Being a metalhead is a disability in Sweden

[AeonicSlumber]

It obviously doesn't. There's no such thing as freedom (not in the monolithic and hyperbolic libertarian sense, obviously you can free a person from bondage and slavery etc) anyways. It's like saying putting people in jail reduces "evil."

 

[Cheiron]

How does paying for stuff we all use (i.e. infrastructure) translate to reducing freedom?

This is a difficult subject to discuss in quick posts, so I encourage you to go and read a book such as The Road to Serfdom, as a start.

However, think of what is actually going on:

-A bunch of people collectively decide that how much money other people should provide them, so that they can facilitate those funds.
-This bunch of people sell this plan on the idea that they will do what is for the good of the many.
-Person A is forced to give up their money, to this group. If Person A refuses to do so, this group will imprison Person A.

The freedom that a person otherwise would have, to decide how one wishes to distribute his/her funds, is being taken away, by force, by a group. This is a clear reduction in freedom.

 

[MartinW]

A reduction in economic freedom, yes, but an expansion of social freedoms. In the end, it's about prioritizing. That's where ideology comes in. Some people think social freedoms are more important than economic freedoms in order to build a stable society. I think the freedom to receive an education, regardless of your financial status, is more important. I think the freedom to get sick without ruining your personal economy, even if you don't have a job, is more important. That's what the Nordic model is about. And most of us hardly feel imprisoned.

 

[Justin G]

This is a difficult subject to discuss in quick posts, so I encourage you to go and read a book such as The Road to Serfdom, as a start.

However, think of what is actually going on:

-A bunch of people collectively decide that how much money other people should provide them, so that they can facilitate those funds.
-This bunch of people sell this plan on the idea that they will do what is for the good of the many.
-Person A is forced to give up their money, to this group. If Person A refuses to do so, this group will imprison Person A.

The freedom that a person otherwise would have, to decide how one wishes to distribute his/her funds, is being taken away, by force, by a group. This is a clear reduction in freedom.

Sorry, but that seems like an exercise in hyperbole. No one is limiting the consitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of speech, religion, assembly or guns. Being asked to kick in some cash for the things you use - whether that's roads or bridges or national defense - isn't some tyrannical act.

 

[dcowboys311]

Sorry, but that seems like an exercise in hyperbole. No one is limiting the consitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of speech, religion, assembly or guns. Being asked to kick in some cash for the things you use - whether that's roads or bridges or national defense - isn't some tyrannical act.

Right but the point is, people don't have a choice in how much money they contribute. I have the freedom to turn down a candy bar if it's $5, since to me, that is too much to pay for a candy bar. I don't have the freedom to decide how much I want to pay for things like roads, police, etc. I can use them five times a day or I can use them two times a year, and I'll still pay the same as everyone else. The only ones making my choices for me are the higher ups. You aren't 'being asked' to kick in some cash -- you are being forced, and the alternative is prison time.




(note this is all devil's advocate and not quite what I believe.)

 

[Justin G]

Right but the point is, people don't have a choice in how much money they contribute. I have the freedom to turn down a candy bar if it's $5, since to me, that is too much to pay for a candy bar. I don't have the freedom to decide how much I want to pay for things like roads, police, etc. I can use them five times a day or I can use them two times a year, and I'll still pay the same as everyone else. The only ones making my choices for me are the higher ups. You aren't 'being asked' to kick in some cash -- you are being forced, and the alternative is prison time.




(note this is all devil's advocate and not quite what I believe.)

I get that. I really do. But we do have some say over this when we elect the people who make those decisions. People obviously felt strongly about that sort of thing last year when they sent a host of small government types to Washington, and that seems to be making an impact. A negative one in my opinion, but hey, it looks like the system is working like it's supposed to.

I guess I'd buy the whole freedom versus tyranny mindset a lot easier if these Libertarian/Tea Party/whatever types weren't taking full advantage of public schools, fire and police services, roads and highways, etc.

 

[dcowboys311]

Yeah I mean, didn't intend to make a judgement call there, and it was entirely devil's advocate. Just saying how it's a 'lack' of freedom, which I believe was your initial question. If you receive cool benefits (like roads and schools and healthcare and etc etc etc) and it's worth trading in a bit of your freedom, go for it!! An entirely, 100% free society would probably fall on its ass anyway.

 

[Cheiron]

A reduction in economic freedom, yes, but an expansion of social freedoms. In the end, it's about prioritizing. That's where ideology comes in. Some people think social freedoms are more important than economic freedoms in order to build a stable society. I think the freedom to receive an education, regardless of your financial status, is more important. I think the freedom to get sick without ruining your personal economy, even if you don't have a job, is more important. That's what the Nordic model is about. And most of us hardly feel imprisoned.

Reductions in economic freedoms inevitably lead to reductions in social freedoms.

 

[Justin G]

Reductions in economic freedoms inevitably lead to reductions in social freedoms.

Such as?

And can I just note that it's great to be having a political debate where everyone is civilized and respectful?

 

[MartinW]

Reductions in economic freedoms inevitably lead to reductions in social freedoms.

If the correlation you claim to exist had actually existed, Singapore and Hong Kong would be the freest countries in the world. That is... not quite the case in reality.

 

[Cheiron]

I don't know much about Hong Kong's social freedoms while it was operated by Great Britain (neither during nor after Great Britain's path towards socialism). As for now, Hong Kong is back under China control; however, China has not fully implemented its own economic/social polices in Hong Kong. Which, thus, makes it interesting that according to that study, it is more free than China.

 

[MartinW]

... You didn't mention Singapore at all. Hong Kong is a worse example since it's not a sovereign state, but Singapore is, it is not controlled by China or any other nation. Their lack of social freedoms is due to their internal politics alone. Their high degree of economic freedom obviously does not guarantee freedom of speech or the press.

And the UK has not "marched towards socialism". It is, like Scandinavia and most of Europe, based on a solidly capitalist foundation, except with a more expansive welfare system than the United States. No country relevant to this discussion can be described as socialist, or even remotely closer to socialism than capitalism.

 

[dcowboys311]

Well in fairness, a correlation between low economic freedoms and low social freedoms wouldn't necessarily imply that there's one between the two highs.

 

[MartinW]

Well in fairness, a correlation between low economic freedoms and low social freedoms wouldn't necessarily imply that there's one between the two highs.

But without assuming a correlation between the two highs, his point, and this discussion, is pointless. A country with low social and economic freedoms is just a dictatorship, which has never been relevant in this thread. The issue is whether or not a country becomes less free by raising taxes, which appears to be Cheiron's opinion. If that is the case, then higher economic freedom (here measured by level of taxation, which is also very simplified or at least arguable) must necessarily equal higher social freedom, mustn't it? Or am I missing something?

 

[TheLongshot]

Reductions in economic freedoms inevitably lead to reductions in social freedoms.

I guess that applies if you equate economic freedom with social freedom. I don't necessarily agree that it is always true, especially when the "freedom" you have is more of a pain than it is worth. When you don't have to focus and worry about some things in your life and everything is working fine, you don't worry too much about the "freedom" you gave up.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I don't know much about Hong Kong's social freedoms while it was operated by Great Britain (neither during nor after Great Britain's path towards socialism). As for now, Hong Kong is back under China control; however, China has not fully implemented its own economic/social polices in Hong Kong. Which, thus, makes it interesting that according to that study, it is more free than China.

You're comparing communist territories to socialist territories. Apples and oranges.

 

[Cheiron]

... You didn't mention Singapore at all. Hong Kong is a worse example since it's not a sovereign state, but Singapore is, it is not controlled by China or any other nation. Their lack of social freedoms is due to their internal politics alone. Their high degree of economic freedom obviously does not guarantee freedom of speech or the press.

And the UK has not "marched towards socialism". It is, like Scandinavia and most of Europe, based on a solidly capitalist foundation, except with a more expansive welfare system than the United States. No country relevant to this discussion can be described as socialist, or even remotely closer to socialism than capitalism.

Margaret Thatcher thought UK was on a march towards socialism. And they were. The country was nearly economically ruined.

Just because you have economic freedom does not mean that you'll have social freedom. But you cannot have long-term social freedom without economic freedom.

 

[Cheiron]

I guess that applies if you equate economic freedom with social freedom. I don't necessarily agree that it is always true, especially when the "freedom" you have is more of a pain than it is worth. When you don't have to focus and worry about some things in your life and everything is working fine, you don't worry too much about the "freedom" you gave up.

I agree that not worrying about healthcare and housing and food is a mental freedom, and many people would willingly give that up for high taxation. But not all would, and those who do not want those services should not be forced to pay for them.

One mistake that Aeonic makes, which is a very common mistake, is the assumption that those who want economic and social freedom do not have a practice of compassion. I strongly believe in charity, and freely giving resources to take care of one's community, which includes providing people in need with clean and healthy food, water, clothing and living space.

 

[MartinW]

Margaret Thatcher thought UK was on a march towards socialism. And they were. The country was nearly economically ruined.

Margaret Thatcher was a politician. She used scary words to stir people's feelings. That's what politicians do.

But you cannot have long-term social freedom without economic freedom.

I still don't understand your point. So Scandinavia, a notoriously highly taxed region, is lacking in social freedoms? Do you have any particular source to support this? This Democracy Index, for example, would disagree.

 

[TheLongshot]

I agree that not worrying about healthcare and housing and food is a mental freedom, and many people would willingly give that up for high taxation. But not all would, and those who do not want those services should not be forced to pay for them.

One mistake that Aeonic makes, which is a very common mistake, is the assumption that those who want economic and social freedom do not have a practice of compassion. I strongly believe in charity, and freely giving resources to take care of one's community, which includes providing people in need with clean and healthy food, water, clothing and living space.

The problem is, I've had Tea Party types try to make that argument about public schools. (That is, I don't use them, then why should I pay for them?)

The reason why you do is that it benefits you indirectly by (hopefully) creating a more productive citizendry, who are more involved with lawful activities, which benefit the economy in general. I feel the same way about health care, that a society that supports basic health care for all will benefit all citizens in making sure that disease doesn't fester and that the population is capable.

I don't have a problem with charity, but charity isn't the answer to everything. Nor is the free market. Nor is government. The appropriate tool should be used for the appropriate problem.