Thoughts on Freedom, Equality and Socialism

@Daniel, I did read most of it. Don't even know where to start on that one. Didn't really like it. I agree that nature doesn't mean good. What I mean by socialism being bad because it is a revolt against nature is that it assumes it can change human nature by reorganizing society and ownership of existing capital. Or maybe it assumes there is no human nature and that all our behavior is determined strictly by how society is organized. Either way, it doesn't really map to reality, because to force everyone into a template of how a few people think society should be like, you have to remove their freedom to act. Without being able to act, trying to improve our lot in an uncertain future, then we aren't so human are we?

In a framework of liberty and private property rights, humans naturally trade to their mutual benefit, resources are used for new and better reasons, in ever more efficient ways, capital is created that saves us labor and benefits future generations (i.e. we are all free-riders on the past) and a sustainable way of reducing poverty is attained.

re your second comment: I agree with you that freedom and liberty doesn't make evil people stop being evil. It would however make it more difficult to be evil, since many of the incentives the State provides would be gone. The State apparatus rewards nasty humans and gives them a means to perform evil acts beyond reproach. What we essentially have when we accept the role of government as savior and protector is a monopoly on security. One that we are forced to pay and can't fire. The end result is this monopoly acts in the interests of the few that control it while we the people are less safe as a result. This is a fact of reality. Monopolies can't do things efficiently. In a framework of liberty, we would have a market for security. I could buy insurance to keep my family safe from x, y and z and the insurance company would be held liable if my wife got mugged or whatever. Competing insurance and security companies would do a damn better job at keeping individuals safe than the government regulation groups.

Ok, forget about what America promised for a second. Let's talk about what we should be striving for. What's ideal? What's the best we should hope for given our human condition?

My point is that most think this is a lack of regulation. No FDA. No welfare. No safety nets. No EPA. Etc.

In other words, people can just take care of themselves, and they don't need anyone to watch out for them.

The problem with this is that it's easy to be motivated and evil, and to take advantage of good-hearted people for gain. It's easy to hurt people.

What I'm considering is that things like the FDA and EPA are designed not to be nanny groups, but they're there because humans are pretty damn nasty when it comes down to it.

It's like the three branches of government. Is the Judicial branch weak or broken? Not necessarily, but we have the other branches to keep it in line just in case. Not because of the branches themselves, but because of the people within them.

We build systems of protection into our governments because people will enslave and destroy others for their own benefit. It's a protection of the many from the evils of a few.

Again, I'm just taking on this viewpoint to see where it leads...

So, if we adopt this viewpoint of government protection and regulation we're essentially saying that some people are cut out to be victims, and some are cut out to be oppressors and predators. We're saying that this is built into humanity, and that it simply needs to be checked via policy.

This "freedom" concept is in fact the opposite. Freedom means not having the government tell you what you can and cannot sell. Freedom means being able to sell poison that tastes good, to millions, making you into a billionaire because the people had a choice not to drink it.

I'm saying that the concept of "freedom" that Paul supports is something of a caveat emptor; it says that people should be allowed to take advantage of others if they are able to, because the victim had the freedom to avoid it. It's essentially moral authority for oppression.

This is what free market theorists are proposing as well. Let things happen naturally. Let things take their course and the laws of nature will reveal themselves. I'm simply asking if that's the best approach.

Is that more clear, or do you think I'm still confusing something.

Also, please read this essay first; you'll see where I got the free market idea.

http://notphilsnotions.blogspot.com/2008/07/free-markets-and-freedom.html

Daniel, my point is that you're framing the debate incorrectly. You're assuming a political definition of "equality" and then casting disparate political thinkers against your definition.

The two philosophies that you've contrasted -- Socialism, and Ron Paul's views -- do not share a common definition for equality. That is why conservatives of Paul's ilk don't just "come out and state as much", because there's nothing to state. It's not a "sly acknowledgment that we are not all equal" because it never assumes the socialist utopian definition of equality.

It is the liberals (and a good deal of conservatives now) that pretend that circumstance, environment, ability, etc. can be equalized by some grand government scheme, but this is not the kind of equality that America was designed to promote and protect, and to pretend otherwise is to mislead people. It is the statist politicians who need to fess up and be honest, and quit pretending to hold onto the original political philosophy of this country.

Look at what socialism has done in this century. Let's start with the over 70,000,000 people who have been killed in it's name. Massacres, sweatshops, slavery, yup socialism did those things too. So what is it again that is going to cause Socialism to not do those things again? Oh right your are going to have "responsible socialism" and then you recommend preventing those who are suffering from reproducing. So presumably forced sterilization.

Wow.

I'm am interested in hearing your plan for those who don't agree with you. Does it start with "G" and end with "ulag." Or does it start with "E" and end with "xecution." Those have also been popular programs with Socialists in the past.

You also state "They are powerful having the freedom to destroy those who they control." Do you really fail to realize that a socialist state by it's very nature will impose control over it's citizens and thus increase the governments ability to destroy the people? If you have to rely on the government for your job, or medical care, or food, what happens to you if they decide you don't get those things? That is a form of control.

Ultimately I am really quite confused by what your point is supposed to be because it really seems like you are arguing against freedom.

I'd suggest you read this:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

for a possible glimpse on a perfectly "equal" society. Sounds really socialistic to me.

Ncloud,

I don't see your point.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me that unfettered freedom is a problem for equality?

Dude, you've missed the point. The Constitution is concerned with one thing: equality before the law. The historical context of American government is very, very specific. Our Founding Fathers were primarily concerned with creating a system that would protect the rights of life, liberty and property of all men, and not just a select few ruling elite. That, and that alone, should be the sole purpose of government. When the Founders wrote that all people are equal, this is the context in which they were speaking.

If you are really concerned about the poor, disadvantaged, disabled, or unfortunate, then get your friends together and do something about it. This is America, you are free to use your own money and time and resources to make that difference. But don't force your neighbors to do it at the barrel of a gun because it gives you the warm fuzzies.

That is all.

Jon,

Fighting disease is a fight against nature as well. Why should poverty not be treated the same? Just because something is natural doesn't make it a good idea.

You really need to read that essay I posted before this; it's great.

What I'm exploring here is the notion that just because it's natural for some people to dominate and take advantage of the weak, doesn't make it right. Socialism absolutely IS counter to natural law. But look what natural law does when it's unhindered.

African massacre. Chinese sweatshops. Slavery.

These things are natural. They are powerful having the freedom to destroy those who they control. But is this a good thing?

Why do we have laws? Why do we say food companies can't put highly addictive poison in their foods? Because if we didn't, they would. That's counter to nature too; it's counter to freedom.

Trust me. Read the essay. It's not quite the same concept, but close.

For starters, we are of course speaking in large generalities.
"Perhaps it’s really the conservatives who believe most in equality."
It depends on the freedom. Conservatives want "free"dom markets, but want to legislate morality. Would you rather have the freedom to pay your workers a dollar and hour and not hire based on sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. or the freedom to marry and screw who you want and express your opinion about it?

"Perhaps it’s the liberals who deep down think that we are not created equal"
I think science has concluded quite definitely a long time ago that we are indeed not all created equal. For example, you have a passion for computers and technology that you have no control over. It just so happens that jobs in computers and technology tend to be quite lucrative. Imagine someone else whose passion is in music and they can't focus elsewhere. It just so happens that lucrative jobs in music are hard to find. That person is unlikely to succeed if they can't buckle down and focus on subjects that do not interest them.
Or maybe another person with a low IQ, but not that of mentally retarded. That person is unlikely to succeed at much anything.

"Responsible socialism would put controls in place to prevent those in the most pain from reproducing and creating more pain."
Wouldn't that be an afront to freedom? Are we going to legislate who is allowed to have sex? That would be pretty close to a repressive state to legislate something so deeply connected with our humanity. One solution most on the left prefer is to try and help ensure that everyone has an opportunity no matter where they come from. The best place to provide that is through schools. Unfortunately, we miss the mark on that one pretty badly.

"simply a call for social Darwinism?"
The problem with this is that we are looking at success in all the wrong lights. Success is not, IMHO, measured in by finances, the number of children you have, or any thing superficial like that. Success is measured in happiness. I have a number of friends who make $20K or less and are very happy people. They are warm and honest. They live more life in a day than most people do in a month. That is success. We can build happiness across society better by promoting living life over building wealth.

Freedom and liberty, to the extent that we have seen it work, has helped the weak and feeble that undoubtedly would have died in centuries past due to disease and starvation. It has also given the average person, even a poor person, more comforts and riches than any medieval king could imagine. Freedom lets people create things that help eachother.

Isn't it self-evident that humans aren't equal in ability or circumstance? This is a fact of reality. Socialism is essentially a fight against nature and reality, since it tries to change human nature by changing laws and forcing citizens to do or not do certain things. Sure they may be trying to prevent evil, but they make it impossible to do good.