October 11, 2009
Britain's Central Planning Death Panels
October 11, 2009
Free Market M.D.
October 11, 2009
Economies of Scale in Compliance
October 11, 2009
Balan's Challenge
October 10, 2009
The Pleasure of Telling Others What to Do
October 10, 2009
Gonick the Great - and How He Could Have Been Greater
October 9, 2009
More Scott Sumner
October 9, 2009
Not From The Onion
October 9, 2009
Thoughts on a Second Stimulus
I think people have gained political and social freedoms and lost economic freedoms over the last few centuries. But the lost economic freedoms are less than the increase in general wealth, so it's been a net win.
When people loose economic freedom,ie, a way to make a living,and they begin to starve and live in poverty political and "social" freedoms no longer matter and are often lost in the attempt to regain the ability to survive...in the end it's about survival but abundance and wealth for a period of time causes people to forget that and alo forget what makes it possible,they become fanciful and care free in their thinking and logic and must learn once again what realy matters.
How can one have a meaningful discussion regarding whether freedom or liberty has net increased or decreased, without first defining what is meant by "freedom" or "liberty"?
What is the meaning of the word "freedoms"? Can one be frees? Freeds?
The pitfall of defining freedom and liberty is the risk of a narrow subjective definition,the definition should be such that it's only limits are direct negative effects on others,not contrived or wildly exaggerated effects created by those who just don't like the behaviour or would not choose it for themselves...the exception being children who are not mature enough to consider all the consequnces of and given behaviour.