"True" Freedom? It's a Myth

This particular post is going to be short and sweet, but after the conversation I had yesterday with a coworker, I felt it necessary to flesh out my ideas in writing.

So here's the setup:  yesterday a coworker and I were having a conversation regarding the Federal Reserve and how it is set up.  And we were talking about the former national banking systems we had in place, and how at one time we had a free market banking system (in the late 1800's).  Now, I'm not a good study on the federal reserve or the gold standard, or any banking system for that matter, but I read a little about it in order to have somewhat of an educated conversation.

To summarize the conversation, his point was that a free market system, or any system in any context that is "free" is better than any types of boundaries or rules imposed upon those in the system, because if there are boundaries, one is not truly free to make the best decisions that are best for him or her.  Definitely a valid argument.

I, of course, took the conversation from the free market banking system and applied it to a much broader context to try to make my point.  Is freedom truly something we all want?  I mean when you consider absolute freedom where there are no boundaries saying yes or no to the decisions we make - what do you have?  At first glance, this freedom sounds amazing, but the more you dig into it, the more you realize that the entire concept of a never-ending and purely boundary-less freedom is flawed.

And here is what spurred that thought.  My coworker made this statement:  "if we were in a true free market system, I would be able to make any and all decisions that were best for me."  That seemingly is an innocent statement, something that we may all want to enjoy - a freedom that doesn't have a third party (i.e. the government), imposing rules, regulations, or unnecessary burdens on us, right?

Well, then I asked him to consider whether that was a system that he truly wanted.  A system in place in our society that would allow for no regulation, no rules, no laws, whatsoever.  Within his own statement defending what he seemingly wanted was the flaw - if everybody made decisions based upon what was best for them, then who looks out for the other person?  Because a decision that is right for me, may very well not be right for you.

I mean in theory, if everybody looked out for themselves, societal chaos would ensue.  There has to be some merit, looking into the history of all of our societies, that no society, big or small, successfully was able to adapt to such a system where everybody took care of their own affairs, and there was no third party helping to ensure it was kept fair among all in society.  Why do you think that is?  Why do you think all great societies in history have had some type of governing structure - a third party if you will?  True freedom would not have such a structure - government would not exist.  And every individual would be "free" to exercise all choices over their own lives.

I think the problem here is that people get caught up in thinking that government in our society is this big evil entity that tells people what to do and it has no right to do so.  Yet, government is merely a way for us to keep a society from destroying its citizens.  If everybody took care of their own, and only worried about what was best for themselves - what do you think would happen?  Do you think that if everybody had the ability to do whatever they wanted, that would make us a more peaceful and prosperous society, simply because everybody got what they wanted?  Do you think if everybody had a chance to make choices that were best for "them," that society as a whole would benefit?

No, I don't believe so.

If I look out for my family, I want to be able to be as successful as I can set my mind to.  This means given the chance to take a little more when it is offered, even though it may rob from Paul over there, in theory I would do it.  Right?  I'm taking care of me - making the best decisions for me.  And Paul, in the same vein is going to be looking out for him - making the best decisions for him.  So, if I accumulate some wealth in property, for example, what's to stop Paul from taking some of my property to make him more successful?  In this true utopian environment that we have built up in our mind where somebody doesn't come along and tell me what I can and cannot do, there is nobody there to tell Paul he can't do that.

That's what government does - it is a third party entity that helps settle disputes when situations arise.  In this particular case, if Paul steals from me, I want my government to tell Paul, he can't do that.  If we were truly in a free society, there would be no government to tell Paul that.  Yes we'd be free, but there would be no rule.  There would be no law to govern the decisions everybody made.  And hence, societal chaos would ensue.  At first it may just be a person attempting to protect himself or herself, but soon, with no rule of law or rule of regulation, societal chaos would grow into all out distrust for one another, and the freedom we all want would come at the expense of bonding with other human beings.  That's why no society has been able to prosper without forming rules of some kind to help govern the way it lives.

I think people want "freedom" when they feel as though a law, or a regulation is somehow encroaching upon them and therefore making it inconvenient to live their lives the way they want to live them.  And sometimes people view this "encroachment" with blinders on - completely oblivious to the fact that there are millions of other people living in our country who have different motivations, different agendas, different ways of living their lives.  No one way is better than the next, though we like to think that the way we live our life is always the best way.  If there isn't some structure, some way to control all of those different agendas, different paths to live one life, then, as I stated above, societal chaos would ensue.  Our current government is the way that we as a society have determined to control that chaos.  And the great social contract by having this thing called government is that it should be fair, it should be impartial, and it should look out for the best interest of the majority of people.  The framers designed it in such a way that the majority should have power over the majority of the decisions in this country - only a select few are guaranteed (rights of individuals being one of them).

I really don't know if I have a concluding point to this particular blog other than to say that people don't necessarily know what it is they want when they talk about "getting government out of my personal business."  If government was completely removed from everybody's personal business, many of the things that we take for granted that government does to help us would also be eliminated.  If a form of government in some context was eliminated completely from our society - societal madness would swarm almost immediately.  Things that we want our government to do, such as enforcing laws against theft, murder, rape, arson, and kidnapping would disappear.  We couldn't drink the water from our tap because there would be no regulations to ensure it was safe to drink.  We couldn't eat meat or even vegetables from the local market, because there is no governmental force ensuring that they are safe to eat.  Hell, we may not even be able to breathe the air because corporations, acting in their own self interest (remember that's freedom after all), wouldn't have to worry about air quality because if they did so, it would negatively effect their bottom line.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is before you complain that we have "too much government" in our lives - really take a step back and look at the idea behind government.  Every regulation, every rule, was put their for some reason.  Somewhere, somebody had an agenda - in some cases for the will of the society, and sometimes to fulfill some personal goal or agenda of an individual, corporation or lobbying group.  But the law was put their nonetheless.  So perhaps it's not government in and of itself that is this big bad evil entity.  Criticize the various rules and regulations all you want, one by one, on the merit of whether they serve the greater good.  But to define government as this big bad evil entity that shouldn't exist is to tear down the very thing that keeps us safe, healthy, and protected from all the ills in the world.

I for one never want "true" freedom.  Because I feel that "true" freedom would not make us free at all.  "True" freedom would in fact make us prisoners to protecting everything we own and love in this world - many things that we take for granted now.

Thanks for reading, comments welcome.