131 Freedom Quotes No Iron Bars Could Hold Back

There will naturally be jobs unless a third entity goes around with guns forcing businesses to close; in that case, there is no freedom. In other situation, where you are poor with lousy education, you have the ability to work hard and work smart for a house. That is what freedom guarantees. You have the ability to attempt to achieve it. Freedom does not guarantee that someone, such as a government, has an obligation to give you a house. Take what conservatives call a right to guns, for example. They want people to have the ability to work for and purchase a gun. They do not want the government to hand people guns.

You misunderstand me. I never suggested anyone had any obligation to give anyone a house. You can say "people have the freedom to go wherever they like", true, apart from someone with no legs and no family to take them there. Does anyone have any obligation to take them? No. Does that make them free, also no. Don't confuse the two things. The idea that because the rules ALLOW people do do things, that they are somehow free to do those things is to ignore the complexity and tragic nature of many situations. We may, as a society, CHOOSE to provide the things that circumstance removes. But that is society as a whole exercising our freedoms to be generous. To vote for a government which will collect taxes and provide a house is a choice we make as a free society.

Humans have an innate freedom from coercion. Thus, not even 100 people voting against them, I believe, should have the power to coerce them into providing for some social service. If that man fails to provide, then he does not get to use that social service. But he cannot be forced to provide. By the way, please do not assume I am some anarchist who hates taxes and hates government services. I am neither. I believe taxes, and government by extension, is a necessary evil, evil in the way that it restricts some of our natural rights but necessary in how it then uses its powers to prevent others from violating our rights. But I just believe there are times where it becomes more evil than is necessary. (3/3)

Onto your last 3 sentences. Societies are made up of individuals. Individuals each have their choice to help a man and provide them with a house. They are noble, admirable people if they do so, but in the event that they refuse, other people, even the entire society, do not have the right to coerce them into doing so. I am not allowed to go to my neighbor with a gun and demand 100$ to pay for my childcare. Why should I be allowed to go to town hall, pass a vote, and get other men with guns to demand 100$ from my neighbor for peoples' childcare? Society and government is made up of individuals. If individuals want to pay money (taxes) to the government to fund childcare programs, good for them. If the neighbor does not want to pay, then he should be allowed to do so, provided that he is then prevented from using that childcare funded solely by others' tax dollars. The guy doesn't want a childcare program. It is immoral to force him to pay for something he doesn't want to pay for. (2/3)

Freedom, as I define it, is freedom from excessive obligations. The disadvantaged legless person is free to try to travel, such as through prosthetics or a wheelchair. The important thing is that no one is stopping him from traveling. This is an important distinction. Freedom doesn't mean the ability to engage in some activity; it means the ability to not be actively prevented from engaging in that activity. It may be very difficult for a legless man to move, but it is a goal for which he can work towards, with the expectation that no one is going to force him off a wheelchair or break his prosthetics. If the rules allow you to engage in an activity, then you are free to do so, regardless of your physical ability to do so. (1/3)

To continue the idea. Imagine a small country. There are 5,000 vacancies. There are 6,000 unemployed, and a limited economy. They are all "free" but reality prohibits 1,000 from that opportunity. It is a similar situation in many cities. There are SOME well paid jobs. But many poorly paid ones. If within 5 million jobs in the country, 4 million are poorly paid, then no matter how you swap epople around within those jobs, there are still simply 1 million well off individuals. And 4 million poor. Freedom =/= opportunity. And without opportunity, freedom in principle is not freedom in practice.

Now onto your last sentence, which argues that freedom in principle is not freedom in practice. I say that in the theoretical situation in which there is a tradeoff between those two, I would choose the former, based on the reason that freedom in practice would thus require violating others' freedoms. Healthcare, for example. Your freedom to go to a hospital and get treated would violate others' freedoms to keep the full extent of their labor. Secondly, I argue that in reality, as Milton Friedman so wisely pointed out in the quote, freedom in practice WILL result in practical freedom. Deregulate, lower taxes, and allow the free market and the invisible hand to increase production and technology. You will soon see low-cost healthcare and low-cost housing as competition brings down prices and raises quality of services. So, allow the economy to be free, and you will see in reality everyone becomes free and prosperous.

But your theory is not proved in the real world. The US is a great example of the "invisible hand" squeezing the life out of ordinary citizens. Argue the theory all you want, it DOESN'T WORK. While some people can move up to a better job, in reality a large minority, or even majority are unable to move up, because those jobs don't exist. You are arguing that because there is enough room for 20 people to breathe in a water filled cage that it doesn't matter that another 10 people are drowning, because they have the freedom to move up, what you forget is that one person would also have to move down. It's theoretical freedom, not real freedom. ALL advanced and wealthy economies have MORE regulation than poor nations. The happiest most equal societies are well regulated and have controls pn monopolies and price fixing. Go to a poor neighbourhood, and talk to people, see if they feel "free".

Then, regarding price fixing and monopolies, those problems will be taken care of in a free market. Government intervention isn't necessary. Monopolies are forced to keep on innovating to keep their market share. If they do, then consumers get low prices. If they don't, then the market opens up and consumers also get low prices. It's a win-win. Price fixing simply causes, of course, lowered demand for those goods and services, which will only be resolved when other small businesses start offering those goods at the appropriate price. A great example of how more freedom created more prosperity is China. Maoist China saw the Great Leap Forward and the subsequent Cultural Revolution that killed tens of millions. Now, China is the second largest economy in the world. How? Through Deng Xiaoping's market reforms, that brought freedom to the economy and subsequently turned China from a poor nation of starving farmers to an industrial powerhouse. (3/3)

"forget is that one person would also have to move down" That is the zero-sum fallacy. In a free market, it is very possible for everyone to get richer at the same time. This is, of course, due to the production and voluntary exchange only seen in largely Capitalistic countries. Then your argument that advanced and wealthy economies have heavy regulations, compared to poor countries. Not necessarily. A classic example is Venezuela. Nationalized oil industry. Also a humanitarian crisis. You're probably thinking about Sweden's level of regulation. I say, good for them. They are a sparsely-populated, largely ethnically homogenous country. Thus, their level of regulation and government control would have dangerous consequences in America. Simply put, Sweden is happy and equal and well-regulated. That isn't possible in America. If we try to increase regulations, all we're doing is harming the free market and the invisible hand, and hurting the people you're trying to help. (2/3)

You sound like you just read an old economics text, but never left your house. Only zealots think in absolutes. Go for a walk and see how well your theories work in the real world. They just don't

Please explain why I am wrong, with facts, as opposed to ad-hominem attacks. My theories do work in the real world. Housing, for example, is ridiculously expensive due to land-use regulations, NIMBY, zoning laws, etc. Paul Emrath from NAHB found that regulations increase housing construction costs by 93,000 dollars. Then healthcare. Where to begin. There is the insulin triopoly which exists solely because of government protection. Certificate of Need laws prevent the construction of hospitals. Regulations restrict the number of Med School Graduates each year. Epipen and Daraprim production is a monopoly protected by the government. Excessive FDA regulations, which are admittedly necessary on a small level, drive up drug costs and significantly delay the time needed to be brought onto the market. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was found to cost the financial sector over 1T per year. The Motor Carrier Act regulated the trucking industry, inhibiting competition and driving up prices in the entire economy (due to the Walrasian Equilibrium). Seems to me like the facts do show that government is causing this failure of people to attain housing and healthcare. This lack of attainability is caused solely by government.

Your examples are solely US based. Healthcare is cheaper almost everywhere else, and less tax per capita is spent on healthcare almost everywhere else. US is a corporate self interest mess. Get your head out of capitalist worshipping economics books and look around at better systems and better outcomes.

The invisible hand is not hurting people in America because there Is No Invisible Hand In America. Government subsidies and regulations, such as excessive FDA regulation, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, land-use regulations, have killed competition and prevented the invisible hand from working. The theory is not disproven because, in the present state, it is simply not being tested. You claim that people can't move to better jobs. I would disagree with that. 60% of households in the bottom quintile in 1999 were in a higher quintile in 2007. 64% of those born in the bottom quintile were in a higher quintile as an adult. This would suggest that, yes, people on the bottom are finding better jobs. As for jobs not existing, unemployment is the lowest it's ever been. And there was all that on the news recently about businesses failing to find workers. As of now, there isn't enough room for 20 people to breathe. However, there will be enough room if the government simply stepped by and deregulated1/3

In the situation where there are more unemployed than open jobs, of course, many of them will lack the ability to achieve that job. But they are still free to work for that job: gain experience, learn skills, and build up their resume. Again, they have the freedom to attempt to land that job. Then I will reply to your second-to-last sentence. I do fully agree, freedom is not opportunity. Freedom is not innate attainability. Nor should it be. If attainability is required, that is violating the freedoms of others. (1/2)