Freedom is not perfect
Posted by BrianPBS did a great interview with Ron Paul recently on NewsHour in which Paul responded to a question about side effects of greater freedom by saying, “freedom doesn’t give you perfection.” It’s a great point that merits reflection.
Often in discussions of rolling back government intrusion into the lives of private citizens it is easy to get bogged down trying to prove that more freedom will not only be as good as the current situation (usually in terms of some loaded metric), but will be better. Once that argument has been broached, all involved lose sight of the importance of liberty.
Would our country be better off if there were no wage laws? I believe so and I think I could make a compelling argument. But that doesn’t matter. I should be able to work where I want, for whom I want, and for whatever wage I so desire. Same goes for any individuals I might employ. Why shouldn’t two individuals be allowed to engage in a mutually agreeable financial transaction? Anything short of that is an abrogation of their liberty.
Medical care. Could a trustworthy, competent government take better care of a willing subjects than a truly private market? Opinions vary. Is it worth ceding control of your body (and the tax dollars the program will cost) to the government just to find out? No.
Whatever the topic, it can be both fun and enlightening to debate the mechanics and results of varying degrees of governmental interference. But don’t forget that every inch yielded to the government is a diminution of your freedom. Once you give it up it is nearly impossible to get it back and the “superior” government solution you were sold will likely be compromised through incompetence, deceit, or political meddling. Freedom isn’t always the perfect solution, but it is always the most perfect.
Related content:
October 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
DId anyone see the Tavis SMiley Debate? I hear Paul made some strong anti-death penalty statements? I will try to find out and post
October 17th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Wayne, you are right. He alluded to the disproportionate amount of poor that get executed while the rich with the “good” lawyers live.
I think he also has spoken about the large number of cases that have been overturned recently with the advent of DNA.
He said he used to strongly support the death penalty, but that is one issue he has changed in his 20 years in the Congress. it was funny when he mentioned that because he made the caveat “I am rigid on most of my platform, but this is one plank that I have changed my mind”.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:55 am
I am similar to him in that I switched after I became a lawyer and realized how easy it is to be convicted, especially on heinous chrages. Jurors often err on the side of caution.