[This is part of a series of posts on Friedrich A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Here's the full list.]

Is it possible to talk about "freedom" in a politically meaningful way? In daily usage, the word implies a vague absense of restrictions on your ability to do what you want, and, for daily use, this is good enough. I can say that I am free to vote, free of debt, free tomorrow evening, free to buy an expensive car, and it is clear what I mean: Noone will prevent me from voting, I owe nobody money, I have no plans for tomorrow, and I have enough money for a car. (Three out of four isn't bad.) I can talk about having free will, and of making a decision "freely", and though abstract, it's still pretty clear what I mean by that. "Free" can be used in all these contexts without causing confusion, despite having different meanings. Language is flexible that way.

But when we talk about freedom in a political context, we can't be vague and inclusive. We can't combine all these meanings in one big fuzzy ideal of "freedom". We'll end up reaching towards contradictory goals, as if they were equally important aspects of the same idea. They are not. We can't be both "free" to spend our money as we like, "free" to afford what we need, and "free" to fly with mind power. Before we can do anything else with it, the word "freedom" must be untangled, and its different meanings prioritized.

To Hayek, the most important kind of freedom is absence of coercion, or "independence from the arbitrary will of another". It "refers solely to a relation of men to other men", not to physical or economical reality. Having a lack of choices does not make you unfree. Having choices removed from you by another person, in order to make you act as they like, however, does.

The question of how many courses of action are open to a person is, of course, very important. But it is a different question from that of how far in acting he can follow his own plans and intentions, to what extent the pattern of his conduct is of his own design, directed toward ends for which he has been persistently striving rather than toward necessities created by others in order to make him do what they want. Whether he is free or not does not depend on the range of choice but on whether he can expect to shape his course of action in accordance with his present intentions, or whether somebody else has power so to manipulate the conditions as to make him act according to that person's will rather than his own. Freedom thus presupposes that the individual has some assured private sphere, that there is some set of circumstances in his environment with which others cannot interfere.

I'll refer to this as individual freedom. (Hayek and many with him prefer "liberty", but that's just another word for freedom, too strongly associated with positive emotions to be discussed sanely, and vague enough to be vulnerable to the inclusiveness as "freedom".) The alternative concepts of freedom, which Hayek defines against individual freedom, are political freedom, inner freedom, and physical freedom.

Political freedom, or democracy, is the ability of a people to choose its own leaders and laws. Though this is probably necessary to ensure individual freedom, it's not sufficient to ensure it, or equal to it. It is, as Hayek puts it, a "sort of collective liberty". When we talk about a people being free from a foreign oppressor, for instance, we mean it "in the sense of absence of coercion of a people as a whole". "The people" is free as a group, but that does not mean that they are free as individuals. Democracy is dangerous as the ultimate ideal not only because it is vulnerable to anti-democratic mass movements, as when the Germans voted in Hitler, or because a majority can oppress a minority, but because there's no guarantee that the people even wants individual freedom. Democracy is only a step on the road, a large and necessary step, but not the goal itself.

Inner freedom is the ability to act as you want to act, and not be overcome by distractions, fears, addictions or passions. To protect our inner freedom is to ensure that people can act out their "real" intentions as much as possible, without their "fake" intentions being exploited by outsiders. In effect it is to protect people from themselves. Where political freedom is too collective to be our goal, inner freedom zooms too far into the individual. Basing a society on some "real" me hidden beneath a layer of fakeness leaves our freedoms open to attacks from psychology and philosophy. For one thing, free will is an illusion, and so is the existence of some "real" me watching from the inside. Even if you don't agree with that, untangling fake from supposedly real desires is intractable. We're left with an arbitrary scale of genuinity to guide us: Some may believe that an addiction is not a genuine motivation, but a violent impulse may be, unless it's caused by genes. Others may say that decisions made with our "free will" by our "inner self" or "soul" are genuine, but what if I don't share your belief in the existence of these things? What is the point of granting freedoms it cannot use to an inner self that does not exist? Science may give us a meaningful definition of inner freedom in the future, (though I doubt it), but what do we do while we wait? We must ignore inner freedom alltogether, and base our freedoms on the individual as a whole, real and fake desires together.

This means that we must be skeptical of the temptation to restrict individual freedom to protect inner freedom. Many want to limit our exposure to advertisements for addictive products like alcohol or tobacco. Or they want to limit my ability to work overtime. They believe that there is an inner me whose freedoms must be protected against my own disposition to harm myself. And sometimes they're right. I don't think heroin should be sold freely, for instance. But we have to be aware that this is an exception to individual freedom, and not an extension of it. We can't base a society on inner freedom. There's no way to do it in a consistent way. There are too many forces to consider, too many unknowns. The ideal must be individual freedom, and we have to think carefully before we make exceptions.

Physical freedom, or power, is the ability to do what we want, to "satisfy our wishes". Where individual freedom is absence of coercion, power is absence of restraints. Coercion is to be "made to do particular things". A restraint may be anything that stands in your way, anything that prevents you from reaching your goals. It sounds obvious that individual power is a meaningless ideal, but phrased differently, it is the basis of socialism and social democracy. I believe that individual power can be a worthy political goal, but, as with inner freedom, we have to be aware that we're making an exception to a more important rule. If we forget that, we begin to see every lack or inequality in power as a problem to solve.

Wealth is a subset of power, and the form that most easily grabs priority over individual freedom. We all want wealth, and if we don't all experience poverty, we can all visualize and empathize with it. I too believe that wealth should be redistributed, but not to fight inequality. Inequality is a good thing, it is poverty that is our enemy. Socialists and social democrats have equality as their primary goal, with individual freedom a sacrificable nice-to-have. But if elimination of poverty is your goal, individual freedom is the primary means to reach it, and exceptions must be made with that in mind.

Hayek goes even further in separating power and wealth from individual freedom:

We must recognize that we may be free and yet miserable. Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils. It is true that to be free may mean freedom to starve, to make costly mistakes, or to run mortal risks. In the sense in which we use the term, the penniless vagabond who lives precariously by constant improvisation is indeed freer than the conscripted soldier with all his security and relative comfort.

There is a tendency among libertarians to see individual wealth as somehow a physical manifestation of individual freedom. The poor boy who makes himself a millionaire is glorified, as someone who through strength and perseverance has reached his goal, become a success. This not only leaves them open to the attack that they favor the rich and strong, while socialists favor the poor and weak. It also takes focus away from the way individual freedom reaches its goals through the failure and the moderate success of less remarkable - but free - people. Freedom and wealth are separate things. Extreme individual wealth is a byproduct of a more general increase in wealth and well-being, not the spiritual justification of individual freedom.

I am a free individual in most of the senses that matter to me personally, and that freedom allows me to use my abilities to reach my own goals: Fun, knowledge, meaning. Wealth is on that list too, but not at the top, and a libertarianism that fetishizes material success holds no interest for me. Nor does it deserve our support.

Coercion, the opposite of individual freedom, is a tricky concept, which requires an explanation:

By "coercion" we mean such control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another. Except in the sense of choosing the lesser evil in a situation forced on him by another, he is unable either to use his own intelligence or knowledge or to follow his own aims and beliefs. Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another. Free action, in which a person pursues his own aims by the means indicated by his own knowledge, must be based on data which cannot be shaped at will by another. It presupposes the existence of a known sphere in which the circumstances cannot be so shaped by another person as to leave one only that choice prescriped by the other.

And if only it were that simply, we could embrace anarchism, and end all coercion with a wave of our magic wand. But it is not, and Hayek recognizes it.

Coercion, however, cannot be altogether avoided because the only way to prevent it is by the threat of coercion. Free society has met this problem by conferring the monopoly of coercion on the state and by attempting to limit this power of the state to instances where it is required to prevent coercion by private persons.

So we end up with a question of balance. To believe in individual freedom as a solution to all problems, to be unquestionably introduced wherever imaginable, is a sign of fanaticism. That kind of fanaticism has taught me to suspect all self-described libertarians, (perhaps unfairly to the sane ones). We should not embrace individual freedom as the solution to all problems, but prioritize it as the most important of several incompatible kinds of freedoms. A starting point for a further search for balance, not a silver bullet.

Even recognizing that there are different incompatible kinds of freedom to prioritize, that "we cannot, by sacrificing a little of [one kind of freedom], on balance gain some common element of freedom", would be a good beginning. It is difficult to discuss politics meaningfully when everyone agrees that freedom and liberty is good, but nobody agrees on what freedom is. If I can't convince everyone to adopt my priorities, I hope we can at least throw these empty feel-good words out of our political vocabulary.

I find the discussion of freedom as a stand alone concept too limiting in the context of any society. All societies place restrictions of some sort on its members -- whether by shame, guilt or criminal penalties. I am of the view that “freedom” must be juxtaposed to “responsibility” in order to have a meaningful analysis.

Herbie: I am of the view that “freedom” must be juxtaposed to “responsibility” in order to have a meaningful analysis.

Yes, but before you can do that you need to have an idea of what kind of freedom we're talking about. Freedom is not one thing. There is no such thing as "freedom as a stand alone concept". We just treat it as if it were, as if the freedom I happen to believe in is the same as the one everyone else believes in, leading to confusion when these ideals lead us in different directions.

People fight over ownership of the words "freedom" and "liberty" as if having a meaningless concept on your side proves them right. This distracts us from what we really disagree about. The right accuses the left of being against "freedom", when they're really against individual freedom. The left say they believe in "freedom" to a degree, but that the right takes it too far, when what they really mean is that they prioritize equality and inner freedom over individual freedom.

I think that individual freedoms should be what our governments strive to safeguard and promote. We're social creatures, certainly, and need society, but I don't want my fellow citizens (in government guise) telling me how to live my private life. Social democrats and religious fundamentalists everywhere seem to want to do just that -- tell us what we can and can't do in our private lives. On the other hand, I expect my government to provide an environment that is safe and rich in opportunities for spiritual and material growth. What we need to agree on is what constitutes that environment. Each culture will have its own ideas about what that environment should be like. In Norway, I think, people expect more support from government than do people here in America. Norwegians are willing to pay more in taxes for a more robust social welfare and are more willing to concede a degree of personal liberty in exchange for those protections. Of course, we have social democrats here in this country, too, who look longingly on the European models. They won't get far, though, I believe, since the more popular model in this country is still that of a government that is more "hands off". I prefer what we have here as a starting point. I don't want government telling me how to think or make love, but I do want it to underwrite my health insurance. I want it to protect me from terrorists, and I want it to provide a basic education. I think that the US government's relationship to business is about right. It should police industry, but it should not dictate business practice.

I think that each region of the world will have its own idea of what it wants government to do. People in different regions will have different ideas about the degree to which government should regulate individual behavior. One country's idea of what should be allowed under the rubric "freedom of speech" may differ considerably from what is tolerated in another country.

I have not been subject to a great deal of government coercion in the US. I escaped the draft and shipment to Vietnam, and that was my closest scrape with coercive government in this country.

However, a form of coercion that I and every other working person has experienced is work in the service of another. I never enjoyed being told what to do or how to do it. When I retired a few years ago, I really felt I had escaped a kind of slavery and only now begun to live. This brand of coercion will probably never be eradicated, but it can be ameliorated. If a government can provide its citizenry with a vibrant economy that offers opportunity -- that is, choice -- then employers will be forced to relax their tyranny in the workplace. They will be forced to compete with other employers in offering a friendlier and more free environment, in which employees are encouraged to take ownership of their work and make bigger decisions. A government can also provide a good basic education and make available opportunities for further study. An educated person is better equipped to become a valuable employee. A valuable employee is given more freedom and receives better pay and better treatment. Thus, government can provide the tools and conditions that allow us rise above forms of coercion in the private economy.

Bank Robber Itemizes Cost of Gun
As on Fox News today:

A bank robber in the southern Dutch town of Chaam was able to subtract the cost of his gun from his fine, the Daily Telegraph of London reported.

The unnamed stickup man, 46, managed to convince a criminal court in Breda, near the Belgian border, that the $2,600 he spent on his pistol was a legitimate business expense. The judge accordingly reduced the amount of restitution from $8,750, the amount stolen from the bank, to $6,150, before sentencing the robber to four years in prison earlier this week.

"You can compare criminal acts to normal business activities, where you must invest to make profits, and thus you have costs," explained Leendert de Lange, a spokesman for the national prosecutor's office.

De Lange went further to state that drug dealers could also deduct the cost of vehicles used to make deliveries of illicit substances - within reason.

Asked whether a very successful drug kingpin could cite the cost of a Ferrari (search), de Lange replied: "No, he would have to prove that he needed the car to transport the drugs around, * * * Furthermore, Dutch criminals had better be prepared to present receipts. "You can't just tell the judge you spent 10,000 euro without any proof," de Lange said.

Day-to-day expenses don't count either, only costs directly related to the crime, said Gerard Sta, director of the Office of Criminal Assets, told De Standaard newspaper of Amsterdam.

"A second condition is that the criminal offense must be carried out," Sta added. "The idea is that crime does not pay," summed up de Lange, "but you are allowed to claim your expenses."

Sorry for posting the article rather than a link, but I really did think it was priceless and more or less related to the topic at hand.
:-)

Bjorn,

If I’m to understand correctly the form of liberalism you refer to in this post, and that which is embraced by Hayek (I think), is more associated with a utopian (my read) system of social order that provides for individual freedoms, equality before the law, representative decision-making in matters of law, and limits on governmental power. At this time I must confess, that description was plagiarized from another site, as I simply became dizzy and confused going back and forth trying to understand exactly what you were trying to saying, and so eloquently I might add.

Actually in my daze, what I read all sound wonderful and very appealing to me personally. Such a form of assured individual liberties would put me in full charge of my destiny. I would however have to hold myself accountable for much more than I do today. Be that as it may, I accept that responsibility!

However, before this utopian system of social liberalism can function, and it must function flawlessly or we’re back to square one, I’ll need to ask a few hard questions; i.e., how do you propose we deal with enforcement regarding greediness, selfishness, meanness, and trespassers?

I’m a poor displaced Nordski yankee living on the other side of the pond where I’ve come to believe that social liberty and personal liberties are linked, and both come at a price; a price many find too difficult to comprehend, let along address, or willing to pay. The companion question then must be asked; how the decision will be made who pays what, when, and how much will be needed to guaranteed these liberties.

Just asking that question(s) has exhausted me. I must take a nap.

Geronimo: However, before this utopian system of social liberalism can function, and it must function flawlessly or we’re back to square one, I’ll need to ask a few hard questions; i.e., how do you propose we deal with enforcement regarding greediness, selfishness, meanness, and trespassers?

Well, I don't think there is a complete system of liberalism described in this chapter, just some clarifications about the meanings of freedom, and a so far unsupported claim that individual freedom is important. More about setting the conditions for being able to talk about freedom than actually describing how a free society works.

I'm not sure what you mean by dealing with greediness, selfishness, meanness and trespassers. How do we deal with these things today, and is that how you think it should be done?

And remember that compromises are allowed. To base a society on one set of inflexible ideals (maximum individual freedom!) is just dumb. It's okay to sacrifice individual freedom, but we should think carefully about what we're doing.

necessary adjunct to this discussion is a book written by a U. of Chicago Law School professor several years ago: “Simple Rules for a Complex World” by Richard A. Epstein. As well described by a reviewer and, in far fewer words then I would be able to he says:

“Epstein takes us back to first principles to construct a legal system based on simple rules as an antidote to the ridiculously complex legal rules of today. . . . and derives the six basic rules that should underpin all law:

- Self-ownership: Each person owns himself and his labor

- First possession: Property is created, and owned, by the first person that uses it.

- Voluntary exchange

- Protection against aggression

- Limited privilege in cases of necessity

- Just compensation when taking private property for public use

Based on these rules, he then proceeds to analyze existing law, which in many instances harms society instead of protecting it or maximizing gains. * * *”

My own view is that at bottom unless you have economic freedom that all else is simply speculation. Ultimatley it is cost or perceived that influences human action.

"You can be free and miserable".
Growing up in occupied Norway I understand that statement, however, it is closer to happiness than being unfree and miserable.

There are some odd juxtapositions here.

1) "You can be free and miserable". Well, of course. If you are free you are resposible for your own misery quotient. If you are NOT free than someone else can make you miserable.

2) "However, a form of coercion that I and every other working person has experienced is work in the service of another. I never enjoyed being told what to do or how to do it." Um, Gil, who coerced you to work for another? In the US you could have started your own business and worked for yourself like millions of people. You seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for your own choice here and blame the government for not providing, what exactly? Is this it? "Thus, government can provide the tools and conditions that allow us rise above forms of coercion in the private economy." Again, how exactly were you "coerced" by the private economy?

I'm a "wage slave" because of my own choice. Tried working for myself and a) wasn't good enough at all the things I needed to do to be successful and b) the cost benefit equation came down on the side of working for someone else. No coercion there, just my choice. And, if I didn't like working for company A, I went to work for company B.

People seem to forget that being free doesn't gauruntee you success and comfort. It just allows you to succeed OR fail on your own terms.

A simple way to look at rights and freedom is to picture an individual alone on a large island. There is the ultimate freedom, but, also the ultimate in personal accountability. You can have any kind of house you want, as long as you build it. You can have all the food you want, as long as you grow/hunt/raise it, you can say or do anything. All the choices are yours, AL0NG with all the consequences. Too many people today seem to think that freedom includes freedom from suffering the consequences of one's own actions.

As is said elsewhere "Cause, meet effect".

Bjørn,

I had to go back and read your original post again because I needed to confirm the topic “Hayek: Liberty and Liberties.” From your perspective, for Hayek, the most important kind of freedom is the absence of coercion, and/or independence from the arbitrary will of others. He refers solely to a relation of men to other men, not to physical or economical reality.

Unfortunately, we live in a real-time world. Why would we waste time discussing something other than the real world? That is why I needed to establish precedence by asking “how do you plan on dealing with greediness, selfishness, meanness and trespassers in a world absent of coercion, and independence from the arbitrary will of another’s.

I’m not wise enough to judge another’s, but if you commit a trespass against me in this world I’m going to react with anger. The consequence of stealing my food because you are hungry will be different than stealing to make a profit. But, in a perfect world nobody will be hungry, right? Rape my daughter or wife in this world and I’m going to want a pound (maybe several pounds) of flesh from the offender. The list of exceptions goes on; that’s why we have laws; however imperfect, because consequences need to be established for the offenders. Unfortunately most of our laws are written by imperfect souls with differing agendas, ideologies, and philosophies.

Herbie mentioned Epstein‘s, “Simple Rules for a Complex World” (a book I’m not familiar), listing six basic rules that should be the foundation for all laws.

• Self-ownership: Each person owns himself and his labor
• First possession: Property is created, and owned, by the first person that uses it.
• Voluntary exchange
• Protection against aggression
• Limited privilege in cases of necessity.
• Just compensation when taking private property for public use

I concur. But, you and I could sit down with Epstein’s simple rules and independently come up with a completely different set of laws simply because we look at our world from different perspectives.

Example: I believe members of Iraq’s body of constitutional framers, who will be elected on January 30, 2005, will come up with a different Constitution than the framers of say the United States Constitution first written in 1776, which went through 39 revisions and finally adopated by congress 11 years later. Likewise it will differ from that which was developed for Norway’s Constitutional Monarchy at the turn of the 20th Century. I suspect the differences will be glaring, but vaguely familiar.

To cap my earlier statement, I don’t know were you intend on going with this. Unless it is to possibly draw attention on what may, or may not, be accomplished in Iraq over the next several years in establishing a government that will completely reshape politics in the Middle East. A Constitutional Democracy in a country based on Islamic Law. How would a Westerner measure the success of this effort? Depending on ones expectations, you may be a witness to a modern-day miracle.

AlanC -- I'll quote a little of what you wrote, then respond. Here's what you wrote:

2) "However, a form of coercion that I and every other working person has experienced is work in the service of another. I never enjoyed being told what to do or how to do it." Um, Gil, who coerced you to work for another? In the US you could have started your own business and worked for yourself like millions of people. You seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for your own choice here and blame the government for not providing, what exactly? Is this it? "Thus, government can provide the tools and conditions that allow us rise above forms of coercion in the private economy." Again, how exactly were you "coerced" by the private economy?

It's true, AlanC, that I could have started my own company, and I might have been happier in my work, had I done that. Provided, of course, that I had succeeded. Still, I had the choice -- you are right about that. But is it realistic to think that we can all work for ourselves? I think not. Some people will lack the capital or the talent or the peronality to go out and start their own companies. There are certain occupations that will always require a large-company environment. And so I think we must reconcile ourselves to the idea that there will always be more employees than employers. We are not OBLIGED to devise a government to provides opportunity and a pleasant work environment for employees. We don't have a RIGHT to expect a work environment that offers us choice and possibilities for spiritual and professional growth. But we can CHOOSE, as a society, to devise a government that promotes the kind of economy that encourages this sort of work environment. Actually, the US has done a pretty good job, I think, of providing just that kind of economy. Though I was not happy working for others, I have to admit that I had more freedom, as a software engineer, than do many others in our society. I think we're headed in the right direction. We spend most of our waking hours (in America, at least) at work. As a society, then, I believe we should try to maximize the amount of freedom that a person can enjoy during those hours.

AlanC, you wrote:

I'm a "wage slave" because of my own choice. Tried working for myself and a) wasn't good enough at all the things I needed to do to be successful and b) the cost benefit equation came down on the side of working for someone else. No coercion there, just my choice. And, if I didn't like working for company A, I went to work for company B.

Me, too, AlanC. When I didn't like the environment or opportunities at Company A, I moved to Company B. Thank god I lived in a country and a place (Silicon Valley) where I had so much choice. It was an employee's job market in my day. Like you, I chose to work for others. But we can agree, I think, that things are better for the employee when employers must compete to attract their workers. All I am saying, then, is that a society should recognize the importance of a free and liberal market environment, where innovation and entrepreneurship are encouraged. Where competition is encouraged. America already believes in this idea. Societies that believe in managed economies approach worker satisfaction in other ways -- by reducing work hours (as in Germany, previously), by providing nurseries for workers' kids, etc. A little of that might not be bad. Socialized medicine, for example, could benefit American industry. I read recently that GM adds $2800 to the cost of each car in order to pay employee pension and healthcare costs. For Toyota, on the other hand, the cost is just $280 per car. There are ways in which government might assist industry without stifling competition or efficiency.

Gill, oh shit.

I just typed a long answer and lost it trying to get back from preview to post.

Summary:

1) We pretty much agree.
2) Only the government (or a criminal) can really use coercion. If you don't like something they can shoot you. (yeah, sooner or later depending on the specifics) If you don't like your employer you can leave and that's it.
3) The government should not be doing things that are "good" for industry because then industry gets control of the coercive force.
4) Socialized medicine may be good for industry but it generally sucks for individuals, patients AND doctors.
5) The government should set the rules of interaction in the economy BUT not be a participant. Government getting too involved becomes a conflict of interest with its proper role of referee

AlanC wrote:

"4) Socialized medicine may be good for industry but it generally sucks for individuals, patients AND doctors."

Alan, I lived a short time in Norway and went once to the doctor. I didn't like the doctor's hostility (as I perceived it). I was a long-haired, bearded foreigner, and he might have thought I was mooching. But, anyway, it was free medical care, and I thought that was great. Right now, I'm paying $440 per month to cover myself and my two kids. And that's with an annual $2000 deductible per family member. That's damned expensive, I think. Now, you might be right about socialized medicine -- I don't know, since my only experience with the beast is those two years in Norway. Do you live in a country where you have to rely on socialized medicine? Tell me about it, if so. I would be interested in knowing what has contributed to your opinion of socialized medicine.

AlanC wrote:

"5) The government should set the rules of interaction in the economy BUT not be a participant. Government getting too involved becomes a conflict of interest with its proper role of referee."

Yes, I too subscribe to that idea. Still, there are things that government could do to assist (such as socialized medicine, nursery centers maybe) that would help industry without interfering in its business. Like you, I am wary of too much government, but I probably lean a bit more Democratic than you do. I was a Democrat, but recently registered independant as a sort of protest. In a democratic society, we ought to be able to reconcile our differences and find practical solutions. Unfortunately, we are so polarized now in this country -- government seems less and less productive as it more and more gets hung up in partisan bickering and obstructionism.

I mentioned before that different regions of the world will have different notions of what freedom means and different ideas about how much individual freedom they want to barter for government guarantees of social welfare. It occurs to me that the size of a country (or federation) also matters. A small country like Norway might have to rely on government for services that a larger country like mine can hand over to the private sector. I'm not an economist or a political scientist, though -- I'm just babbling.

Bjørn,

Far from the expectation that your blog would fade, but the exact opposite has happened, thanks to you. You have spawned a great discussion about freedom. What can be better than europeans discussing Hayek? Kudos dude!

Gunnar

Bjorn,

I now must back peddle and commend you on your choice of topic, Hayek: Liberty and Liberties.

If one, such as myself, is not familiar with Friedrich August von Hayek, a brief bio and overview of his lifes work on social reform be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#Quotation

Good topic.

Gill, I live in a socialist country, Massachusetts.

If you want to know about socialized medicine and its negative impacts on liberty there are lots of good discussions around...or you can just look back to Hillarycare discussions. The key point is that the laborer (aka doctor) is restricted in charging for his services what HE thinks they're worth.

"From each according to his abilities...." is not a phrase that denotes liberty.

I certainly understand that the cost of medical care in the US is screwy (not necessarily high) but socialism is by definition anti-liberal in an economic sense because the individual loses the freedom to sell his labor to the highest bidder, or not. A persons labor is his ultimate possesion and if some one else can tell you what to do, when and how much you'll get for it; AND you have no choice in the matter, then you are not free.

The whole socialism gig is based on individuals losing control. For instance, you can NOT have any right that requires someone elses labor or cooperation. You have no right to demand that I provide you with medical care, food, shelter, sex, or anything else. All of that needs to be determined by the larger marketplace via non-coerced transactions.

The purpose of government is to insure the transparency, enforcibility and coercionless nature of those transactions among individuals.

In reality this means, at a minimum, police / military and courts. A common currency is a nice to have. Additionally, people can use the government as sort of a way to enable certain mass transactions e.g. raise money for a road network. However, this is where you have to be careful in drawing the line. When you use taxes for this group projects the taxes are coerced from you whether you agree with the project or not. This can rapidly devolve into a tyranny where more and more power is ceded to the government for the benefit of a few.

For example, socialized medicine. There are a number of systems where you don't get to choose what doctor you use or what medical care you get. The doctor can't say "Give me $X and I'll try a different treatment." Your options are curtailed by a coercive government becoming an economic player.

Gill:
The market anyways naturally put constraints on how much a doctor can charge. Besides, there is no law that I know of in Norway (where we have public health care), that stops a doctor from starting his own practice. However, I would guess doctors would be a real gray area, because they are indeed messing with other peoples lives, and can not just say "give me X amount of money and I'll give you another treatment" if the treatment will most likely not work. I would argue for a system similar to what Gunnar told me about capitalism, where there are basic human rights, and these are freedom of life and property. I would however, like to add two more basic rights, and that is education and medical treatment for the ill. Hmmm.. seems like I'm back at the Norwegian system, not too bad eh?

Let me also ask the the people here who leans toward right wing politics, what is so different in reality for a doctor, the government setting your salary, or a company?
We have to remember, in a democratic society, both are held responsible by the people (Government by votes, and a company by the market factors).
Also, there is no-one forcing a doctor to educate himself to be a doctor. Certainly, if the government sets the salaries to be too low, there would be a lack of doctors, and the government would be held responsible by the public.

Allan: what is so different in reality for a doctor, the government setting your salary, or a company?

Huge difference. The market adapts quicker and better to circumstances than the government. In the time it takes the government to attempt one strategy and file the results away for possible analysis at a later date, ten companies can attempt fifty different strategies and learn from the results. Besides, feedback through the market is almost immediate, while feedback through democracy takes years. Why choose a slow, unreliable feedback mechanism, when there's something so much faster and more reliable available?

Remember that you can still make health a state responsibility. It's one thing to say that the state should pay for our health services, it's another to say that the state should also control every aspect of how that money is spent. There is no way they can do that better than individuals and private companies.

Very interesting thoughts, Bjørn, and a good discussion here. I am looking forward to more installments.

Remember that you can still make health a state responsibility. It's one thing to say that the state should pay for our health services, it's another to say that the state should also control every aspect of how that money is spent. There is no way they can do that better than individuals and private companies.

I am not saying this is wrong, in fact I believe it is most probably correct. However, is there any empirical evidence that it is correct? Are there health privatization success stories?

I remember the Norwegian socialists made a successful slogan against it here: "putting grandma out on a tender (anbud)." Pretty effective rhetoric.

"The market adapts quicker and better to circumstances than the government. In the time it takes the government to attempt one strategy and file the results away for possible analysis at a later date, ten companies can attempt fifty different strategies and learn from the results"

Actually, I agree to this, but you know how companies that deal with the government love to overcharge. There was this example in Norway not long ago, where the private hospital charged the government NOK:12 000 for something that cost NOK:600. And there we get back to Jans point, if the government is supposed to be guaranteed having the best prices, then it needs to put these things out for tender.

Healthcare issues are very difficult. In the US, according to one study, about 60% of meidicare payments are made in the last year to 18 months of a person's life. It is not just the economics, but the moral aspect that is most difficult to get a hand on. In my view the healthcare system is going to have to be triaged or costs are going to become insurmountable

Bjorn has it right. There's a huge difference between private vs. government provision of services and not just the one he mentions.

The aphorism "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Is the primary sticking point. If the government is paying then the government gets to make the decisions. For example, one of the most contentious issues with Hillarycare (Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine proposal circa 1994) was the fact that it RATIONED certain medical specialties. The government would decide how many orthopedic surgeons or cardiologists, etc. that there could be. This of course precludes any market pricing.

In a pseudo-government intervention, insurance companies cause similar problems, and for the same reasons. They are the ones paying so they want to call the tune. There is benefit to the insurance company to limit expensive innovation, prescriptions and the like to cut costs.

Since money is not infinite the same issues crop up in socialist systems. Why is Holland starting to become so big on euthanasia? They don't want to pay that 60% Herbie mentions. The same principal applies in all 3rd party payer systems private or public. The biggest difference between the two is that the government "owns the guns". By which I mean that the government can prevent competition to its own brand of care and force you to pay what they want. Private insurance companies can only force you to pay their price IF you get the service, but that's your choice.

Now we enter the gray area where the insurance companies enlist the govenment to be their enforcers. They can do this by making private insurance a legal necessity either through government mandated company benefits or directly on individuals like car insurance. As you progress down this road you are getting into corporatism which is no more attractive than socialism.

Herbie,

Hospitals and physicians tend to inflate their fees thus adding to the burden. Also it's a catch 22..with an ever litigious society such as the US, physicians tend to practise defensive mediciine and oftentimes order abundant tests to cover all bases. I recollect a rather recent case where one of my colleague's patient was subjected to 2 scans, CAT and MRI(a ratjer large fee billed to the government via medicaid program) within an 8 month period for complaints of chronic headaches which was later attributed to uncorrected ametropia/visual problems and which was solved by the use of a simple pair of spectacles . Interestingly no referall was made to an eye-doctor to evaluate the patient for visual problems which oftentimes contribute to headaches and would result in a low-cost solution ( although it should also be quickly point out that chronic headache may sometimes portent a more ominous etiology ...so yes the physicians involved were practising good defensive medicine! Here is a singular case demonstrating quality medical care brought about by the confluence of govt. subsidy,law suit abuse arising from lack of personal responsability and greed, and defense posture of potential law-suit victims=physicians).

AlanC,

"Bjorn has it right. There's a huge difference between private vs. government provision of services and not just the one he mentions"

yes i agree with you. I know of a canadian gentleman who was willing to use his own financial resources to undergo a novel heart procedure(not covered for by the 'socialized' medicine of Canada) to save his life at a major heart clinic here in the US....something that he would not be able to receive under the socialized kind of medicine in Canada. In fact he was placed on a long waiting list, and also his canadian Cardiologist has essentially told him to put his personal matters in order as the prognosis was not good. In a socialized system of medicine , sometimes the individual and the particular gets side-lined in favor of the greater good.

Kim you say "Hospitals and physicians tend to inflate their fees thus adding to the burden" That may be so, but it is not the real issue. The real issue is that we have a) a population that is steadily gorwing older b) a declining replacement rate c) medical advances that allow both treatment (in terms of cure) and in terms of life extension that costs on a real basis much more, d) no policy of differentiating -- if we should -- between random illness versus life style induced illness in terms of funding treatment and e) no discussion of any of the moral issues involved. Thie issues are very complex and throwing gneralizations around around does not advance he argument. It would be just as easy to say that malpractice attorneys have forced an advance in medical treatment.

To continue, if we are to get a handle on health costs all of following have to be addressed:

a) malpractice costs: the current thinking is that 100% of economic loss should be compensable and pain and suffering should have an arbitrary cap. Thus if I operate on a surgeon's hand and screw up his future income losses are compensable, but his " anguish" has a cap. That permits insurance companies to accurately analyze the "cost" of a case without making it into a crap shoot. States that adopted this approach do not have a crisis is terms of insurance

b) insurance was or used to be a form of "risk sharing" because risk was understood to be random. Now there are situations where risk is not random and is directly related to choice by the patient such as smoking and overweight diabetics or people with high blood pressure who still east large amounts of salt. Why should that cost be distributed to society at large when it is controllable, in the first instance, by the patient?

c) what standards should be applied to treat an 85 year person who has suffered a massive heart attack or who has cancer that may be treatable versus the same factors when applied to a 27 year old.

d) should medical insurance cover all aspects of health care or only serious illness. If so, how do you measure economic loss. Thus the flu is not in many cases life threatening but does cause real economic loss to a society. In short how do you measure what should be covered and what should not be.

The only "moral" liberty based system of healthcare is one in which only individuals contract with doctors or insurance companies. You comparison shop and buy from the one that suits your needs best. E.G. a 20 year old very healthy individual only needs to deal with doctors very seldom so might purchase care on a one-off basis and have a catastrophic incident insurance policy.
A parent might want to have a sort of pediatric "bulk" purchase for the kids.

Competition among doctors and insurance companies should serve to make the pricing mechanism conform to market rules.

One complicating factor is the nature of the medical industry is more in line with an old fashioned guild than a true competitive, market driven industry. The reason for this is that the "guild" controls entry into the profession and enforces its monopoly via government rules and regs. I can't hang out a sign tomorrow and start practicing medicine at a cut rate price.
The fact that I can't is a good thing in many ways but it does start getting govt. more and more involved in the economics of health care.

This is an example of the line between government as referee and government as participant in the economy. Healthcare is right in the fuzzy middle and is, therefore, a poor example to use in discussing liberal (aka liberty) principals. You have to agree on the principals before you can deal with the sticky exceptions.

Herbie,
yes all these things you say are true...the matter is truly multifactorial and there is no one good solution to the health care problem. Of course politics doesn't help much either.I had wanted for Howard Dean to be President, but then i am sure others will voice disagreement.

Alan C,

"Competition among doctors and insurance companies should serve to make the pricing mechanism conform to market rules."

...sometimes all this competition and 3rd party payments with the plethora of paper work and bureaucracy may have unintended consequences. Practising modern medicine now in the US is not only a clinical science but also one which requires adroitness in negotiating and utilizing the laberynthine aspect of coding resulting in the essential mastery of the art of 'codology'which can be distracting and an additional burden ...perhaps impacting the overall quality of care in the long run. Very occasionally innocous miscoding or vigorous therapy requiring vigorous coding may be construed as fraudulent resulting in sanctions and even criminal penalties. 3rd party and governmental involvement always spawns surprising deleterious effects. We won't even touch on govt. and education ---> fodder for another forum LOL

Kim Howard Dean? The mind boggles, the stomach churns, big anxiety attack :-)

Kim you are dead on on about coding. My nephew who is a Dr. was required to take a course in it to both avoid potential problems and to maximize billings for his group.

Kim & Herbie,
Good grief don't think that I disagree with you about the complexities of medical billing!!

My main point now in this thread is that medical care in the US (and I bet most elsewhere) is a nightmare of bureaucracy and complexity purely in the terms of economic transactions. Given this, it makes a poor subject for discussion in a thread aimed at dicussing the nature of liberty in the economic realm.

YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Ummm, Sandy? Are you okay? Did you get infected by the Dean virus????

Ms. Kim Sook-Im,

Even though you are a little verbose, you are fairly accurate and pleasingly politically incorrect, with thought provoking comments. I generally looked forward to your comments. Then came your Howard Dean confession. And like Herbie, I had a slight skip in my heart beat and lost my breath for a moment, and then slipped into two seconds of depression. But, I realize nobody's perfect. Life’s good and Dean isn’t our president. All’s well, and Iraq is two steps closer to experiencing a form of government never thought possible post 9/11. Do Buddhists believe in miracles? This is a good nature chide, not a voice of disagreement...surprised yes.

Geronimo, Herbie, AlanC and Sandy P...

Whhheeeew....glad i did put a disclaimer on that Howard Dean bit LOL.

Actually you guys should give him more credit than the way the press has portrayed him...yes that shrill display notwithstanding...but hey Roseanne Barr could not have been worse in her rendition of the US national anthem !

He had a lot of good ideas , you know! Afterall a physician in the white house might bring about a bit of healing.......we had peanut farmers/engineer-physicist?, liars ..ahem lawyers, professional politicians, oil-men, ..tycoons, B-rated actors?.....o.k. i'll admit it, i wanted to see our own physician-free-thinker in the white-house! Oink

Sook-Im
freethinker,rabble rouser

I've moved a few off-topic comments to the Islam thread.

Jan Haugland: I am not saying this is wrong, in fact I believe it is most probably correct. However, is there any empirical evidence that it is correct? Are there health privatization success stories?

Don't know, and where there's an opportunity to privatize, there's also an opportunity to destroy something that works. So I don't want to rush into things. Perhaps start with contracting out more tasks, without giving up responsibility, and giving customers ("patients") a little more choice in where to be treated.

What would happen if I could choose to be treated at a private hospital anywhere in the world, as long as it would cost the government less than treatment at a public hospital. Imagine being sent to a private hospital in a relative low-cost country that specializes on your problem - you could fly first class and still save the government money. There are problems and risks with privatization, but that's no reason to be dogmatic about public health care. Perhaps we should start by asking ourselves what we want public health care to achieve, and then look for good ways to achieve it.

Hi Bjorn,

Don't know if this counts, but, the US health system still is virtually all private. Now, are there problems? Yes. Is there too much bureaucracy? I say yes, though not as much as socialist systems. Is the paying system screwed up? Definitely.

But, all that said, you really can only grade healthcare on what it can provide. And the US system provides the best quality in the world. There are certain ways to spin data that make that look questionable but you will be hard presesd to define it as anything other than successful. Althoug I will have to channel Bill Clinton and say that it depends on the meaning of success.

And I still think that healthcare is a bad subject for discussion in a thread for a philosophical discussion of economic freedom / liberty.

Turns out that San Jose's Martin Luther King Library had two copies of Hayek's book. One of those two copies is on the desk now in front of me. In Chapter Nineteen -- "Social Security" -- we find a section on socialized medicine. That's Section 7, for those of you who have the book. Here's some of what Hayek says there about socialized medicine:

"There is little doubt that the growth of health insurance is a desirable development. And perhaps there is also a case for making it compulsory since many who could thus provide for themselves might otherwise become a public charge. But there are strong arguments against a single scheme of state insurance; and there seems to be an overwhelming case against a free health service for all."

"The case for a free health service is usually based on two fundamental misconceptions. They are, first, the belief that medical needs are usually of an objectively ascertainable character and such that they can and ought to be fully met in every case without regard to economic considerations and, second, that this is economically possible because an improved medical service normally results in a restoration of economic effectiveness or earning power and so pays for itself. Both contentions mistake the nature of the problem involed in most decisions concerning the preservation of health and life. There is no objective standard for judging how much care and effort are requird in a particular case; also, as medicine advances, it becomes more and more clear that there is no limit to the amount that might profitably be spent in order to do all that is objectively possible."

Hayek talks about cruel decisions that he thinks would be necessary:

"It may seem harsh, but it is probably in the interest of all that under a free system those with full earning capacity should often be rapidly cured of a temporary and not dangerous disablement at the expense of some neglect of the aged and mortally ill."

But here's how it works in practice, he thinks:

"Where systems of state medicine operate, we generally find that those who could be promptly restored to full activity have to wait for long periods because all the hospital facilities are taken up by people who will never again contribute to the needs of the rest."

"There are so many serious problems raised by the nationalization of medicine that we cannot mention even all the more important ones. But there is one the gravity of which the public has scarcely yet perceived and which is likely to be of the greatest importance. This is the inevitable transformation of doctors . . . into paid servants of the state . . . who must be released from the duty of secrecy so far as authority is concerned."

"The manner in which state medicine has been used in Russia as an instrument of industrial discipline gives us a foretaste of the uses to which such a system can be put."

Bjørn -- heads up. I've had to use my wife's email address in my last two posts, because your software otherwise rejects them "for questionable content." The questionable content is the string "y ahoo.com" in my email address. There's a bug there somewhere. I'm inserting the space in "y ahoo" in order to get around the problem in this current post.

"Where systems of state medicine operate, we generally find that those who could be promptly restored to full activity have to wait for long periods because all the hospital facilities are taken up by people who will never again contribute to the needs of the rest."

Is it only me or is this scary? He's reducing humans into.. working machines? I mean, it should not matter whether you are working or not, there is ways for such a modern and rich society as we live in to be able to take care of the weakest, right?

"But there is one the gravity of which the public has scarcely yet perceived and which is likely to be of the greatest importance. This is the inevitable transformation of doctors . . . into paid servants of the state . . . who must be released from the duty of secrecy so far as authority is concerned."

That brings me back to the first question I asked. What is so practically different for a doctor? He recieves his pay from the government, or he receives his pay from a corporation. Less free? In what way?

Allan wrote:

"Is it only me or is this scary? He's reducing humans into.. working machines? I mean, it should not matter whether you are working or not, there is ways for such a modern and rich society as we live in to be able to take care of the weakest, right?"

Yeah, he sounds a bit like Dr. Strangelove here. As I read Hayek in this section of the book, he really seems to think that a society might not be rich enough to pay for the medical services that its citizens could demand. "As in all other decisions," he writes, "in which we have to deal not with certainties but with probabilities and chances, we constantly take risks and decide on the basis of economic considerations whether a particular precaution is worthwhile, i.e, by balancing the risk against other needs. Even the richest man will normally not do all that medical knowledge makes possible to preserve his health, perhaps because other concerns compete for his time and energy . . . Though we all dislike the fact that we have to balance immaterial values like health and life agaist material advantages and wish that the choice were unnecessary, we all do have to make the choice because of facts we cannot alter."

Here's what troubles him about a doctor's being the employ of government: "A system that gives the indispensable helper of the individual, who is at the same time an agent of the state, an insight into the other's most intimate concerns and creates conditions in which he must reveal this knowlege to a superior and use it for the purposes determined by authority opens frightening prospects. The manner in which state medicine has been used in Russia as an instrument of industrial discipline gives us a foretaste of the uses to which such a system can be put." Personally, I think Hayek is a little paranoid here. His concern, though, you see, is for the patient's privacy, and not for the doctor's loss of liberty to charge what the market will bear.

Honestly, I think he seems a bit more than paranoid here, the government already have all the power they want over us with police and military.

Gill's quote is a good example of why I agree with Hayek more in general than in the specifics. I think the state should guarantee a high level of health services for all people. Hayek writes as if this is a nice-to-have we just can't afford, but I disagree. For all our whining about hospital queues, Norway is a good place to fall sick, as is most other welfare states. But that doesn't mean the state has to control every aspect of the process. What's important here is that most of us agree about the goal, but that the currently accepted way of reaching that goal is based on unfounded fears and dogmas. Allowing the market to play a role in welfare is not by definition callous or greedy. Perhaps private individuals can reach our goals better than the state can? They certainly do in many other areas of society. We should at least give them the chance.

I also agree that Hayek is paranoid about the inevitable descent of social democracy into tyranny. Perhaps we should keep in mind that Hayek was the product of a world where it really did seem like totalitarianism was the only alternative to a free market. 50 years later, we know that social democracy works, and that it is a stable form of democracy. I'm not saying this to defend Hayek, though, because he had plenty of time to correct that mistake later. It's just worth keeping in mind when reading this book that a lot of time has passed since it was written. In that time, some of what Hayek writes has been confirmed, and other things have not. His fears about the impossibility of combining socialism and democracy is one theory that has been contradicted by history.

Allan: Honestly, I think he seems a bit more than paranoid here, the government already have all the power they want over us with police and military.

No, they don't. Not without violating the law. They could, if people in the right places wanted to, but that's beside the point. Think of the law applied to the government as an alarm. When the government abuses its powers, the alarm goes off. The government doesn't want that to happen, because they depend on a perception of legitimacy among the people. So they obey the law, most of the time, not because they "have to" in a strict sense, but because they don't want to do the equivalent of shouting "we are no longer your government, please overthrow us".

Allan asserted thus:

"We have to remember, in a democratic society, both are held
responsible by the people (Government by votes, and a company
by the market factors).

"Also, there is no-one forcing a doctor to educate himself to be
a doctor. Certainly, if the government sets the salaries to be
too low, there would be a lack of doctors, and the government
would be held responsible by the public."

And Bjorn responded in part:

"Besides, feedback through the market is almost immediate,
while feedback through democracy takes years."

I'll add my own little bit here and assert that in a democracy
the "feedback" in Allan's example is more likely to be never.
I've never voted for a candidate who represented all my views
or even most of my views. In fact I'm not even sure I've
ever voted for a candidate where I'm believe I knew most
of what that person's views were.

Voting in practice means making a choice between two
candidates and assessing the totality of all that I know
about them and choosing which is better. There may be
single issue voters but it's hard to believe there are
going to be single issue voters whose deciding issue is
the scenario Allan presents; although it's always possible.

In part because there are such single issue voters many
politicians strive to reveal as little about their thinking
as practical for fear of offending someone. The reality
is that in practice campaigns are determined on a relative
handful of topics which are the issues of the day. Everything
else falls through the cracks and indeed given that there
are typically only two candidates with a plausible chance
of winning, these two could not even in the most perfect
world represent and give a choice on all the other possibilities
out there.

Aside from an election being decided on a handful of
issues, the further consequence is that almost every
decision the winning candidate will make will concern
something that was not even mentioned in the election.

Because of this, it's my view, that if there is any
plausible way to make a decision via a market then
such a decision despite all the inequities in market
participants is likely to be orders of magnitude more
representative than an election.

Mark:
I think the single issue voting happen more in Norway than in US. Remember we have more than two parties to vote for. I think there are at least 6-7 realistic choices for people, and some parties do play on single issues.. for instance the progress party :p

Oh, and dont you think it would be fair that the people get more power of running the show than only choosing between the issues that are relevant at this election? Look at Switzerland, they vote for everything :)

And yes, even in the US, if something as important as health care is being run down the drain, dont you think people would react?

"No, they don't. Not without violating the law. They could, if people in the right places wanted to, but that's beside the point. Think of the law applied to the government as an alarm. When the government abuses its powers, the alarm goes off. The government doesn't want that to happen, because they depend on a perception of legitimacy among the people. So they obey the law, most of the time, not because they "have to" in a strict sense, but because they don't want to do the equivalent of shouting "we are no longer your government, please overthrow us"

Actually, you're saying what I'm saying. I'm saying that the government, if they wanted.. they would have the control they needed. And as you said, there are laws which restricts them.
I answered to this quote:

"But there is one the gravity of which the public has scarcely yet perceived and which is likely to be of the greatest importance. This is the inevitable transformation of doctors . . . into paid servants of the state . . . who must be released from the duty of secrecy so far as authority is concerned."

Therefore, it is not a good reason to stop government health, for the reason being that the government can abuse the power it gives, because the government already has power enough to abuse if the will is there.

Allan wrote, "And yes, even in the US, if something as important as health care is being run down the drain, dont you think people would react?"

Here's a current headline from Yahoo news: "Half of U.S. bankruptcies due to medical bills." Most middle class Americans have medical insurance that is subsidized by an employer. Skilled workers also have employer-sibsidized medical insurance. Unskilled workers and illegal immigrants are often uninsured, but they are also poorly represented in Congress. I don't think Congress will act till industry begins to exert pressure on government to assist with the cost of its workers' medical care.
American industry has got to understand that it cannot compete with foreign companies that rely on government to pay for their workers' medical care and pensions. That's where the political pressure will finally come from, I expect -- from industry. Not from the uninsured citizenry.

## "independence from the arbitrary will of another".##

But that may also be true in a free market, because you may be at the will of a moody employer, especially if you have a low market value.

## Having a lack of choices does not make you unfree. Having choices removed from you by another person, in order to make you act as they like, however, does. ##

Here I do certainly not agree, it is like the libertarians argue like the division of labour simply does not exist. Because of the divison of labour, every choice you have is something that others give you, because two parties have to agree on every trade. That causes you to be at the whim of other people, even if no coercion is used whatsoever.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1526