical extent puts at the forefront a liberty which demands the dispensing of public works outside of national defense and property laws. It is her very position that lends itself to the extreme, not my characterization of it.

As to vouchers, like your comment to Duncan, explain to me how it works fairly (or more fair than the current system), and you will have a supporter here.

Duncan,
You aren't truthful. The free exchange where you choose a product or service and give someone money for that is not the corporation taking your property. It is a free exchange that you actively went to take part in.

My point was also that a corporation can't pay taxes unless people give enough money to the corporation for it to do so. Thus the definition of capitalism. The people deciding who gets what resources. Through our purchasing decisions, hiring decisions, etc, we make the corporations we pay the taxes, we define who are the benefactors of wealth. If we don't like it we can change it. We can decide to come up with an alternate product, take on the risk and start a business.

A corporation cannot hurt others and not be held liable. We are a nation of laws were corporations and the individuals within can be held accountable.

The question posed in this post is how much security or liberty and except for liberals, I don't see a lot of extremist talk.

Scott, I agree that I'm using a definition of liberty which would entail that -- if liberty were the unfettered goal of our society. In practice, we value liberty among many other things, so we give up some of that liberty in order to get other things, such as opportunity, security, community, and so on. I have no problem with that. Merely defining liberty narrowly does not require us to make it our paramount goal. If we've done so, I'd argue that it's better to rethink our public committment to maximizing liberty at the expense of everything else, then to expand the definition of liberty so that a liberty-maximising society is still tolerable to live in.

Scott,

I will gladly explain vouchers. There are many variants. Some I agree with and some I don't.

Let me explain one that was proposed in CA back in 1995 or 1996 I believe (that I agreed with).

The voucher was $4,000 that went to the parent. ($4,000 is less than the $7,500 per pupil at the time therefore even though there would be one less student the public school system still got to keep $3500 for that pupil). It is key that the voucher goes to the parent.

Then the parent can freely decide which parochial or private school they want to send their child. This way it is not the state deciding and then the religious debate about the state granting preferential treatment to one religion (making a state sponsored religion) doesn't come into play.

There are many failing schools and many good schools. But parents who have kids in a failing school wouldn't have to be trapped. They could provide a better education for their children with no more tax dollars than would've been spent previously. It is simply a redirection of funds (yet keeping some money per pupil in the public system so that it doesn't crumble).

Some proposals have started at $2,000 some have gone to $4,000. The amount is debatable probably by state because private schools in CA cost more than other states.

...Oh dear.

The worst stumbling block to successful debate is an ignorant ally. My condolences, Jane.

Scott said: "over the past 50 years it may have been implemented poorly often (perhaps even most of the time). But I don't stop subscribing to the belief that government CAN be a positive good in the country just because it has done a lousy job so far."

How can you respond to that kind of thinking? How can you reasonably deal with someone who holds this as a truth?

Carina,
Where was the incorrect statement that showed ignorance?

Pat,
You are free to fly to Somalia, if you wish to no longer wish to pay taxes. Or for that matter, buy a boat and go float in international waters. You have that choice.

Just as I have the theoretical choice not to buy anything to do with ADM. Fat chance.

My point was also that a corporation can't pay taxes unless people give enough money to the corporation for it to do so.
The problem with this attitude it that it assumes omniscience on the part of the individual consumer or investor. Joe Six-Pack typically has much less research resources than the marketing department at the legal device Acme Co. Joe have two choices: trust Acme (maximizing Acme's options), or make sure that Acme has to behave in a predictable, enforcable manner (maximizing Joe's options - and thus liberty) thru the use of resources greater than his own.

A corporation cannot hurt others and not be held liable.
Do you wait for Enron to implode, thus having to compensate investors with money that no longer exists, or do you lay down firm, simple regulations as to how Enron is to operate?
Do you financially compansate the people downwind from Bhopal (deprived of life and liberty), or do you regulate the legal device Union Carbide, thus maintaining the liberty of those downwind.

Liberty is only a meaningful concept when put in terms of the individual.

If you don't like someone's ideas, have a free exchange of ideas or debate with them. Don't just call them names.

The name caller shows themselves to be unable to talk on substance.

I've been into politics for 13 years. Reading history, articles, watching C-SPAN, forming my own beliefs. I was a liberal until 1991 when I became aware and had an enlightening.

I read from the San Francisco Chronicle and NY Times to National Review and the Heritage Foundation pieces. I read Andrew Sullivan and Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz and many many others.

This is what this is all about. Espousing your ideas and you can either agree or disagree but why name call? It doesn't further your point.

Jane is exactly right. Actually FDR made this kind of linguistic appropriation long ago when he declared his "four freedoms", one of which, "freedom from want", is not a personal liberty at all but in fact represents an abrogation of others' freedoms, in the sense that some are now forced to pay to provide for others' economic security. Hayek discussed this kind of double-speak in The Road to Serfdom, and it fits in with the pattern of statism appropriating the language of libertarianism for its own ends (like the word "liberal" itself).

Don't just call them names.

Huh?
Who was that directed at?

Duncan,

Extreme rhetoric again. Nobody here is saying that they wish to pay NO TAXES. A reduction by a margin maybe.

If Enron broke laws or if the individuals who ran Enron broke laws they should be held accountable. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. Nice try.

Yes. There are regulations concerning the environment that are necessary. Are you saying that Union Carbide is breaking a law? If so you can make millions putting them out of business in court.

Liberty is not just meaningful when talking about an individual.

Individuals own corporations, take risks and own property. Corporations do also. Individuals like myself who own a business can have taxes levied on us until we are broke, property taken from us, land deemed not usable anymore for our purposes (rezoned or because of a snail darter). We can and should be protected in court by the long arm of the federal government. The government has lost many a case (by Pacific Legal Foundation and others) to business/corporations for issues concerning liberty.

Pat - I have seen that program before. I still question the ability to implement it fairly (though I will grant that perhaps it could have better results than the current situation). One issue is that private schools, unlike public schools, need not take every child that applies. They can refuse to take the ones that don't pass certain tests or have behavioral problems. What you could be left with in the public institutions are the ones no one wants. A better system of vouchers might be to keep all the money in public schools, but remove the current geographic restrictions on attendance (I believe something like this works in Arizona under their charter school program - though the charters themselves require strict controls).

As to PW, I don't think raising an alarm is crying wolf. By setting the precedent as W is doing, we could see politically motivated jailings. But perhaps you were a fan of Joe McCarthy.

Jane, several good subsequent, and clarifying posts (though I do like Student Loan programs).

Inquisit, I get the impression from both Pat and Jane that they share my view about government's ability to be a positive in people's lives (though apparently in different ways than I feel). I also think gov't can be a destructive force in people's lives; it is all of our jobs in a democracy to strive for the former and prevent the latter.

Carinna, I don't think Pat has been ignorant...though potentially wrong. ;)

Duncan- it was probably direct at me.

Pat- the chief problem with your part in this discussion? Your use of the word "we," which, unless you're speaking directly on the behalf of the blogmistress, makes your comments cringe-inducing. If you're speaking just for Jane and yourself, I have the impression that would be unwelcome. If you're speaking on behalf of everyone who believes in the free market and Jane's definition of liberty, then I can ASSURE you the effort is unwelcome.

Carina,
Ah a hypocrate....

Nothing I like better than to take on someone who is a hypocrate while they criticize.

As you just spoke for others when you said, "if you're speakin on behalf of everyone who believes in the free market and Jane's definition of liberty, then I can assure you the effort is unwelcome."

If I mispoke somewhere let me know. Otherwise I relay facts, history, economic truths and ideas. If my ideas offend you then tell me why. But I come at it from a long ways and I assure you that I know a great many conservative and libertarian and I'm not sure why you are tearing into me rather than the liberals like Duncan who deserve it.

So, Oh wise one Carina, is this a hit and run or will you let me know where I was incorrect in substance and not style.

"Spoken like someone born white, upper middle class, with access to every bit of higher education available." -- Scott

Do we know that Jane is white and from the upper middle class? Perhaps she is merely from the middle class. Perhaps she has a few brown or yellow ancestors.

This comment strikes me as run-of-the-mill liberal racism. The strength or weakness of one's argument ought to be what matters in a rational discourse. However, if name-calling and impugning the author's race is the order of the day, I prefer not to participate.

Scott:

I think your original position is right - Saletan's article is perfectly straightforward, and Jane is playing word games about "liberty."

As an initial point, I'd note that in 1984, the "War is Peace" game is one of conflating two words into one. Saletan is doing the exact opposite - he's (according to Jane) splitting one word into two. He hasn't denied that the first definition (Reagan's / Jane's) is valid; he's just used the same word for a different purpose, and done it in a way that is non-confusing. It's Jane who you could say is smashing meanings together in the Orwellian sense, demanding that "liberty" refer to only one specific definition in Saletan's piece.

I don't think that's true - Jane is just arguing for the validity of only one definition (Reagan's/hers/Saletan's first), which is fair. So she doesn't like his word choice - fine; uninteresting, but fine.

The problems are (a) the implication that Saletan is doing something skeezy in his piece, and (b) the strange deployment of Orwell by someone who supported this Administration's Iraqi adventure.

As to the first, as I said above, I thought Saletan's article was clear. Jane doesn't seem to have been confused about what he was saying. So her effort was primarily to protect the word "liberty" from two meanings rather than one. This could have been just a cry for better word choice and further clarity, except for the claim of skeeziness. Given that claim, it looks like Jane made the effort because she believes the word "liberty" has some precedence over other words like "security" or (for example) "fairness." In which case, she really is talking about the primacy of "liberty" over other values. Again, fine and reasonable, but then her comments that she just wants the tradeoffs to be clear seem a slightly different position than the original post. And I'm still not seeing where Saletan's skeeziness comes in.

As to the second problem - just strange. Is there nothing familiar to readers of 1984 about the idea of the perpetual war against terror? (And it has to be perpetual, b/c how do you finally defeat a strategy rather than a group of individuals?) Does the state's use of terror against Winston Smith (threats of rats, IIRC) seem vaguely reminicent of any recent news stories? And the constant appeals of the Party to hew to the Oceanic government's line strike no one as similar to the early days (or occassionally now) of the Iraqi adventure, when disagreement with the policy was met with vague intimations that the speaker ws in league with terrorists?

Maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe, in mourning for Reagan, Jane's just off her game today. Hey, we all have bad days.

Last reply:

'As you just spoke for others when you said, "if you're speakin on behalf of everyone who believes in the free market and Jane's definition of liberty, then I can assure you the effort is unwelcome."'

I can make that statement as I am one such. I speak only for myself, but my dissent makes your ability to speak for ALL such persons nil.
I do hope that's clearer.

"This somewhat misses half of Salatan's piece. The federal government can increase individual liberty by reining in the coercive powers of non-federal corporate entities (the church, state government, corperations, etc.). And vice-versa."

Duncan, I do wish you'd take more care with your spelling: corporation. Sorry for the nitpick.

Granted that the Feds can increase individual liberty by reining in others. Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas come to mind, both of which overturned primarily morals-based laws (abortion and gay sex prohibitions, respectively). Going back further, Brown v. Board of Ed. and the Civil Rights Act also come to mind.

However, it is naive to assert that the Feds are uniformly engaged in increasing indiv. liberty. As Reagan so aptly explained, too often gov't (with all the best intentions) does more harm than good. Reagan asked us to look at the effect of such gov't action rather than the intent, and to judge it accordingly.

Saletan argues in favor of Federal gov't action on behalf of the less fortunate, and suggests that Reagan got it wrong by de-emphasizing gov't giveaway programs of various stripes. Fault him for that as you may, but I fail to see that as a diminishment of liberty.

What Saletan advocates is charity. One can argue whether the gov't should provide this, whether it should be the dominant provider and at which levels and in what fashion it may best provide this. But it is charity, not protection of rights, nor liberty.

As for redefining liberty to mean charity (i.e. Freedom from Want), well I may redefine myself to be a millionaire, but I'll still have trouble cashing very large checks. Go ahead and do this, but don't expect others to clearly understand your arguments, as they will be left scratching their heads trying to apply the common meaning of terms to the mutated argument.

Saletan and I would disagree as to the efficacy of gov't programs to help the disadvantaged. And disagreement is no cause for alarm. However, I think he muddles the issue in this case by conflating two purposes, each of which might be better considered on its own merits.

SomeCallMeTim - Good post; my accusations of Jane's own Orwellian twists were in the way she calls Saletan's desires of liberty to actually be security. She equates things like education to be security, and while I suppose there is a semantic connection possible, I don't see how her word games are any different than what she accuses of Saletan.

Oh - and back to PW, who accuses me of wanting a more egalitarian society - which on the face of it really does sound awful. Who could possibly want equality? PW, currently the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress are the final arbiters of what is fair and right. I am fine with that system, even if I happen to largely disagree with the politics of the men and women occupying those institutions now.

And Robert White, I happen to know Jane's socio-economic status, and my characterization was not far from the mark. Perhaps it impertinent to the conversation, though I don't think so. I often see rhetoric from the right telling people to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, while the orator inherited his or her wealth. Yeah, I know, there are plenty of hypocrites on the left, too.

Robert,
Nitpick welcome.
Some good points - but it seems clear from Saletan's article that he refers to "liberty" and "freedom" as the opposite of being "trapped" a sense that includes a social-economic component.
As I see it, Saletan is also arguing against the idea that the state is inherently a more corrupting entity than Reagan's "natural, voluntary organizations".
Third, the word "liberty" is a slippery concept; hence it's political ultiliy for throughout American history. For America's first 80 years, much of the country was both "pro-liberty" and "pro-slavery."
And fourth, it may be semantic, but when Jane talks of security what is actually being secured?, if not the ability to act in a way of ones choosing.
Cheers.

As to the proper definition of the word liberty, we have the following:

lib·er·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties

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.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Not really about the ability to do as one likes. So Saletan could be paraphrased as saying, "if you define liberty as not liberty at all, but some other good thing that I like...", which I believe was Jane's point.

"Perhaps it impertinent to the conversation, though I don't think so."

Certainly a person's race is not pertinent, is it? Would not a plea for self-reliance from a very rich non-white be just as hypocritical? And what if a white person of meager means (I'm thinking of myself) does well by dint of hard work and merit scholarships provided by the taxpayers of his home state. Is such a person to regard his acheivements as mere good fortune, owing primarily to the paleness of his complexion?

I shall never look kindly on racism, nor assume that those who have much were given it without effort on their part. Nor will I sign on to the philosophy that we as a society can compensate for a lack of acheivement by giving away the fruits of success to those who refused to work as hard, or whose unfortunate lack of talent or skill placed them at a disadvantage.

At age 46, I have settled into the notion that I will never be wealthy. Yet I do not envy those who have done better than I. I wish them well. I do not blame others for my not doing better any more than I would appreciate a slight to what success I have acheived.

Does this not seem reasonable?

First: EXCELLENT comments thus far -- both those I agree with and those I think ridiculous on their face. Whether I am right or wrong in my assessment, I truly learned a thing or two from the discourse above.

Second: The philosophical dichotomy between "liberty" qua "restriction of authority over the individual", and "liberty" qua "accessability to all of life's current riches" is not a new debate. So-called "Progressives" have been advancing the latter view since at least the 1890's, and truly since the debate between the contradictory notions of "republicanism" during the days immediately following the Revoulution.

My point merely is that, as others above have already noted, whether "liberty" is "freedom from" or "freedom to" is simply an age-old question of who gets to decide what "freedom" is. When the individual decides, it seems that "freedom from" rules, and vice versa. Moreover, historically speaking, it also seems to follow that the greater the individual freedom, the greater the maximization of the general wealth of a society (within the confines of a common rule of law, of course). Ergo, Jane raises a salient point in that obfuscating between "from" and "to" can lead to disasterously different results (a TDAT of Liberty as it were).

Finally: Even if little of comments above make sense, I am astounded at how diverse the opinion can be on this site and still not come close to the divisiveness and polarization exhibited elsewhere.

it seems clear from Saletan's article that he refers to "liberty" and "freedom" as the opposite of being "trapped" a sense that includes a social-economic component.

Perhaps then the analogy to military defense would hold. We expect our gov't to defend us from those nefarious agents who would, amongst other bad things, enslave us or rescind our liberties. To the extent that being born to a low station and without privilege deprives one of the power to do as one chooses, then a gov't charity or welfare program can be seen as eliminating that barrier to freedom.

Still, I think that Reagan in the speech that Saletan is criticizing did not have in mind that notion of freedom, nor did he expect his audience to think of liberty in that way, nor do I honestly think of liberty that way in spite of Saletan's urging. The difference being that when gov't defends us, it is against an identifiable external threat, whereas the socio-economic trap that you describe is not clearly identifiable and may in fact, in many cases, be an internal defect of the underperforming individual. We often see persons of low station compensate for their disadvantage either by exploiting their innate talent or by working damn hard. How then can we speak of a trap as though it were real as a cannon and just as dangerous?

As I see it, Saletan is also arguing against the idea that the state is inherently a more corrupting entity than Reagan's "natural, voluntary organizations".

And on this I will have to disagree with Saletan, however, I do not fault him for making the argument.

Third, the word "liberty" is a slippery concept; hence it's political utility throughout American history. For America's first 80 years, much of the country was both "pro-liberty" and "pro-slavery."

And I would argue that the concept is not slippery at all, but that muddle-minded thinkers have been unable to grasp it in its simplicity. Those who argued for liberty and slavery were, all agree today, simply wrong. I will go further to argue that those who attempt to justify marijuana prohibition, for example, are simply wrong.

It may on occasion be necessary for gov't to abridge the liberty of persons, churches or corporations (and people of good will may disagree as to what is necessary and good), but let us not fuzz the issue by arguing that when gov't is restricting liberty, it is in fact doing so in service of liberty.

And fourth, it may be semantic, but when Jane talks of security what is actually being secured, if not the ability to act in a way of ones choosing?

Let us draw a distinction between securing liberty and securing prosperity (or life or property or limb or loved ones). This is a distinction Saletan attempts to erase.

If Jane doesn't spend much time defining "liberty", perhaps it's because the word doesn't need much in the way of definition-- at least when it comes to those liberties one actually cares about. Mere non-interference from the government seems to be plenty good enough for everyone when it comes to freedom of speech; at least, I have yet to hear some latter-day Anatole France heaping scorn upon "that majestic equality of law which grants both Maureen Dowd and my Aunt Flo an equal right to speak their minds on the issues of the day". If the state were to expand my "freedom to" by giving me a few of Saletan's column inches, I'd expect him to have a thing or two to say about that.

Isiaiah Berlin wrote a long essay on this subject called "Two Concepts Of Liberty", which Saletan has apparently read and Jane apparently hasn't.

I should know better, but I am constantly amazed at how much the world view of liberals is different from mine. My world view is formed from direct observation and reading, and my filtering of what I read is based on my direct observations of the world. What I don't understand is why my direct observations seem to be frequently at odds from the direct observations of liberals.

The fuzziness of words is a problem that both liberals and non-liberals have to deal with. Some words, like "liberty", should not admit of different meanings, yet Scott in one of his posts appears to be saying that liberty can be defined in any way by anyone who wants to then talk about it using that definition. No. No. No. If we are to have meaningful discourse, we must abide by the accepted meanings of words so that we are at least talking about the same thing. How many arguments have any of you been in that finally resolved themselves when the arguers eventually realized that they were agreeing but unable to communicate that agreement? It's happened to me lots of times.

Scott said, "Who could possibly want equality?" But what eactly does this mean? Equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome. Maybe Scott and Duncan want equal outcomes, but maybe not. I certainly don't--that would stifle initiative and be the downfall of our society. I do, however, fervently want equality of opportunity.

For example, I believe in providing homeless shelters, but I don't believe in forcing the homeless into the shelters. (Doing so "for their own good" goes directly contrary to their liberty.) I want the homeless to be able to choose to live outside instead of in shelters--that's their choice. They have the liberty to choose, but not to do anything they choose. Who among us has that sort of liberty?

And somewhere along the line, the homeless had the equality of opportunity that could have prevented their choice to be homeless if they had so desired. Difficult choices, maybe, but choices nonetheless. I think that they had their opportunity at some point but didn't seize it. That's their choice. They have the liberty to make that choice. And I think that that is more important than security.

If Enron broke laws or if the individuals who ran Enron broke laws they should be held accountable. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. Nice try.

I rather think that answer doesn't address the point he made. When individuals act within a corporation, the corporation becomes a sort of amplification proxy, with a potential to do tremendous amounts of damage -- far beyond any future recompense to be gathered -- if the controllers are incompetent or malicious in their dealings.

Enron is an excellent example. When corrupt and otherwise questionable financial behavior finally caused the company to collapse, not only did a large block of people lose their jobs unnecessarily (perhaps Enron without the collapse would have suffered recessionary setbacks but maintained at least some market presence hence employment), another large block of former employees lost all of their retirement funds, because their company-managed accounts were denominated in stock that might have otherwise dipped in price (and perhaps recovered later); but which, instead, ceased to have value.

Granted those persons in the latter category were not wise to have all eggs in one basket and should have looked into diversifying before it came to bite them in the rear (and continue chewing). Indeed, rarely is that sort of approach ever wise, no matter how golden the reproductive orbs or how spacious the wicker receptacle. But that is no consolation for a retiree who suddenly was broke, when the worst-case scenario without a collapse would be a severe dent in the fund value.

Yes, the corporation can be "held accountable," but how can that accountability -- in this case, corporate liquidation and the prosecution of the fraudsters -- possibly compensate for the damage? Definitions of liberty and accountability take on a different context of meaning, and arguably, stronger and/or better regulation of Enron (and Arthur Andersen) might have contributed to a notably different, and more positive, outcome.

I don't mean to interrupt the cheery game of badmintion people are so enjoying in the comments, but I'm still puzzling over the meaning of the following phrase in Jane's original post:

... nor has he taken the many risk of fighting, as the libertarians and socialists are, to declare that one or the other has the sacred status of a right.

anony-mouse, I really appreciate how you make the modern liberal thinking clear: "Yes, the corporation can be "held accountable," but how can that accountability -- in this case, corporate liquidation and the prosecution of the fraudsters -- possibly compensate for the damage?"

Over a hundred million people were killed by governments in the last century. This seems a bit more serious than people losing their pensions... Some of the high officials of two of those governments - Nazi Germany and war-time Japan - were held accountable. But, darn it, it didn't bring their victims back to life.

Anyone who thinks that increasing government powers beyond the minimum necessary to defend the borders and to investigate and prosecute crimes like murder and theft will promote the security of anyone but government officials, needs to get in touch with the reality of how government operates. Corporations are far from perfect, but you can choose which ones you deal with.

Whether Saletan's two proposed definitions of liberty (to be summed up as: "freedom from others' interference" and "presents from Grandpa Government") are valid or not, his accusation that Reagan was wrong to pick one and stick to it opens him up to precisely the charge leveled: sneaky appropriation.

I hate I'm jumping into this so late, especially since some of my views were attributed (falsely I believe) to Ms. Galt before I even arrived.

I'll be more than happy to argue for zero direct taxation. It's not quite the same as no taxation but I think it should sufficiently scare the progressive minded to do for a topic. To make it clear I'd want the income taxes, property taxes & every other damn tax with the sole exception of sales taxes to become nothing more than a distant horrible memory.

Government schools...ah, I'd eliminate them to. Although if a community started a school without using stole..er, I mean taxed funds for it I wouldn't complain.

Corporations ... Yes it sucks terribly when they go under & the employees are jobless & investors are out of money. It is not however government's job to engage in compensating those who got the shaft. Holding the responsible people accountable & coercing them to make restitution is, but not handing out cash.

To back up Ms. Galt's point about corporate accountability to the public (although in a slightly different context than she meant it) There's a company called Smith & Wesson. They make firearms. Damned nice firearms I might add. Well a few years back the CEO of S&W entered an agreement with the Clinton administration to subject themselves to stricter standards for selling & manufacturing firearms than was required by law. The idea Slick Willie had was if he could get S&W on board the other gun makers would follow suit. It didn't work. S&W was the only one. & because of that the consumers (i.e. us rednecks who tend to buy new shootin' irons every now & then) boycotted S&W. Short story is S&W - the evil big nasty corporation that had us all by the short hairs - was sold to owners who were a bit more sympathetic to freedom of choice.

Consumers do have power over corporations. It's real simple - if one does something you disapprove of then stop buying their products &/or services. If you feel you can't live without those products or services then you get to choose between making a statement against that company's policies or you can continue trading with them.

Someone I believed mentioned that he was trapped because he couldn't grow his own food? That's incorrect: he can provide his own food, he just doesn't want to give up the convenience of buying it packaged & ready to pop in the microwave. Every state in the union has ample game to hunt & odds are there's land not too far from you that crops can be grown on. You don't wish to live the agrarian hunter/gatherer lifestyle? Hey that's cool. Not a lot of people want that, but that's a bit different than not having the option.

I doubt this will get through because some of the posts I have read seem to not be able to grasp the point. Instead the focus has been on a very narrowly selected range of topics. Kinda like trying to say that someone called a ham sandwich a BLT & people argue that the table cloth was not brown - it was checkered!

But here goes:

Ms. Galt was not saying that liberty took precedence over anything. In fact there were examples given of things which she thought it reasonable to trade in liberty for (though I would disagree on those specifics). She was merely saying that liberty is a different & separate concept from equality of outcome. & equality of outcome is a type of security. It's imagined & impractical but in theory it is a type of security.

There are two definitions of liberty that I'm used to dealing with: one being an old one that essentially means the freedom to travel. The other is more or less akin to general freedom.

Now let's use the first definition because it more clearly illustrates the point Ms. Galt was trying to get into your heads:

Let's suppose that we all think liberty (the freedom to travel) is a good thing. Now let's suppose that one of us writes an essay equating the freedom to travel kind-of liberty to having the state provide a car to those who are less fortunate. Now what Ms. Galt would do is not to argue that the idea of the state robbing me to pay for your car because you have none is so friggin ludicrous as to be taken seriously only by a marxist, but rather to simply point out that liberty does not mean a state provided car for every garage & to confuse the two is either an act of abject ignorance about either subject or a willful attempt at deception.

Liberty (freedom to travel) does not mean free cars for everyone. It means if you walk, ride a horse, have a car, have a plane, etc... then you cannot (or should not) be impeded by the government.

Having the state provide a car for everyone would be seen by some as security. Others would call it equality of outcome. Some would say it's the natural course for a progressive society that believes in liberty (freedom to travel) while people like me would argue that you'd have to slip me a really potent mickey before I even took that notion seriously.

Government intervention cannot provide freedom. Freedom by definition is the absence of authority over someone else. Therefore to say a government's growth has the potential to make anyone more free is about as ridiculous as saying that in order to enjoy your liberty you have to ask permission for everything you do.

There was a comparison made between government & other organizations such as religion. Here's the difference: while religious institutes & corporations & other non-government entities can have a coercive influence on you they do not generally use force in their coercion. When's the last time anyone had a couple of heavy set priests show up at their door because they missed mass?
Government on the other hand uses force. Heavy set guys will show up at your door if you break certain government directives.
Another difference is that religions & other non-governmental organizations are strictly a voluntary thing. No one uses force to make you join or participate. Compelling reasons & arguments can be made, but that's a whole lot different than forcing you to submit at gunpoint to the whims of Mother Church. We pretty much are born into government. & they use guns to enforce their will.

Government is necessary for a few things, but only a very few things. Making life fair is not one of them. & it's dishonest to justify government sticking its collective nose where it doesn't belong by saying that they're providing liberty. Government doesn't provide liberty - it destroys it. You may find the level of destruction comfortable (I sure as hell don't) but it is there. Government & liberty (in the general freedom sense) are polar opposites. You can't have more of one without less of the other.

Ms. Jane was merely saying that while the degree of government v. liberty (general freedom) may be debatable, calling them both the same thing is a very underhanded approach.

Now about Ashcroft...

I'm not thrilled with Bush or Ashcroft. & part of it does have to do with the idea that people captured outside the U.S. or non-U.S. citizens are not protected by the constitution. My way of thinking is the constitution was a limitation on government & as such it's applicable everywhere our government chooses to operate.
That being said I believe someone asked for a specific example of how Ashcroft encroached on someone's liberty. A perfect example is his famous letter to the NRA. He said that the 2nd amendment confers an individual Right. Well this is all cool but (& I'm paraphrasing loosely) here's what he said with the all important qualifier included:

"The 2nd amendment confers an individual Right subject to reasonable government restrictions".

I just checked & my copy of the constitution doesn't mention reasonable restrictions as being an exception to the 2nd amendment. I’m a self admitted rabid absolutist when it comes to Natural Rights so I'll understand that mine isn't a common view. But in essence he said that gun control is okay as long as the government thinks it doesn't go to far. That is no different than his predecessor who claimed there was no individual Right at all. In practice Ashcroft is enforcing vigorously every unconstitutional gun law on the books. I'm a gun owner & many of those laws effect me, either directly or indirectly. I'll grant that Ashcroft is arguably no worse than any of the former attorney generals in this regard & congress as well as the judiciary aren't blameless by a long shot, but it's a legitimate example of how he has a detrimental effect on my freedom.

There. That should have offered something to piss everyone off. My work here is done for the moment.

To reiterate the main point:

Liberty = freedom
Liberty does not = security, equality of outcome, or any other form of dependency.
Those who try to tell you that Liberty = security, dependency or equality of outcome are either ignorant or deceitful.

I think that was the gist of Ms. Galt's post.

Publicola, Did you get one of those versions of the Constitution that doesn't have the part about a "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment? There seem to be an awful lot of those floating around.

D:

I am well aware that there is a rich volume of literature attempting to redefine liberty so as to encompass security, opportunity, and so forth. The fact that someone said it before Mr Saletan does not make it any more true, merely for having been written down elsewhere.

The problem with the "two liberties" (or three, or eight, ad infinitum) theory is that it makes it impossible to pursue liberty as a goal -- or rather, it makes liberty a synonym of "good stuff" and allows everyone to claim that their pet scheme advances it. If we want to pursue liberty then, we must choose which of the two liberties we are to pursue, as, as Saletan and his co-ideologists implicitly admit, we cannot maximise both types of liberty at once. Then we are left with the original problem which I stated: there are two different things, which are to some degree incompatible, and which must be traded off against each other. Calling them both "liberty" makes for fine rhetoric, but most often serves to obscure the need for tradeoffs. Since we already had perfectly good words for the concepts defined as "positive liberty" -- opportunity, security, and so forth -- I see no benefit to be gained from rolling them into another, incompatible word, and much to be lost.

Tim, what I'm arguing is that Saletan is changing the definition of a word in order to encompass something that is its opposite, just as "war is peace" does. There is a big difference -- security is not a bad thing, so Saletan & Co. are not attempting to conflate good and evil -- but the political purposes/results of such conflation are the same, which is to forestall debate.

As for "the perpetual war on terror" -- take out "terror" and add in "communism" and you have the (Democratically architected) Cold War. Yet 1984 passed without the slightest hint of dictatorship. Not that I endorse the Patriot Act (or condemn it; I don't know anything about it, except that the ACLU thinks it may be nearly as great a threat as nativity scenes in public buildings, and Heather McDonald thinks it's great), but I think the idea that we're on the fast road to a totalitarian state is just a wee bit overblown.

Jane, its not so much that you (or I, or any of us)know that much about the Patriot Act, it's that the people who passed and signed it didn't know much either. It's just sad that something so far reaching can be rammed through with minimal debate. If there are decent provisions in it, why not let the whole thing lapse, repass those worthwhile parts and get rid of the nonsense like having to report your own private cash transactions in excess of $10,000.00. What business of the government is it if I wish to spend my own money on a legal transaction?

Following up on Jane's latest: it would make for a nice thought experiment to imagine what would happen if the Patriot Act actually were to be used to silence dissidents. Saletan's approach invites us to shrug off the violation of liberty to some extent: since compared to a David Broder or a Bill O'Reilly you have little ability to make your opinions known, is that that big a deal if your right to make them known is infringed?

Jane,

You've missed the boat. Saletan isn't redefining liberty. He's asking whether liberty is freedom from restriction and control or freedom from governmental restriction and control.

If the former, then it stands to reason that an increase in governmental control can, in certain circumstances, result in a net increase of freedom. If the latter, by definition, any governmental restriction is a diminishment of liberty. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that conservatives may have chosen poorly by adopting the narrower meaning of the word.

Saletan, contrary to your hyperbolic post, is not engaging in Orwellian doubletalk. A cursory look in any dictionary will demostrate that liberty can be used either way without abusing the historical meaning of the word.

Yes, security and liberty are different. And, yes, they represent two goods which, sometimes, are in conflict. But that is irrelevant.

"dsquared" refers to Isaiah Berlin's essay, which I also thought of, and says Saletan has obviously read it. However, it's my understanding that, although that essay does acknowledge the two different concepts of "liberty", it basically makes Jane's classic liberal point, that one of those concepts is too elastic to be useful, and has in fact been used throughout history by fanatics etc. as well as by reasonable people.

Eamon - I don't know if the Patriot Act deals with cash transactions above $10,000. It's certainly possible. I DO know, however, that such transactions have been required to be reported for years prior to the PA's enactment.

Carrying large sums of cash has also been treated in ways that interfere with liberty, for years prior to 9/11 and the Patriot Act. I believe it was a provision in the earlier "War on Drugs".

Jim, it does indeed contain a requirement with a new form requiring reporting of any such transactions, whether this is more odious than old "money laundering" requirements, I don't know, but I do think its a waste of time, money and an affront to personal liberty.

Saletan's, and his predecessors', version of liberty encompasses using threats of incarceration and bodily harm to coerce a citizen to transfer to others what the citizen obtained by voluntary agreement. Such coercion may be required to have a functioning society, but to define it as "liberty" is to render the term exactly meaningless.

Pat wrote:

"Liberty is not just meaningful when
talking about an individual"

Do you really mean that? That liberty
is meaningful only when talking about
a non-individual. i.e. a group?

I guess you are ever so much more brilliant
than Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps we should
all stand back and give you the job of
rewriting the "Declaration of Indpendence".

You should remember that it is better to
keep one's mouth shut and a be thought a fool
than it is to speak and remove all doubts.

So much of debate is semantical gamesmanship these days...the funny thing here is that the definitions are fairly concise. You have freedom from, and freedom to, and we all understand what these mean, whatever our opinions of them.

By the way, I've created a thread linking to here on the political debate site, landv.net. Feel free to visit.

http://landv.net/IC/index.php?s=3adc939ae07569d89a4492ab490d6c40&act=ST&f=3&t=1984

I have never really liked the terms "positive rights" and "negative rights." If anything, I think they should be categorized as "benign" and "coercive." Benign rights, such as freedom of speech, impose no costs or obligations upon others. By contrast, coercive rights, such as the "right to free medical care," when exercised, do impose involuntary costs and/or obligations upon third parties, who must be coerced into providing or paying for the exercise of someone else's "right." The two types of rights are not complementary. Coercive rights can only exist at the expense of benign rights, and vice versa. Its basically a zero sum game.

The attempt to include coercive rights within the commonly accepted definition of liberty is absurd and dishonest, and I think that's what Jane is getting at. Certain words have definite emotional connotations. "Liberty" is one of them; virtually no one can be found who will openly state that liberty is a bad thing. In essence the proponents of coercive rights don't want to be cast as wanting to limit liberty, but this is exactly what they are about. Its the logical fallacy of equivocation masquerading as enlightened thinking.

I'm sorry, but the emperor has no clothes, and I for one refuse to pretend that he does.

Nonsense...the cost of something like free speech is in the having to be subjected to such speech. And the "coercive rights" business is much more amorphous...do you pay your taxes to build an educational facility or to pay to incarcerate those who might have attended the facility and done something else with their lives?

Duncan, why don't you just admit that you hate capitalism, you wish we had a glorious five-year plan like Stalin, and then Bill Gates would have to work in the McComrad's, flipping dog burgers alongside you?

Lazy slobs like you are under the misapprehension that destroying the system that rewards innovation and motivation to excel would somehow free you from the fact that you have to work to eat. You can work poorly, but you still have to work.

The only difference in your Socialist Wonderland would be that if you refused to work, you wouldn't be given welfare and self-esteem classes, you would be taken out and shot.

At least Bill Gates would be doing something useful, and you would no longer be spouting your disingenuous drivel, so I guess there would be a silver lining.

But I prefer the free market, thanks.

Now YOU can go to Somalia if you don't want to work OR pay taxes. I'm sure some US Food Aid would keep you alive.

Uh, pragmatist, reread Pat's quote. Either you misread it or you need to follow your last paragraph's advice.

Nonsense...the cost of something like free speech is in the having to be subjected to such speech.

As the Supreme Court has pointed out, one has the right of free speech, but there is no corresponding obligation on any third party to LISTEN to it.

And the "coercive rights" business is much more amorphous...do you pay your taxes to build an educational facility or to pay to incarcerate those who might have attended the facility and done something else with their lives?

Again we have the false choice. As Jane pointed out, these are competing interests, and we must and should balance them, but we should never, ever assume that coercive and benign rights are equivalent. This does not mean that any society should never have any coercive rights, it simply means that we should recognize them for what they are, which is an infringement of liberty.

And then again there is a distinction which is often glossed over, that being the difference between a privilege and a right. I have a privilege to go into the local park, but it is not a right. The governmental entity which controls it has the power to close it off at will, in which case no "right" of mine has been infringed.

alanh., it doesn't matter, in regards to liberty, whether people are taxed to pay for an school or a prison; both entail coercing citizens to transfer that which they obtained from voluntary transaction for a public purpose. Whether to pay for the prison or the school comes down to a utilitarian question; what does society gain in return for limiting citizens' economic liberty, and can society's gain be obtained without such limiting action?

Sure, parents and students who receive a public education receive preponderance of the gain, compared to the rest of society, from taxes directed to public education. Then again, a median wage earner in an high crime rate urban area gains more from the public expense of incacerating criminals than a median wage earner who lives in low crime rate rural area.

In contrast, allowing citizen A to speak freely requires no positive action from citizen B. To say the situations are similar, in regards to the implications for liberty, is to strip the word "liberty" of all meaning.

I totally agree with alanH -- this argument is "semantic gamesmanship", full stop.

The word liberty, especially for Americans, is a good word. It's all over the place, often written in stone, and it gives people the warm fuzzies. (Me included.)

It's no surprise that people want to own the meaning of that word. Hence the debate over "different kinds" of liberty.

I sympathize with Jane Galt. I remember having an incredibly circuitous and unsatisfying semantic argument about liberty vs. security in a class at university in Canada (just guess how the majority felt). At the end of it, which had no end, the professor said something similar to how they sign off at the end of an argumentative segment on a cable news show. Something like "thank you for coming, we aren't going to resolve these issues anytime soon, we'll be right back". Exasperating.

It would be nice if people would just call a spade a spade. But then you get into uncomfortable arguments about the true nature of government, and what it means when it takes over more and more of the economy. A lot of liberals can't grasp that their "noble" mission has consequences for all of us. The very presence of good intentions is supposed to inoculate against badness of any kind.

My recommendation -- head off the semantic debate and start talking about the issues it disguises. Concrete details help. If 25 people lived on a deserted island and had to follow "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs", what would that mean in practice?

zidane -

Here is Pat's entire post:

Duncan,

Extreme rhetoric again. Nobody here is saying that they wish to pay NO TAXES. A reduction by a margin maybe.

If Enron broke laws or if the individuals who ran Enron broke laws they should be held accountable. I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise. Nice try.

Yes. There are regulations concerning the environment that are necessary. Are you saying that Union Carbide is breaking a law? If so you can make millions putting them out of business in court.

Liberty is not just meaningful when talking about an individual.

Individuals own corporations, take risks and own property. Corporations do also. Individuals like myself who own a business can have taxes levied on us until we are broke, property taken from us, land deemed not usable anymore for our purposes (rezoned or because of a snail darter). We can and should be protected in court by the long arm of the federal government. The government has lost many a case (by Pacific Legal Foundation and others) to business/corporations for issues concerning liberty.

Posted by: Pat in CA on June 7, 2004 07:28 PM

Paragraph # 4 is - in full -

Liberty is not just meaningful when talking
about an individual.

==========================================

I say again REREAD the Declaration if
Independence. Paragraph #2 reads in full:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Nothing in there about GROUPS.

Thomas Jefferson says rather plainly
that Liberty is AN INDIVIDUAL right.

He clearly does not say that any GROUP
is endowed with a right, or for that matter,
specific rights.

Liberty is ONLY MEANINGFUL when referring
to an individual. Every American has
INDIVIDUAL rights. Not ALL AMERICANS.

Markm - Thank you for your wonderful post at 7:39 AM

Publicola - You got it about 95% right in my eyes. The constitution has been interpreted over the years so that states and the federal government can ban "arms" or certain types that are fully automatic or what not. While you AND I may not like how far the government has gone in writing 1,000's of pages of gun laws, that boat has sailed and all we can do is work to either repeal some of the laws or stop new ones from coming into play.

Pragmatist - I don't know why you try to define my message differently or call me names but suffice to say that I never was talking about "group rights". The Declaration of Independance clearly talks about the individual. In the discussion of liberty it is pertinent to talk about the fact that individuals can hold property, own corporations and belong to a church. And in the process of owning a corporation or building a church if you try to either:
1) Build a church on a lot that the church owns but people decide that they don't want to see a cross on the top of the church it gets into matters of "freedom". There IS (yes IS) freedom and liberty issues that come up to the courts from corporations and churches
2) Own a corporation and in the process of owning the corporation decide to provide a service or product legally. In the process of providing that service the company decides to purchase advertising to get it's message out. That companies' right to free speech is just as valid as an individuals. Because that company is an extension of us. The rights granted to us and what WE OWN and the CHURCHES we BELONG TO are inalienable and have been recognized by the courts for a long time. Your rights DON'T STOP as soon as you try to exercise them as part of a company or Church. That's all I was trying to say. I am not talking about group rights as in the left talks about them for a certain race or a certain sex.

zidane - Thank you. It is easy to debate without name calling but certain individuals (usually on the left) just can't change.

While the exercise of free speech doesn't come with the power to force someone else to hear that speech, the freedom to speak leads to those hearing your message who would rather shut you up or have someone else do it. That's what I mean.

As for "coercive," yes of course taxes are coercive, road signs are coercive,
For those things we understand the government needs to do, we accept the coercive nature of it's functioning and leave it at that. It strikes me as selective labeling to focus only on those elements of government we don't like and to call those "coercive."

pragmatist:

I believe the part of Pat's post you don't agree with -- "Liberty is not just meaningful when talking about an individual." -- is meant to (and does) say:

Liberty is a meaningful concept when talking about things other than the individual, in addition to having meaning for individuals.

In other words, sometimes a group (church, etc.)may violate the liberties of other individuals, in which case whatever the liberties are of the group (inherited from the individuals it is composed of) must be weighed against the liberties of the other individuals. Therefore liberty has meaning for individuals and groups.

Your post seems to imply that you believe the group has no liberties inherited from the individuals it is composed of, whereas Pat does. Both are valid views (though I can't say I agree with both of them ;)

Pat:

Sorry I missed your post at 1:03 - you pretty much already said what I did in my post.

The "liberty vs. liberty+" thing is inaccurate, I think; all sorts of liberties as you define them conflict with each other, before you ever get to "security" liberties.

Jane is of course correct in her analysis of the distinction between liberty and security. On a more macro-scale, we could say that politics is the debate between efficiency and equality. Liberty (as in absence of government coercion and freedom to pursue economic advantage) leads to greater efficiency and economic growth and more jobs; the pursuit of equality (through government programs to redistribute income such as social security, medicare and the progressive income tax) leads to inefficiency and slower economic growth and fewer jobs. Compare United States (millions of new jobs over past 20-odd years) with Europe (essentially no new jobs).

The political middle in the US swings back and forth between these two ideals. Both Democrats and Republicans share both goals, but in differing proportions. The trend swung towards liberty, efficiency and growth in the 80s after 20 years of emphasis on equality had produced stagflation. The last 20 years of emphasis on liberty and economic growth have produced a demand among some (particularly those with short memories) to place more emphasis on equality. This is the Democratic platform - raise taxes and spend money to benefit those less well off.

This debate is important and vital. It's too bad that some folks (like our friend, Scott) prefer to pretend it doesn't exist.

alanh., I label all things government does as coercive, whether I like them or not, for the somewhat simple reason that they are. In contrast, a citizen buying an ad in a newspaper, to disseminate his political message, entails no coercion, even if he is advocating that I be coerced.

As for "coercive," yes of course taxes are coercive, road signs are coercive,
For those things we understand the government needs to do, we accept the coercive nature of it's functioning and leave it at that. It strikes me as selective labeling to focus only on those elements of government we don't like and to call those "coercive."

Governments are coercive. Period. This does not mean that this is inherently evil. I want my government to imprison rapists and thugs. The distinction I have been trying to make is over the nature of "rights." When one has a "right" to free medical care, for example, and invokes it, then the government is obliged to coerce someone else to pay for that medical care. The expenses to the government exist only because some citizens invoke their "rights" to have someone else pay for goods or services that they desire, and that will be used for their own personal benefit, as opposed to say, a traffic signal at a busy intersection which benefits the population in general.

We are getting to the core between the diffence between Conservative/Libertarian and Liberal/Progressive.

The way I see it is liberals think it is just fine to make others take out their check book (who are successful or midsuccessful) and pay more and more for others (who aren't successful).

In a conservative person's mind the benefits bestowed should stop when it is an able-bodied person. The safety net should be there for those who aren't able bodied (young, old, disabled).

Once we expand the safety net to a hammock, the market forces cease to exist as outlined in the following examples:
1) The so-called right to free health care - Who will perform health care services for free? Doctors? Nurses? No. Who will pay for the so-called right? Everyone? That leads to more and more people demanding more and more services rendered for "FREE". Liposuction, fertility services, etc. non-life threatening services. Market forces cease to exist.
2) The right to travel. If others think that mass-transportation should be provided by the government instead of a private enterprise providing the service, it leads to the belief that it is free and people wondering why they can't get from here to there and voting for propositions that expand a subway from here to there. Private companies would do it more efficiently and wouldn't expand a service until they've done the research to SEE if DEMAND will meet SUPPLY.
3) College - you do the math. Costs will rise even higher. Service will go down. Supply and demand or market forces are in existence when it is left up to the individual to pay for and not the government. One can make the case that non-able bodied people who want training should be able to get training but I don't believe I should pay for someone elses degree when I only have an AA degree myself. And I worked throught the military for 6 years while doing the college courses and paying for it myself.

Will: fair enough.

Tcobb: I see the point, and I certainly believe there is a point at which it does become unjust. I'm quite happy not considering any of these issues as absolute rights, which I don't believe exist outside of our definitions anyway. I would agree that no one has the "right" to free healthcare, but I can also envision a scenario where a safety net provided by the government should indeed be implemented...not because everyone has a "right" but because it's the right thing to do.

I also believe there's a certain due to be paid for living in this country. I don't pretend that what I have should all be mine and that no price was paid to let me go about my business unimpeded.

markm: Thanks for the compliment, although unfortunately, I think the point where I and many "modern liberal thinkers" diverge is on the outcomes of that observation -- whether it is reason to cautiously adjust the rules of the game and test the results, or a carte blanch to interfere in the corporation's activities for any purpose of gladthink I can rationalize. (Yes, that's pejorative. Nothing personal intended toward those whose activities could be interepreted that way by a cynical observer.)

The former recognizes that human interaction can never be perfected but can be made worse with too much muddling; the latter starts with the best intentions of perfection but often has the effect of muddling. In other words, both can be poison, but the latter poison is more likely to kill.

Here are some notes on Isaiah Berlin's essay. (that I have included and dsquared 'apparently did not'). Here is one analysis:

as Berlin points out, the deceptively phrased "positive liberty " has some nasty consequences. One of them is that since positive liberty is unrelated to freedom as we usually understand it, then being "liberated" (and we often find this usage of the word in current liberation movements) is being forced to do something against our will because someone else thinks it is good. This encourages confusion in the discussion of freedom. To call negative liberty "freedom" and positive liberty "power" is to make a discrimination which is fundamental. To call them both liberty, as coercionists often do when it suits their argument, leads to confusion.

There is no such thing as a "coercive right" (e.g. the so-called right to a proper education, free health care, etc). Such things are not rights.

Even the "right" to vote is not an absolute right, but rather a franchise granted to those who qualify. We may have the right to bear arms, but even this is not absolute. Murderers forfeit this right, along with their right to vote, in most states. But let us ignore the pathological cases when rights are withdrawn.

What have been termed "coercive rights" are, in fact, merely privileges, favors, gifts granted by friends in gov't to those who are looked upon favorably. The "right to free health care" (which, of course, is never free to the poor soul who gets stuck with the bill) does not currently exist. In contrast, the rights Jefferson spoke of are inherent to all people, not granted by gov't.

I am not suggesting that all inherent rights have always been recognized in America. This is a country which took generations to end slavery, and only after a bloody war. The right to an abortion was only recently recognized (and the right to life of the unborn may yet be).

Contrast these with gov't granted favors and one sees that such favors are not inherent to all, rather are granted in proportion to the power of one's gov't representatives.

Health care is important, but is not food more important? And housing? Shall we grant all people the right to be fed and institute a gov't ration system for food and houses? Why not?

Once again, we see a word which has a given meaning, co-opted in order to advance an agenda that would most likely fail to win approval if it were described accurately. Opportunity is mislabeled "liberty". Favor is mislabeled "right".

Repeated often enough without challenge and the words will take on the mutated meaning. So let it never go unchallenged.

The problem with all simplistic formulations (such as 'as gov't expands, liberty contracts') is that no one agrees with their logical conclusions. If liberty *always* contracts with gov't expansion, then by definition liberty can only be maximized by abolishing all gov't. Why was gov't ever established in the first place?

The same confused thinking colors supply side economics. If tax cuts always lead to economic expansion then taxes should not only be zero, they should be negative! Let the gov't borrow all of its budget and then some to fund a negative income tax!

The same confused thinking colors supply side economics. If tax cuts always lead to economic expansion then taxes should not only be zero, they should be negative! -- Boonton

This is a distortion of supply-side economics. The argument, illustrated by the Arthur Laffer's famous curve, is that optimal tax receipts occur somewhere in the middle, not at either end (ie. 100% tax rate would yield zero tax just as surely as 0% tax rate would).

The key concept in supply-side economics, is an understanding of incentive to work. As Calvin Coolidge explained:

If we had a tax whereby on the first working day the Government took 5 per cent of your wages, on the second day 10 per cent, on the third day 20 per cent, on the fourth day 30 per cent, on the fifth day 50 per cent, and on the sixth day 60 per cent, how many of you would continue to work on the last two days of the week?

Also, it is not simplistic to assert as Reagan did that "as gov't expands, liberty contracts". This is so, but it is a truism. Government posits control over something. But then questions arise as to how much government is needed, who should do the governing and who should choose the gov't.

By stating the truism, Reagan was not suggesting that all gov't was bad. In fact, as head of one branch of gov't, he hoped to do good. He was no anarchist.

In the absence of adequate police, for example, we eventually see bad guys imposing the most undemocratic and coercive form of gov't in the form of extortion and terror. We elect gov'ts, hire and train police, and direct them to protect us in order to maximize our liberty. In doing so, we are substituting the gov't of our choosing in place of tyrranical, unelected gov't. This is not the triumph of gov't, rather the triumph of civic interest.

Boonton,

I believe you are making the false conclusion Jane talked about earlier: "Liberty is good, therefore all good things are liberty." Our government was not established to maximize liberty, it was established because there are other good things in the world besides liberty and it is worth sacrificing some amount of liberty to achieve them.

You are correct that eliminating government is necessary [though not sufficient] to maximize liberty, but it is reasonably clear that maximizing liberty will not maximize "good."

As a thought experiment, I imagine the person with the maximum amount of liberty is the sci-fi archetype of "The Last Man On Earth." If you were the last man on earth there would be absolutely no one anywhere who could put restrictions on your freedom to do what you want.

But is this really a good thing? You'd have the freedom but in many cases not the ability to do a lot of things that are only possible when other people are around. Plus it'd be really lonely.

I think this is what Jane has been driving at -- it's Absolutely All Right to acknowledge that you want to sacrifice some liberty to achieve other good things. But it is dishonest to try to squeeze the good things you want into the definition of "liberty" in order to disguise the fact that trade-offs will have to be made.

Boonton - I will make an honest attempt at explaining supply side economics with an example and a reference:
Reference: Have you ever heard of Laufer's curve (I might have mispelled). It's about the sweet spot where you set the tax rates to have a positive economy and the most tax revenue for now and the future. You can't set the tax rate at 100% because then you've confiscated everyone's wealth and there will be no economic activity the next year. You can't set the tax rate at 0% because then the government won't be able to raise revenue. There is a sweet spot. It could be 20%, 30% but 50% is ridiculous most agree. 50% would stifle economic activity so much for the next year that following years wouldn't be as fruitful.
Example: When the government takes less from income earners by a matter of percentage, it doesn't mean that the government will have less in future years. Reason: If there are 100 million people employed and earning income at the rate of $50,000 (5 trillion of earnings) and the government is taxing them at 15%, that would mean the goverment is taking in $750 Billion in revenue. If the government cuts tax rates from 15% to 13%, the economy is benefited as described above. If the economy benefits so that companies are able to give more raises and hire people the equation could be that there are 105 million people earning $55,000. Given that math problem the government would have 750,750,000,000 in revenue which would be MORE than before. NOT TO MENTION there would be 5 million people less needing some sort of government handout and therefore less goverment expenditures needed.

If you understand a conservative or libertarians perspective better then you can debate better. But you are starting from a PREMISE that is incorrect doesn't further the debate. We have to backtrack and explain the concept first.......

Robert White - Thanks I didn't see your post till after I hit the post button.