Top

Degrees of Freedom?

March 15, 2011 by  

From time to time, one will see reports that purportedly rank the relative freedom of this globe’s countries (see, for example, the annual “Economic Freedom of the World” report published by Canada’s Fraser Institute; c.f. Peter Jaworski’s “Canada is Free, the U.S is Mostly Free“). However, efforts to generate such reports are founded upon the same flawed understanding of freedom that founds the Rahn Curve (i.e., the idea that, by taxing and spending by just the right percentage of Gross Domestic Product, a country can somehow maximize freedom).

Man’s nature is such that he must think rationally if he is to solve the problems and effectively carry out the work necessary for his own survival and happiness. Alone on an island, nobody stops a human being from acting upon his conclusions and decisions, whether they are rational or not. His mind is the only mind determining his actions. His decisions are the only ones bearing on the issue of whether or not he survives and achieves his own happiness. If his conclusions and decisions are in accord with the facts of reality – in other words, if they are rational – he maximizes the prospects for his own survival and happiness. If his conclusions or decisions are not in accord with the facts of reality – if they are irrational – he undermines the prospects for his own survival and happiness.

Things change when a man lives among others. Among others, the potential exists for others to prevent him rationally from surviving or achieving his own happiness. This is not to say that others can control his mind: arguments and guns are powerless to change the mind of a human being who decides not to change his mind. The only way to prevent the rational man from pursuing his own survival and happiness is to deny him control over his actions (i.e., to deny him his liberty) or to deny him control over the product of his actions (i.e., to deny him his property). That control is denied by obviating the need to obtain his consent with respect to his actions and property. The need to obtain his consent is typically obviated in one of two ways: by obtaining his agreement under false pretenses, or by using physical coercion (or the threat of physical coercion) to prevent or discourage him from acting upon the rational decisions he otherwise would make. However, if his life, liberty, or property are taken with his consent, his mind continues to be the only mind determining his actions and the use of his property. He is, in a word, “free”, because – and only because – nobody takes his life, liberty or property without his consent.

For reasons discussed elsewhere, voluminously, taking another person’s life, liberty, or property is never a rational, moral or practical means of survival. Neither is it an effective means of pursuing ones own happiness.

It follows that a free society is one in which no individual’s life, liberty, or property is taken from him without his consent. The effect of freedom is that no person is prevented from, or punished for, acting upon his own rational beliefs and decisions. Such self-determination or sovereignty – continued control only over ones own life, liberty and property – is freedom. And, when others deny you control, to any degree, you cease to be sovereign; the course of your life, and your prospects for survival and happiness, cease to be self-determined; you cease to be free.

When you decide to end another man’s life without his consent (perhaps so that he will not compete with you), the just consequence that you will be killed in an electric chair is also your decision: such a killing is what the facts of reality require if other human beings are to continue rationally living and pursuing their own happiness. When you decide to beat your spouse, the just consequence that you will be incarcerated is also your decision: such an incarceration is what the facts of reality dictate must be done by human beings who choose to continue rationally to survive and pursue their own happiness. When you attempt to borrow money without repaying it, the just consequence that you are expropriated sufficiently to repay the creditor is also your decision: such an expropriation is what the facts of reality dictate must be done by human beings who expect to continue living and rationally pursuing their own happiness.

In contrast, when your decision to sell apple seeds does not raise an eyebrow, but your decision to sell cannabis seeds bears the consequence of your being murdered in an electric chair, you are not the person deciding whether you live or die. When your decision to carry to term will be applauded, but your decision to abort will result in your incarceration, you are not the person deciding what your body will do. When your decision to produce wealth results in some or all of it being taken from you without your consent, you are not the person deciding what will be done with your property. In all such cases, you did not take another individual’s life, liberty, or property without his consent. Rather, somebody else took yours, without your consent. They, not you, made the decision to murder you, to incarcerate you, or to expropriate you. The facts of reality being what they are, if others thereafter are to continue living as man must – if they are rationally to survive and pursue their own happiness – they must subject the decision-maker to the death penalty, or to incarceration, or to expropriation, in response to the decision maker’s decision to murder you, to incarcerate you, or to expropriate you.

When somebody else has the power to decide to murder you, to incarcerate you, or to expropriate you, somebody else also has the power to decide what to decide for you. In other words, the scope of that person’s power to make decisions about the disposition of your life, liberty, and property is being determined by that person, not by you. In such circumstances, any decision that you are not prevented from acting upon is itself founded upon a decision by someone else: your decision making power is being delegated to you by that person, and the delegation can be modified and retracted at will. You decide not as of right, but as a privilege bestowed upon you by that someone else. You are not exercising your own power to decide what happens with your life, liberty and property: you are exercising somebody else’s power to decide what happens with your life, liberty, or property. Therefore, when such is the case, you are not self-determined; you are not controlling your life, liberty and property; you are not sovereign. You are not, in any honest sense, free.

It follows that it cannot be said that one country is “more free” than another. A country is either free, or it is not. It might well be the case that there is less murder, less rape, and less theft in your country than in another, but the severity and frequency with which such immoral, criminal acts occur is not somehow a means to somehow determine the “relative freedom” of various countries. The question is not how many murders, rapes and thefts occur, but how the country responds to such crimes. If a country defends every individual’s freedom – if it rationally retaliates whenever a person’s own life, liberty, or property is taken without his consent – it is a free country. If the country – especially, but not only, those who style themselves collectively as “the government” – requires or permits such criminality, it is not a free country, no matter how rarely someone is murdered, raped, or mugged.

The idea that there are degrees of freedom is 100% nonsense. Freedom is not a matter of “how much” or “how frequently” another person or group of people decide your actions or decide upon the use of your property. Freedom is a matter of “who decides” your actions and who decides how your property will be used. In a free society, the answer to the question “who decides…?” is never “we do” or “they do”. It is always: “I do”.


UPDATE, MARCH 16, 2011 – Over at The Volunteer blog, Peter Jaworski has replied to my “Degrees of Freedom?” post, above. He has permitted me to reproduce his reply – titled “In Defence of Ranking Freedoms“, here:

Over the last week, I’ve been keen on trying to figure out how various countries stack up according to various freedom indices. It started with my claim that I’m a libertarian mostly for empirical reasons. In my Bleeding heart libertarians post, I wrote:

While I share liberal value commitments, I have certain empirical beliefs that lead me to prefer the libertarian set of political institutions. But it’s not for any natural rights reasons, nor for any Randian reasons. It’s all about improving the well-being of people in general (regardless of their country of birth), and getting resources into the hands of those who desperately need them. Those ends are better served by the free and open market. Those ends are better served by a tiny, tiny government, limited in scope. That’s what I really believe.

Since I don’t believe in natural rights or self-ownership, nor do I object, in principle, to paternalism, the values that matter to me are distinctly liberal. But I’m not a liberal in the political philosophy sense. The reason for that is because my answer to the “what works?” question (“what will actually realize the values that I hold?”) is consistently “individual liberty” or, put differently, I believe that the libertarian set of political institutions will better realize liberal values than any other institutional arrangement.

Freedom works.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman and reason magazine’s motto, I know of no other set of institutions that better improve the lives of the overwhelming majority of the world’s people now and over the long run than free and open markets, and free minds.

To test the hypothesis that freedom works in general, we should try to compare countries in terms of individual liberty. Which countries are freer? Which countries come closest to the libertarian ideal? Once we have that data, we can start to formulate separate hypotheses about whether or not it’s the relatively higher freedom that causally contributes to improvements in the lives of those people.

I initially posted about wanting a meta-index to cover the whole range of libertarian freedoms, and not just a particular slice of them (there were, to my knowledge then, a whole bevy of indices that tracked economic freedom, civil liberties, corruption, and so on, but no adequate meta-index). That post was incredibly useful, since Nico Maloberti pointed me to precisely what I wanted: A sufficiently academic and thorough meta-index of component indices that, individually, were sufficiently academic.

Here were the results of that Spanish-language meta-index (for more details and more top-10 lists from the individual indices, take a look at this post):

1. Denmark (0.9719)
2. Switzerland (0.9652)
3. New Zealand (0.9640)
4. Finland (0.9517)
5. Canada (0.9450)
6. Ireland (0.9347)
7. United States (0.9330)
8. Australia (0.9312)
9. Sweden (0.9307)
10. Netherlands (0.9294)

One of my friends, Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever, took exception to this. In particular, he took exception to the ranking of freedoms in general, and not to anything more specific. Freedom, in his mind, is like an on/off switch, you either have it, or you don’t. Freedom doesn’t, as far as he’s concerned, come in degrees.

He writes, in a blog post entitled “Degrees of Freedom?”:

The idea that there are degrees of freedom is 100% nonsense. Freedom is not a matter of “how much” or “how frequently” another person or group of people decide your actions or decide upon the use of your property. Freedom is a matter of “who decides” your actions and who decides how your property will be used. In a free society, the answer to the question “who decides…?” is never “we do” or “they do”. It is always: “I do”.

Is “freedom” all or nothing? Is it the sort of thing that is like “pregnancy” — you either are or you aren’t pregnant? I don’t think so.

Here’s why: Our common sense conception of freedom has it that you can be more or less free. Just ask 100 ordinary people, and probably all of them would say, for example, that America or Canada is “more free” than North Korea or Cuba. That counts in favour of thinking that freedom comes in degrees.

But the common sense observation is not really an answer to Paul’s objections, since Paul is aware that his conception of freedom is revisionary, or different from the conception that we have in mind when we invoke freedom. Call his conception X, and call the ordinary conception Y. We have to choose between X and Y.

The trouble is that there really is not much (I can’t think of anything) that is useful about Paul’s conception of freedom. His X serves no useful function (and, of course, there is no metaphysical truth about the matching of symbols to concepts). It also makes nonsense out of ordinary ways of speaking that, I think, we’ll want to preserve.

Example 1: How do we describe what happened to those people who fled literal slavery in the U.S. through the underground railroad to Canada? They’re better off, true. They no longer suffer certain indignities, true. But don’t we want to say that they are also more free than when they were in literal chains?

Example 2: Suppose we compare the lives of Jim and Sally. Jim has full Randian freedom, with one exception: the government has decreed that for one minute on January 12, 2020, Jim cannot clip his toe nails on pain of jail. Sally, meanwhile, lives in North Korea. Is the claim really that we cannot compare Jim and Sally in terms of freedom? That we cannot say that Jim is freer than Sally? That they are both equally unfree?

Example 3: The Freedom Party is elected in Ontario. Paul is busy undoing decades worth of bad regulations and bad policies. However, he finds that he doesn’t have all the time in the world, and neither does his team. After four years in office, Ontarioans have full Randian freedom, except Paul never got to that one book of regulations in the corner, the regulations with respect to stage coaches. Those regulations remain on the books (in that one dusty book, actually). Paul’s view implies that we can say a whole bevy of things (like, “we’re better off,” “there is less regulation,” “we have lower taxes,” etc.), but we cannot say what, really, we all would want to say. Namely, we can’t say that Ontario is any freer, or that freedom has increased in Ontario. As long as anti-freedom stage coach regulations are on the books, we are unfree. We’re in the same position in Ontario with respect to freedom as North Korea.

Baffling!

It may be true that freedom is about who decides. But it seems clear that when the answer is “I do, with one exception” then that person is more free compared to when the answer is “the central committee does.”

There is no reason to think of “freedom” as an all-or-nothing concept. Freedom really does come in degrees. And since it comes in degrees, we can compare the relative positions of different countries in terms of freedom. (Liberty works the same way).


Paul McKeever’s Rebuttal:

I agree with Peter’s statement that “… the common sense observation is not really an answer to Paul’s objections, since Paul is aware that his conception of freedom is revisionary, or different from the conception that we have in mind when we invoke freedom”. However, I disagree that the absolute definition of freedom that I advocate serves no function.

A thing is what it is, and only what it is. A thing that writes English literature and does crossword puzzles is not a dog, even if it goes “woof-woof” and wags its tail. If the word “freedom” is to have a function, it certainly must refer to some thing in particular. Freedom is an absolute, not a malleable blob of epistemological clay or a moving target.

Peter writes that my position on freedom “…makes nonsense out of ordinary ways of speaking that, I think, we’ll want to preserve”. There’s no such causation about it. Ordinary ways of speaking are often nonsense, irrespective of anything I say, and ordinary ways of using the word “freedom” are among the most frequently nonsensical. That some “we” out there “want(s)” to continue speaking nonsense (see also Peter’s example #1) does not mean that speaking nonsense serves human beings well. To the contrary, quaint, folksy, whimsical, floating, shape-shifting uses of the word “freedom” serve only the purpose of obfuscating the concept that I submit the word “freedom” is best used to refer to.

Re: Peter’s Scenario 2: Jim from Canada (who is to be jailed for doing something so peaceful as clipping his own toe-nails) and Sally in North Korea (how did a “Sally” end up there?) are neither equally free nor equally unfree. Equality implies a continuum and, when it comes to freedom, there is no continuum. When one rejects the assertion that Jim and Sally are allegedly “equally” X, one is doing so because the use of the word “equally” implies X to be a word that refers to something that can exist in varying quantities, like heat, thirst, or crime. Take Sally and North Korea out of the picture: would you consider a person to be living in a free country if his government could throw him into jail for clipping his toe nails? Take Jim out of the picture: would you consider a person living in North Korea to be free because nobody punishes her for clipping her toe nails? The answer, in both cases, is “no”.

Re: Peter’s Scenario 3: I begin my response to this scenario by noting, in obiter, that the current course of Ontario’s economy might require Ontario to keep its stage coach regulations in place. More to the point: if the stage coach regulation were one pursuant to which the government defends individuals’ life, liberty or property, it would not be “anti-freedom”, and its existence would not imply that Ontario is not free. But, were it to be a regulation banning stage coaches for the mystical reason that the Holy Book says man shall never sit in a horse-drawn carriage, it would indeed be the case that the continued existence of that bad law (assuming it was being enforced) would render Ontario an unfree society.

Think of it this way. You are placed in a prison cell where you will be left to rot if you do not leave the prison. The door to the cell is unlocked and you could walk right out of the prison without facing any resistance were it not for four things: each of your four limbs is separately chained to the wall. You share the cell with another man, whose left arm is chained to the wall, but whose other arm and two legs are not chained to the wall. Are you free? Is he?

Comments

6 Responses to “Degrees of Freedom?”

  1. SimonOR on March 15th, 2011 8:57 pm

    The creeps are so lame-brained that they are actually incapable of retaining or even apprehending a concept.
    Freedom is a concept.
    The slug-muck that serves them for brains would be rejected by the zombie community as it fails even to understand what freedom is.

    Freedom is the absence of physical restraint on any action you choose to make.
    Freedom is also the absence of any intimidatory psychological influence in ones mind, but as this is the result of the former definition, it should be able to stand alone.

    Haters of freedom attempt via the means of sneaking and cowardice (particularly behavioral fraud) to inculcate such intimidation in order to clear the way for monsters like Gaddafi, Hitler or Stalin, who will certainly come to light again if these sneaks get their way.

    There are many haters of freedom; the lunatic arithmetic of ‘trade’ in liberty comes about based on the premise that hatred is caused by financial poverty. This pathetic lie is a statistician’s view of the fact that in conditions of economic justice, scum gathers at the bottom of the barrel.

    The ‘compromise’ seeks to elevate the scum to positions of undeserved prosperity in the ludicrous belief that this will somehow stop them being evil.

    And so, evil is raised like a fist over us no matter our situation; this is the purpose of the trade.
    To make escape impossible.

    The talk about freedom afterwards is just noises to prevent Libyan-style outbursts of truth.

  2. simonor on March 15th, 2011 9:05 pm

    Test

  3. Paul McKeever on March 16th, 2011 12:54 pm

    Errata: I had written at least two sentences wrongly in an earlier edit of my “Degrees of Freedom?” essay, above.

    1. “He is, in a word, “free”, because – and only because – nobody takes his life, liberty or property without his consent.”, (at the end of paragraph 3), used to read: “He is, in a word, “free”, because – and only because – nobody prevents him from acting rationally or from using his property rationally.” That was incorrect. See point 2 to see why.

    2. “It follows that a free society is one in which no individual’s life, liberty, or property is taken from him without his consent. The effect of freedom is that no person is prevented from, or punished for, acting upon his own rational beliefs and decisions. Such self-determination or sovereignty…”, (in paragraph 5) used to read: “It follows that a free society is one in which no individual is prevented from, or punished for, acting upon his own rational beliefs and decisions; a society in which all such prevention is contrary to Objective law, defended against, and met with appropriate retaliation. Such self-determination or sovereignty…”. The erroneous aspect of the earlier version was that was speaking about one *effect* of freedom, rather than about freedom itself. In short: it was under-inclusive, because, in a free society, there are also *some* irrational beliefs and decisions for which no person is punished.

  4. Glenn on March 16th, 2011 6:24 pm

    It seems to me that McKeever and Jaworski are talking about two different things. McKeever is saying that bald means having no hair on your head. Jaworski is saying that Blondes are closer to bald than are Red Heads.

  5. simonor on March 16th, 2011 9:53 pm

    Nobody is prevented from doing anything period. Unless it is a crime.
    That’s what ‘crime’ is, nothing to do with ‘rational beliefs’.
    Taking recreational drugs is often delusional and irrational; in no sense is using a hypodermic pleasurable.
    It is irrational, the result of addiction, psychological disintegration.

    By the definition above, it is a crime.
    But we both know it isn’t.

    Crime is the initiation of force by one individual or group. Law is the reactive counter-action which removes the freedom to act of criminals.
    That’s why they are ‘arrested’.

  6. SergioM on March 21st, 2011 10:30 pm

    Mr. Jaworski is confusing “liberties” with the concept of freedom. He would have us believe that a slave was “more free” than a fellow slave if he enjoyed “more” liberties such as a right to privacy, the right to earn a wage, or perhaps even the right to procreate.

    The slave with more liberties is certainly better able (has more opportunity) to “enjoy” his life – but what Mr. Jaworski conveniently skates over is the fact that our slave remains a slave, regardless of how many liberties he enjoys at the pleasure of his master.

    A Canadian is not “more free” than a North Korean. Rather, the North Korean simply enjoys less liberties than his contemporary in Canada. Like North Korea, Canada holds the political belief that “rights” are granted by the State – the master of the individual. Neither citizen is “free” – in any sense of the word. Rather, the Canadian “masters” grant more liberties.

    Mr. Jaworski hides these obvious conclusions by hiding in “common sense” and playing the demagogue – never failing to appeal to emotion and conveniently evading the need to define his terms in any meaningful sense.

    Such reasoning and argumentation is quintessential libertarian.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!