RoR: Forum

Observe the category mistake Krugman is making here. Freedom as a political value pertains only to the issue of choice. So “free to die,” if it means anything at all, can only mean the freedom to choose to die, but that’s obviously not what Krugman has in mind.

He is referring to (and ridiculing) the freedom to choose whether or not to help someone live. He is saying that someone else’s survival needs are a claim on one’s time, energy and resources. In other words, he is endorsing a form of slavery to other people’s needs and denouncing as immoral those who object to such slavery.

Even though his coercive ideals are in direct violation of the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude (something that is virtually never acknowledged), Krugman assumes that he and his supporters have the moral high ground. What then are his moral ideals? Evidently, “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”

Post 1

Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 3:14pm

The closer the national political discourse comes to fundamental principles - to capitalism-freedom versus socialism-coercion - the more anger, volume and irrationality we should expect from the far left. (I'm trying to think of it as the sweet sound of success on the way :-)
-------------

It is also likely that the the closer they come to losing, the more we should expect violence.
-------------

And battles will wage on for a long period even after any war is won (which is at best still maybe a decade away). The British at one time were able to banish criminals to Australia, and the Communists sent their opposition to re-education camps. The down side to freedom lovers is that we will have to live among a bunch of discontents who will continue to plot and scheme and whine even after they have been discredited.

Post 2

Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 6:52pm

I attended a birthday party for an ex-coworker. One of the guests was diehard leftist (I suspect with Communist leanings). One of our conversations led to a discussion about the draft. She said that she favored it because right now with a volunteer army, blacks and minorities are overrepresented. She called their choice to join a "false choice," because, she said, they have no other employment options. Therefore, since they're "forced" to join, the more privileged youth, who have better options should be forced to share the burden of military service as well. I had heard that argument before from other leftists and more recently from Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel. No surprise there.

I countered that if a member of a minority chose to join the military, it was indeed a choice and that there was nothing "false" about it. I also pointed out that the draft was forced labor and a violation of the 13th Amendment prohibiting involuntary servitude, and that she was in essence advocating a dictatorship. I was surprised that she made no effort to deny it. She simply replied that the government has to be able to use force; otherwise it couldn't protect its citizens from criminals and predators. I quickly explained that retaliatory force was proper, but that the government had no right to initiate force against innocent human beings. At that point, she abruptly terminated the conversation and walked away.

The issue Krugman was addressing was brought up on a radio talk show here in the Bay Area. I called the show to defend Ron Paul, and the host argued that we didn't have the right to freedom of choice because we were bound to the decisions of government through the "social contract." That's another argument the left resorts to in order to defend government coercion. Of course, there is no such thing as a social contract. A contract is a voluntary agreement between consenting adults. I didn't sign such a contract and neither did anyone else, but I hear that rationalization put forward time and again by otherwise intelligent people.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/18, 9:41am)

Post 3

Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 9:20pm

Back during the Vietnam war era the left was opposed to the draft because they said it unfairly discriminated against minorities and the poor.

That's the problem with arguing with the left; they won't ever admit to their real agenda and their arguments are just whatever works at the moment. You poke holes in their current argument and they tend to walk away like that person Bill was discussing the draft with. They have but one real goal: Put the elites in charge and give them as much power as they 'need' to get the job done. And that they won't admit to.

Post 4

Saturday, September 17, 2011 - 9:53pm

the only valid form of the 'social contract' is the trader principle

Post 5

Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 3:26am

Bill wrote:

I called the show to defend Ron Paul, and the host argued that we didn't have the right to freedom of choice because we were bound to the decisions of government through the "social contract."

How does this square with the view of "democracy" as "the will of the people"? If a sudden "sea change" in the attitudes of "the people" led to an election of Ron Paul, would "the will of the people" be wrong in that case? What gives?

Notables who talk of "the will of the people" too often mean "elites" as "the people" whose "will" the "democracy" needs to obey via "social contract"!

Post 6

Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 9:46am

Luke,

He would say that the social contract includes respect for whatever decisions the voters happen to make. A "social contract" is, of course, a contradiction in terms. You cannot be bound to a contract that you don't agree to. The very meaning of a contract is that it's agreed to voluntarily.

Post 7

Sunday, September 18, 2011 - 12:18pm

There have been a great many people working hard to make something of the concept "social contract."

Plato, Epicurus, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau, Hume (argued against it), Proudhon, Rawls.

It is a very important concept - consent of the governed. If a person favors some form of tyranny it doesn't matter but if you are in favor of individual choice then how do you justify government which exists to frustrate the choice of some?

The best that thinkers came up with was an implicit contract. That by not rebelling, or by participating, one is granting explicit consent to a contract. And this includes the view that democratically based governments are forms of contracts not with government but with each other (kind of a 'We are the government').

But Bill points out the obvious flaw. All talk of consent or contract are made silly by the simple fact that individuals don't consent. They aren't even asked. To attempt to form a concept based upon "contract" that excludes consent is to build on a fallacy.

The only solution to the quandary of a government based upon protection of individual's right to chose lies in a minarchy based upon strict observance of individual rights. When a government can only use force where choice has been violated, no consent is needed and no choice is violated by the acts of government (if you understand that the person who violates the rights of another has no right to do so - they in effect step outside the realm of choice in that act of violence).

Post 8

Monday, September 19, 2011 - 2:06pm

I've gotten a pretty good discussion of this part of the CNN debate started over at YouTube and seem to be making a few people unhappy by questioning the foundations of their beliefs. My username on YouTube is skyeminer if anyone is so inclined to take a look or engage in the debate as well.

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=PepQF7G-It0

Nate

Post 9

Monday, September 19, 2011 - 5:00pm

People who aren't used to defending their beliefs always freak out when they're questioned. ;) It's really kind of fascinating.

Welcome, Nathan.

Post 10

Monday, September 19, 2011 - 6:11pm

Nate,

Thanks for the link to the YouTube discussion. I'd love to jump-in, but I'm currently mad at YouTube/Google because they are making me jump through several hoops just to even use them. I've been using YouTube for years without a problem and ... all of a sudden ... there are all these friggen' hoops.

You have to link your YouTube account to a Google account. You can't use a Google email (gmail) in order to create a Google account. You have to use your old email (corrupted and closed down) or create a new email -- a new email besides the new gmail account you created (because gmail isn't good enough for Google accounts).

What the hell is a Google account, anyway (if it isn't Google's email)?!

Anway, closing my old email was bad enough, and to tell you the truth, I don't currently have the patience to deal with folks who consort with (Chinese) communists anyway.

:-)

But ... what I was going to say on that YouTube link was:

The notion that Swedes, etc. have a higher standard of living than Americans is just an artifact of slanted focus. The numbers have been cooked. Because government spending is bundled into GDP/GNP, most of the "wealth" of the Swedes is locked-up in government fixtures and programs they will never personally use -- and is therefore a "false wealth." They have less personal wealth than us. They have less personal living space, less gadgets, etc.

:-)

Ed

p.s. Oh, and welcome to RoR!

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/19, 6:13pm)

Post 11

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - 5:32am

Hi Teresa,
Fascinating and quite entertaining for those of us that like to push their buttons (in a good way of course!). Thanks for the warm welcome!

Nate

Post 12

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 4:39am