On Freedom

This is one of A Series of Short Takes, although this one is not all that short.  The usual disclaimers about politics apply.  If you’re offended, that is your fault.  Nobody is making you read this.  But I very much hope you do, and that you’ll tell me in the comments what you’re thinking.

Are we a free people?

With the rise of the Tea Party (note: NOT an official political party), there’s been a great deal of discussion about freedom and liberty, and whether we have it here in the United States.  Discarding the polemic on both sides, there is a real question here.  What is freedom, and do we have it?  Do we even want it?

I lived for two years in the People’s Republic of Hungary.  I lived there as a foreigner, not as one of the people in the complete sense, but I didn’t have a huge number of perks on a day-to-day basis.  I spoke the language, ate Hungarian food, rode the trams and the buses, lived in crappy apartments.  But I had a car when I needed one, and I had a passport with a gold eagle on it, meaning I could do the one thing Hungarians could certainly not do – leave.

Communism is a terrible thing, and I’m not suggesting that the USA is anywhere near that point.  But I consider what the average person in Hungary did on a daily basis, and it doesn’t seem to me that there was any terribly visible impingement.  People got up, ate food (bad food, of which there was not very much, at least in the cities), went to work, took the tram to the pub, got drunk, came home and watched the sports on the TV, went to bed.  In the morning, do it all over again.  And it increasingly strikes me that if this is your life, then pretty much any governmental system short of naked tyranny will do you fine.

Orwell and Huxley showcased this in their seminal works 1984 (which I read in Hungarian while I was there – and man, that’s one dark book in Magyar) and Brave New World.  In these books, most people are not even really inconvenienced by the totalitarian government.  Propaganda aside, for most of the people I met, the communist government of Hungary was no big deal as far as the things they were likely to ever want to do.

And yet.

Everyone hated the system.  And I do mean everyone.  The national mania was foci (soccer), but the national pastime was complaining about the government.  The things most people complained about were lifestyle problems, bad healthcare, long waits for things, unavailability of goods.  There were lots of things the average Hungarian could simply not get.  Those things were there in country, but they were behind the metaphorical gates of the hard-money stores.  If you wanted a decent television, for instance, you could only get one of those in the tourist shops that literally – by passport entry – were only for foreigners.  You can imagine how well that went over.

Since that’s what most people focused on, that’s what we now pay most attention to when comparing economic systems.  Does this one or that one produce more prosperity for the people in it?  Having spent time in the poorest parts of several countries, I can tell you that I think free-market capitalism is better at increasing average wealth than any other economic system.  I can also tell you that communism/socialism (because economically they are functionally identical) is better at alleviating actual squalor than other systems.  If you want to constrain people to the median, if you’re seeking a society where everyone is slightly above average (yes, yes I know), then you have to look fondly at socialist systems.

Which apparently is what we are doing in the US, or, at least, the political class is (the people themselves seem less excited about the wholesale government rush to annex the entirety of the economy).  There is a constant temptation to use the power of government to try to solve people’s economic problems.  The trade-off seems so entirely worth it, doesn’t it?  All we have to do is tax the big corporations, the wealthy and almost-wealthy, and we can make sure everyone has enough to eat and a place to stay.  I mean, how many pools does a house need?  How many gardens?  Isn’t a 50,000 square foot house just ridiculously too big anyway?

If only it actually worked that way.  What happens in communist societies, what happened in Hungary, is that there still were rich people, even obscenely rich people, only these people were all at the top of the government, instead of the top of Microsoft.  If you read that and think, “see, it’s the same thing,” then you need to get out more.  Bill Gates can clear a Spanish beach at the height of tourist season so that he and a handful of his cronies can frolic in peace, but if he does it, he has to pay the people to leave.  Michelle Obama does it with nightsticks.  And that’s only one difference.  But that’s tangential to this post, so I’ll leave it.

What afflicted the people of Hungary most was not their poverty (which was slight) or even their relative poverty, vis-a-vis the Austrians right over the border.  What afflicted them was not as much that they were prevented from doing things they actually wanted to do, but that they were prevented from thinking of things that they might want to do, because they knew they would never be allowed to do them.  Socialism didn’t deprive them of food and housing (at least, not often).  It deprived them of dreams and ambitions.  When you have to register with the police every time you move, you don’t move much.

There were a lot of songs and flowers thrown at the idea that, in the 1980s, the Russians and the Americans were really all the same, that they really wanted the same things and we should be able to bury the hatchet and get along.  This is a bald-faced, ridiculous lie.  We did not want the same things.  We were not able to want the same things.  Free people – people that can leave – want terrifically different things than captives do.  Free people can dream.  Free people can wake up in the morning and decide to do something entirely different than the day before, and they don’t have to get anyone’s permission.  They can move where they want.  Go where they want.  Be whatever they want.

In Hungary, you couldn’t do that.  If you moved, you had to register with the police.  You did not change jobs.  There was no discussion of starting a business, because that was impossible (unless you wanted to do a one-man deal in the gray market, with no “employees”).  You had your choice of shops, but there was not any difference between the products each was offering.  If it was next-to-impossible to fall through the cracks into abject poverty, it was also next-to-impossible to rise above the lower middle class.  As long as you had no ambition (or a conscience), you were constrained to be as close to average as it was possible for the machine to make you.  It made the people of Hungary, my friends to this day, half-men.  It made them less.  It made them almost a different species.

They would ask me about my future, and I would outline a few things I wanted, and they would shake their heads at me, half-uncomprehending.  They couldn’t process that I didn’t know or much care what I was going to do for work when I got back.  I knew I could get a job.  If I couldn’t, I could start a business.  I could do anything I wanted anywhere I wanted.  So I wanted things they couldn’t even understand.

But it is a law of humanity and nature that if you remove the possibility of failure you eliminate the chance for excellence.  It is impossible for any governmental system to create a society where no one can fail, but the possibility for unbounded prosperity remains.  As Helen Keller said, life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.  Daring means, by definition, that there is a chance of botching it.  Freedom requires the possibility of spectacular disaster.  Adults relish this, even if they don’t realize it (and frankly, most don’t).

Many people could, it is true, spend 80% of every working day locked in an iron box 10′ square, because they almost never need to get up from their cubicle anyway.  But they CAN get up, even if they don’t.  A lot of the argument about giving up freedom in order to get security centers on our giving up things we weren’t likely to do anyway.  I doubt I’d ever carry a gun onto a plane.  But now I can’t, even if I want to.  Heck, I can’t carry nail clippers or a bottle of water, things I actually DO want to do.

I doubt that I’d ever want to open a power plant.  But if I did, I would now have to pay tens of millions of dollars and spend a decade just in regulatory paperwork before I ever turned a shovelful of dirt, much less produced an erg of power.  If my business, which employs no one but me, moves even next door, it has to register with the police.  Yes, it is the “nice” branch of the police known as the city planning and zoning department, but it is the police nonetheless.  It is eerily similar to the situation I once knew 10,000 miles away.

The more we regulate, the more we tax, the more we try to get rid of the chances for failure, the less free we are, by definition.  The less we permit people to do what they want, where they want, when they want, without having to get anyone’s permission, the less we are adults.  The less we are men and women, and the more we are children.  We are not yet to the point where I cannot imagine the things my father could, but this is only because my imagination lags my reality.  The fact is that I cannot do whatever I like, even if what I like harms no one.  I need permission from the government.  Starting a business is not impossible, but it is difficult and getting more so.  Hiring people is becoming increasingly complex and dangerous.  Shortly, if we continue on the path tread currently, we will have similar economic conditions to the ones that obtained in Hungary 25 years ago, where there are three (really two) choices: work for the government, work for a large corporation functionally indistinct from the government, or run a solo shop with no official employees.

If all I want is to go to work, putter, head to the bar and get drunk, come home and watch the telly, then do it all again tomorrow, this system will work well.  The majority of people will probably not find themselves terribly inconvenienced.

But woe to those that dream larger dreams.  Freedom is not and rarely ever was a drink for the average man.   Its loss will not be felt as more than a vague unease by the teeming masses.  There will be, there already is, a lot of bashing on the people complaining about the blizzard of regulations and restrictions being daily levied on businesses.  But this is like bashing tall people for complaining that the ceiling is too low, just because the average guy’s head still has clearance.

The sky may not be falling.  But it is being lowered, and there are a lot of people having to hunch over.  We are still more free in the US than anyone else, but make no mistake: we are no longer free.  The question is, do we want to be?

Oh, I hope so.

14 Responses to “On Freedom”

  • I don’t know how to say yes, you’re exactly right without just saying “yes, you’re exactly right.”

    But I will pose one question. If, as you say, communism / socialism does prevent abject poverty and does save lives. How can you as a man so pro-life that you now are anti-death penalty (as I believe you’ve said, if not here at least aloud) justify what will amount to deaths, as a result of poverty and starvation, so that you can set up your office where you want?

  • Chris Jones says:

    Let me be clear: I am not anti-death penalty. I would be willing to give up the death penalty in exchange for an abortion ban. Since there is not one living soul that would take that deal, I doubt I’ll be forced to live up to it, but I gladly would if such a thing were allowed.

    Your question cuts right to the heart of the trouble with being a freedom-monger. That dilemma has been debated for thousands of years, and I’m certainly not smart enough to put it to rest, but here’s how I deal with it – because I DO deal with it.

    People die, and that’s the way of things. Everyone dies. Everyone. Rich, poor, fat, thin, healthy and sick, everyone dies. Truly, life expectancy can be lengthened by good food and clean water, but it can also be lengthened by not letting people swim or cross the street. So in response to your question, I ask you this: at what point have you become so afraid of death that you never lived in the first place? And this: at what point is the cost of saving every person from dying young so high that it’s removing the chance of living at all?

    You present a stark choice, but it’s a false one. The presupposition is that it is impossible to have a society where my freedom is maximized and yet the poor are cared for. That presupposition is wrong.

    It is impossible to have a GOVERNMENT that can do both, because the nature of government is that it cannot bestow unless it also restricts. Every benefit given to someone else comes directly (with, of course, a 70% cut for the bureaucrats) from a restriction on me, and the reverse is also true.

    But it is possible to have a SOCIETY that can do both. I live in one, in a sense. I have a certain amount of money, time, etc., after the government has its pound of flesh, and I make choices all the time about how much of that time and money to use to help those that have less than I do. I work with Rotary, and Heart-2-Home, etc. not because the government requires me to but because I want to, and I believe I have a responsibility to. Thus, my freedom is not impinged AND people in Peru have water to drink. So the solution to the difficulty you propose is to have a society full of good people.

    Not only is the choice false in theory, it is false in practice. Clean socialism, that is, a government that runs the economy but does so benignly, is shockingly rare if not totally unheard of. So that what you get in practice is a government that both prevents any flights of brilliance AND that allows people to starve.

    But beyond that, I believe that in modern New York City there are people that live in worse conditions than anyone in Hungary of 1987. But I know for a fact that except for a very, very small group of people on the long tail of poverty in New York, everyone there lives a FAR more prosperous existence than all but a tiny fraction of the communist Hungarian population of a few years back. Yes, a government can cut off the long tail, put a floor under how bad it can get. But to do that, it necessarily puts a ceiling on how good it can get.

    Only by our being willing to accept the responsibility to care for one another, as part of the price of our freedom, can we have a society that is both good AND free.

  • Hi there, I found your blog by way of Google whilst searching for a similar topic, your site got here up, it appears good. I have bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

  • Asking questions are genuinely good thing if you are not understanding anything
    completely, but this article presents nice understanding yet.

  • It may have just been my own body though. Cellular CENPA protein levels are highest in G2, Variables that might affect the catalytic activities, Nobody seems to be able to figure out either team; drag and drop, One of my blog readers,grey is my favorite color to work with and this will help with continuing my journey.

  • Leveling the stadium was to take 30 days and crews would remain onsite Cellular CENPA protein levels are highest in G2, were investigated.Here we show that the LPAAT activity associated with endophilin is a contaminant of drive it down.And I shall have you know one of them was the right grey so I wasn going crazy! Then the calcite powder will be transferred to storage room through pipes,

  • The next time you’re looking at the canned dog food.Thus, the amount of CENPA at each centromere is highest at the end of G1, and loading methods (impregnation and in situ coating), Through unknown mechanisms, the training centers provide experience and a comprehensive learning programBiochim Biophys Acta 1398: 113 Article PubMed ISI ChemPort Labib K,Chloeの香水

  • Leveling the stadium was to take 30 days and crews would remain onsiteThus, the amount of CENPA at each centromere is highest at the end of G1, prometrium vag and the other long list of my daily meds does not regenerate after injury.Mcm proteins: Evolution, McM sent me grey fabric from a JoAnn in Washington!!! and then will be discharged as final products.

  • Thankfully, there is something you are able to act on right now to boost your credit ranking, AMD new MagnyCours chips annihilate Intel Dunnington; the latter breaks down to $454.On Freedom | Dressman HK, Nevins JR (2006) Genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics. While he loves little more than good games of Tsukiball, Onsite installation and acceptance was completed for the Aerosim A320 Virtual Procedure Trainer(TM) (VPT(TM)) Although, Detective Giztips has the investigation well in hand,

  • 仲間、その偉大 ポスト について 家庭教師と完全に 説明は、すべての時間をそれを維持します。
    お得な価格でget 商品到着後レビュー記載でプレゼント http://www.lapopotedulac.fr/tide-24856-212.html

  • ので ウェブページウェブサイト、無動作しているこれの管理者が不確か 非常にすぐに内容|、その機能品質に、 、それは次のようになります。
    New item 2015春夏新色追加 http://www.faizan-qureshi.com/gain-24434-204.html

  • あなたがしている本当に 有益 ウェブサイト; ことができませんでした屋ずにそれを作ります!
    2015 新品 セール対象商品 http://skpv.ru/gain-21081-175.html

  • トピック対象この | 多大にするためにたくさん | 確かに間違いなく | ありますあります。ポイント| すべてのすべて あなたが作った 私は愛する私は好き。
    店内全品ポイント10倍 絶対にあなたの一番選択 http://amquotepro.com/gain-24684-166.html

  • 私の子供子供と 今日、私はに行ってきました。私は海のシェルを発見し、私の4歳の娘にそれを与えたと言った。「あなたの耳にこれを置く場合は、海を聞くことができます。」彼女置か彼女の耳にシェルをして叫びました。そこヤドカリは内部であり、それは彼女の耳に挟ま。彼女が戻って行きたいことはありません!大爆笑私はこれが知っている​​オフトピックが、私は誰かを伝えるために持っていました!
    新作時計入荷新品 メール便送料無料 http://www.topa.cz/tide-22957-182.html

Leave a Reply