On December 17th we discussed freedom and the worldly constraints upon it. Everywhere we looked, there seemed to be some limiting factor on the things we'd rather be doing. Churches and parents lay down moral conditions, business and governmental co-institutions regulate our actions and, perhaps most significant, economic imperatives rule our lives.
Food, clothing, housing and the vast array of things we think we need require our money and time, and so our freedom. Although much of this is inevitable, our wasteful, overworked culture amplifies the effect. It was asserted that the American worker labors nine more weeks per year than his European counterpart.
One in the group said that democracy is an illusion unless it encompasses economic structures. This may be why many of us considered places such as New Zealand and the countries of Scandinavia to be more free than the U.S. Their open, secure and homogenous societies have freely adopted the welfare state.
Freedom seems to be in the mind of the possessor. Some differed as to the legitimacy of government surveillance and internet censorship in the face of terrorism. Freedom of choice is great but what if others controlled what choices were to be had? Soldiers may have the self-determination trained out of them. And they may willfully act in ways that no completely free person ever would.
So the effect of militarism on a people will be our next topic. We know that those attacked can suffer terribly but does an aggressor society not also lose something when war becomes the way? Blood, treasure, the limbs and souls of those who return, what is our final cost? Join us, 3 PM, January 7th at the City Café as we calculate the collateral damage of war.
2 comments:
I'm sorry I missed this one; it looks like it was a very interesting discussion. I was very taken with the phrase, "democracy is an illusion unless it encompasses economic structures." To me, this is another way of saying that a society can't achieve something approaching total freedom unless it also achieves something approaching true equality of opportunity - a belief that's pretty central to why I consider myself an economic liberal. It seems to me that economic conservatives often try to portray any sort of collective action through government as limiting personal freedom - and there certainly is that potential - but I strongly believe that some such action is necessary in order to create more equality of opportunity.
I agree with Nick. I think that many conservatives fear government actions as being steps towards totalitarianism, and they want to live in a 'liberal' society (i.e. as few laws as possible). I want to see a comprehensive society, though, one in which personal freedom is sacrosanct, but where government takes action to make peoples lives better, by things like a living wage and universal healthcare. To me, freedom is more than the absence of oppression. True freedom means the (hmmm) "institutionalization of opportunity," perhaps. Not just open admission to college, but free tuition and stipends to defray the cost of living for the poor, for instance. Sure, anyone can get into Harvard in theory, but how many kids from the inner-city or the hollers can actually go to Harvard if they get it?
Post a Comment