| re: NJC: Freedom - Financial opportunity or reduced responsibility? | |
|
Posted by: |
JimmyG 05:44 am UTC 04/22/09 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Freedom - Financial opportunity or reduced responsibility? - John_Galt 09:29 pm UTC 04/21/09 |
| John, I was referring to the post about your blog, which made me think about the "freedom contradictions" mentioned below. Thanks for the video link - I don't have time/patience to listen to all of it right now, and the message seems to be pretty similar to what I've already heard numerous times before. It has some credible points - in theory - but it doesn't quite work out in practice (IMHO). A couple of examples (wild liberal views): The public transportation systems in most of America is worse than in Northern Europe, thus, people are basically forced to drive to get around, which limits the freedom when it comes to the number of available efficient modes of transportation. Sure, you can take the Amtrak from Santa Barbara to San Francisco (for example), but it will take anything from eight to 10 hours depending on delays. If you drive, it takes 5-6 hours, but you have to focus primarily on driving. However, if there was a fast train available that could you take you between Santa Barbara and San Francisco in 2-3 hours (the technology's already available in countries such as France and Germany), you'd have total freedom to decide what to do with your time - work on your laptop, listen to music, just sit back and relax etc. Not even flying can beat that once you take into account check-in time, take-off, landing etc. I think a lot of people would choose that mode of transportation if it was available, which would reduce the number of cars on the streets and reduce the tax money spent on road maintenance etc. However, you may be asking why drivers should pay taxes to pay for a fast train that they may never end up using...let me switch the discussion around to a totally different subject - food! Why should I pay taxes for the healthcare system to care of people on a bad diet (being hospitalized for heart problems and other health issues related to a bad diet) if I eat a good diet? Perhaps it's the humane thing to pay higher taxes in this case? But a guy who's addicted to pot and sent to jail cannot be treated for his addiction? Isn't that inhumane? Sugar and fat are also addictive substances if consumed in sufficiently large amounts. So, what to do? How about putting higher taxes on "bad food" and correspondingly lower taxes on "good food". Obviously that would mean a bit more government bureacracy, but there could be huge benefits: 1. It might give people an incentive to eat better food, thus, reducing costs for healthcare. 2. Even if people still eat the same crappy food but only pays more for it, that extra revenue could be used to pay for healthcare costs. The people eating good food are being rewarded with cheaper groceries, while staying healthy and getting a little "tax break" for being responsible citizens and not burdening society with their healthcare problems (often) caused by a bad diet. /Jimmy --------------------- > Jimmy, > > I'm not sure what post you're referring to, but thanks for > commenting. > > I agree that happiness and freedom from want for things > like leisure, food, health care, and entertainment are > important, but I value the freedom to choose my own path > more. When it comes to individual will and drive, I'm > just not convinced that social policy can address my needs > as well as liberty. > > Unfortunately, I think you might also be correct that the > distinction between what freedom means in the United > States and what it means in Northern Europe is and has > been eroding for some time. > > If you'd like to learn more about my perspective, a very > good discussion can be found here: > > http://www.ideachannel.tv/ > > I don't agree with Milt on everything, but we come pretty > close most of the time. Also, many of my favorite > economists and thinkers were Europeans. Names like Ludwig > Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Wilhem Roepkek come to > mind. > > -=John Galt=- > > > > This is a loose reply on John Galt's post below. > > > > There is a lot of good things that can be said about > > America w.r.t financial opportunity etc. However, these > > things may not necessarily correlate with "freedom", which > > is a very vague word with a million nuances except for its > > opposite - slavery. Anything in between is diffuse. > > > > For example - most citizens of a country belong to the > > "working class", which may also include parts of the > > middle class according to the American definition. The net > > salaries for the "working class" in (northern) Europe and > > America are comparable after substracting taxes, costs of > > living etc. > > > > However, European workers (at least in northern Europe) > > generally have better benefits than American workers - > > more vacation days, better healthcare coverage etc. All of > > these things correlate with certain aspects of "quality of > > life", which includes reduced responsibility. > > > > As far as I recall, Denmark now has the highest taxes in > > the world (even higher than those in Sweden since a couple > > of years back), but a large survey still found that Danes > > are the happiest people in the world. This could probably > > partially be attributed to the Danish welfare system in > > combination with an overall more easy-going attitude > > towards towards life than, say, the Swedes, which enjoy > > similar welfare benefits but seems to be less happy. > > > > This reduced responsibility may be one of the explanations > > why the Danes are the most free people in the world, at > > least if happiness is an indicator of freedom. On the > > other hand, Americans are probably the most free people in > > the world with regards to "pursuit of happiness", since > > society promotes endless new opportunities as a way of > > life (and for some people it is also a fact). > > > > I'm not saying that one system is better than the other, > > just that the word "freedom" is misused. Once basic human > > rights have been fulfilled, it is no longer clear whether > > freedom should be universally correlated with > > materialistic/career success or "peace of mind" - these > > two factors may or may not be counterparts. > > > > It is true that America was originally "Land of the free, > > home of the brave", and it may still be "Home of the > > brave" (fighting two wars etc) but the freedom part is > > less clear. (Northern) Europe today is very different from > > the Europe that many American ancestors once left, and > > many Europeans enjoy priviliges which make them - in some > > ways - more free than Americans living similar lives. > > > > Although there will always be a lot of anti-Americanism in > > Europe despite the tone of the presidential rhetoric, I do > > think that this non-universal notion of "freedom" is out > > of place and has nothing to do with the 21st century, at > > least with regards to America vs. (Northern) Europe. > > > > /Jimmy G. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: NJC: Freedom - Financial opportunity or reduced responsibility? - John_Galt 09:29 pm UTC 04/21/09 |
| Next: | re: NJC: Freedom - Financial opportunity or reduced responsibility? - John_Galt 09:07 am UTC 04/22/09 |
| Thread: |
|