Freedom at what cost?

Miscellaneous General
1

It’s safe to assume that most everyone here values freedom as an end unto itself. I’d say that most everyone familiar with the concept of freedom values it as an end. We generally like being able to do whatever we desire to do in the moment without fear of reprisal. We may speak our mind to convince others, to gain favor with like-minded individuals, to stroke our ego, etc. But we also derive pleasure from the knowledge that we are free to speak our mind. If we were prevented from speaking our mind, we would not only be displeased at not satisfying our desire to convince others, etc.; we would also be displeased that we cannot do that which we would like to do and believe we ought to be able to do.

But freedom is not the only end, and it must compete with other desires. So, as a fun thought exercise, I ask you: what value do you place on freedom as an end unto itself? At what price will you sacrifice what freedom? Suppose a rich man offered you $100,000 a month, but in return you are not allowed to turn right. Your freedom to move as you wish is thus restricted, but done so voluntarily so that you may satisfy whatever other desires $100k/month buys you. In the same way, our freedom to kill and steal is restricted, but in the pursuit of protecting our own life and belongings and maintaining the capitalist order.

The greater objective here is to better understand the appropriate behavior in regard to 1) the interventionist state and 2) our struggle to create a fully realized, liberal social order. The market can only function where there is peace and constancy; where there is conflict and inconstancy, capitalist investment plunges, the division of labor dissolves, the chain of production shrinks to provide only the most basic goods, etc.

We all recognize that the state itself is no friend to the institution of property or the free market, but it exists nonetheless, and what order remains in the modern world regretfully rests on the state. Yes, custom and non-state legal systems exist to a great degree, but the vast majority still associates order with the state. Should the state’s police be incapacitated, people are drawn to looting and vandalism, not because only the state is capable of applying necessary pressure on looters to discourage their looting, but because voluntary institutions do not yet exist to pick up the slack.

Thus, we are in a bind. We want the freedom to do many of the things that the state denies us, but rebuking the state can severely impede the fulfilment of other desires. Our choice of action, then, depends on our desire for freedom versus our desire for other things. So, considering your answer to the above exercise, what do you believe is the proper course of action with regard to the state? Do you accept the state’s demands, however begrudgingly, so that you may enjoy whatever freedom and bounty that is left? What breaks the camel’s back - at what point would you anticipate the state’s intrusion on your freedom to overwhelm your other desires, thus warranting disturbing the current social order? At what point is material comfort or life itself no longer worth the narrow freedom allotted to you? Is it ever worth sacrificing the peace and concomitant economic order of today in the hope of seeing a more free, more peaceful and greater economic order in the future?

I believe Mises had a few things to say about this, and I understand that Edmund Burke had an opinion, along with many other writers, but what is your feeling?

2

Freedom at all cost even if it means human existence.

3

Well, freedom requires humans. As such, without humans, there is no freedom (unless you want to believe in the animal rights pablum), so sacrificing humanity for freedom makes about as much sense as sacrificing Earth for Earth’s atmosphere.

4

If humans can’t accommodated freedom than in a Darwinian sense we will become extinct. Thus, we would have to transcend humanity and become the Overman. Both scenarios requires humanity to die.[In my subjectivist reality]

I think you have it backwards.

If you can’t agree with my brevity, What is the alternative to Freedom? What are the implications if humans can’t cope with being Free?

5

It implies freedom needts to be abandoned as top priority.

6

"If humans can’t accommodated freedom than in a Darwinian sense we will become extinct. Thus, we would have to transcend humanity and become the Overman. Both scenarios requires humanity to die.[In my subjectivist reality]

I think you have it backwards.

If you can’t agree with my brevity, What is the alternative to Freedom? What are the implications if humans can’t cope with being Free?"
… What?..
I consider both this and the above to be poorly worded. I consider the current social order unbearable, I would attempt to remove it if I thought this was currently possible. The only state order that I consider bearable is a level just above the minarchist state, above that and I feel it must either be reduced or destroyed. No one is going to rebel if they believe that they cannot succeed, such would be foolishness, thusly there are only two scenarios under which the current system becomes so “unbearable” for many of the libertarians here that direct defiance is necessary, either when the current state of affairs is no longer worth living for as opposed to the alternative of resistance, whether or not resistance has any kind of likelihood of success, or if the state of affairs changes and success becomes a possibility.
To give an analogy, a man in a cage who is constantly being poked by long sticks by his captors, has the ability to escape his cell but he then must face the 20 or so guards. His chances of success are practically 0. Therefore the only way he will take the step and escape is either if he can no longer his life of captivity and constant poking, and finds death at the hands of his captors more satisfying than the alternative state of affairs or if conditions change and success becomes a more likely possibility.
This being said, I consider freedom as an end to be foolish, herd-like, and superficial. I only value freedom as a means.

7

I wouldn’t say that freedom requires humanity at all. If humans died, animals would be freer than they are today. But if you are pretending that human beings are the only living creatures on Earth for this question only, I’d say there need to be at least two humans for that freedom to exist. If there’s one person in the world, they aren’t really free. They’re just alone. If there are two people, I would say that the separation of the two is what defines their freedom. Without a relative separation from anything you want, there is no freedom.

8

I have absolutely no bone with Thomas Jefferson’s definition of the duties of a State, that it should defend life, private property and provide an ultimate form of arbitrate should all other options fail. Call me a minarchist if you, though I detest labels. But for most people the State is much more than these three duties: it’s a provider of “services” (though I like to call them “free stuff”). That’s where my problems start. You cannot reason with these people anymore than you can reason with a drug addict (I am sorry but I’ll never reiterate this analogy enough) and just like a drug addict they will do anything to get their poison. I’d like to say more but I’ll content myself with quoting Plutarch: “the real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits”. Words penned almost two millenia ago and that ring truer than ever.