What Do You Personally Feel Prevented From Doing by Lack of Freedom/Liberty?

[STer]

Obviously, within the libertarian and anarchist movements, people are constantly talking about freedom and liberty and how they are infringed upon. So I'm curious. In your daily life, what are the activities that you really want to do but feel unable to do because of this lack of freedom or liberty?

Obviously the issue of keeping your money rather than paying taxes is there. But what about other than that?

In some areas of the world I can imagine some pretty simple clear answers. In the Middle East, a woman could say "I want to go to school" or "I want to wear summer clothes instead of a burqa." But I'm especially curious what people in Western industrialized countries really feel limited in doing that makes them yearn for freedom and liberty.

I think this topic is pretty important because if you're trying to convince people to work and make sacrifices to bring about more freedom and liberty, there would have to be clear things people really want to do but can't currently to motivate them to put in such effort.

[Pepin]

I have an inclination to become an educator, perhaps to open up a school at some point. There are so many disincentives.

[STer]

 

I have an inclination to become an educator, perhaps to open up a school at some point. There are so many disincentives.

 

Educators open up schools, tutoring services, educational product companies and so on all the time. So perhaps be more specific of exactly what you want to do and why you can't do it because of our lack of freedom.

[aerocabin]

I ran a business importing used cars and car parts into Canada, and after numerous arbitrary interferences from all levels of government I had to sell the business and give up importing. I always believed I could make a living with the business connections I had, importing and reselling in Canada. But now I'm too afraid to risk importing something and have the government agents arbitrarily seize my stuff or make it unnecessarily more expensive with their unreliable inefficiencies. From the trauma I suffered as a result of their arbitrary interference, I don't think I'd ever run a small business with a physical premises again.

As a consumer, they prevent me from importing tires from overseas, they'll cut em up if I try to import them. They also prevent me from buying affordable and superior used cars from overseas. Taxes, tariffs and other government non-sense prevents me from importing all kinds of cheaper goods. So in other words, I'm prevented from buying things through voluntary exchange from foreign markets and instead forced to buy overpriced crap from the domestic market. Every good anyone buys in a state market is a grossly increased price; the result of compounded taxes and regulatory costs, and the effect of unrealized/restricted competition. I want to pay the real price for things.

[STer]

 

I ran a business importing used cars and car parts into Canada, and after numerous arbitrary interferences from all levels of government I had to sell the business and give up importing. I always believed I could make a living with the business connections I had, importing and reselling in Canada. But now I'm too afraid to risk importing something and have the government agents arbitrarily seize my stuff or make it unnecessarily more expensive with their unreliable inefficiencies. From the trauma I suffered as a result of their arbitrary interference, I don't think I'd ever run a small business with a physical premises again.

As a consumer, they prevent me from importing tires from overseas, they'll cut em up if I try to import them. They also prevent me from buying affordable and superior used cars from overseas. Taxes, tariffs and other government non-sense prevents me from importing all kinds of cheaper goods. So in other words, I'm prevented from buying things through voluntary exchange from foreign markets and instead forced to buy overpriced crap from the domestic market. Every good anyone buys in a state market is a grossly increased price; the result of compounded taxes and regulatory costs, and the effect of unrealized/restricted competition. I want to pay the real price for things.

 

Thanks for sharing your story. So I wonder if the pattern that will emerge here is that in the West it is mostly about economic things like this. If so, then perhaps it's entrepreneurs who would really be most frustrated and perceive a lack of freedom where others might not really perceive it.

[DaisyAnarchist]

Nice thread.

I think for me, being a student with few marketable skills, I am frustrated by the fact that I can't sell any of my skills at a price that the employer and I personally negotiate on. I don't like that when I submit an application for employment to a given business, I have to work from a minimum price established by some party other than the buyer and seller. 

I am also frustrated that I cannot simply start up my own business without having to go through obtaining licenses/permits and having to pay taxes. I considered starting up a simple lawn business with a close friend of mine, but didn't like trying to weigh in whether to do it under the table (and not be able to do much advertising or develop a strong customer base) or go commercial and compete, which would have included startup costs that I don't think we could have covered.

One does not simply start up a business. 

You would think entrepneurs would share this frustration, but it seems there are many big names still who support the government barriers to entry/exit in the market, and the regulations. 

[prohexa]

It's a tricky question because we have nothing to compare our current society with. I can't say that in a free society I would do X, becase I'm not aware of what X would be. Also, many activities are directly tied to economic factors, so again it's difficult to say what my economic situation would look like without the state. Anyhow, I'll throw in a few examples for good measure;

 

1. I would have more spare time to play music, write poetry, etc. If I didn't have to pay >70% of my income in taxes I could easily cut down on my working hours to do all kinds of creative, fun and entertaining things instead.

2. Maybe I would go ice-skating? While we don't have a local skating rink today, the free market might have produced one under different circumstances. Maybe I would take joyrides in my flying car? I could go on forever...

3. I'd live longer, perhaps? Limitations by organizations like FDA currently prevents
tons of different medications from ever reaching the market, and even
from being developed. It's just not worth the cost to research drugs for many kinds of diseases. I'll call this activity "reading books in my late years".

4. I'd go for relaxing nightly walks around the city. This isn't possible today because of the very high risk of getting mugged or otherwise assaulted (in particular in certain areas) and the police is either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. I'm sure that this type of security would be handled much better in a free society, because the demand is certainly there. Which brings us to the next point;

5. I'd be able to arm myself and my house as needed. Currently it's near impossible to even own a weapon here. Even purely defensive arms like tear gas or stun guns are strictly forbidden to civil persons. If this doesn't count as an activity I'll call it "going to the shooting range".

6. I'd be able to start a business whenever I feel like it. I've had tons of business ideas that were never implemented due to the problems and complexity with the current system. We tried once, and we were thoroughly screwed over. The second time we didn't even get started until that business plan was thwarted by useless regulations. We won't go down that road again.

7. I'd be able to smoke marijuana or medicate with other drugs as I would see fit. I try to avoid most drugs, but I've personally seen classical weed make wonders where prescribed painkillers would do nothing (or even make it worse).

8. I'd be able to educate my (future) children in alternative ways. Homeschooling is currently forbidden here, and don't even mention unschooling.

 

It's fairly easy to see the most obvious and directly visible effects by the state, like taxes and business complications, but I suspect that the really important things we are missing out on are the invisible ones - in particular those that we don't even know...

[Stephen C]

Can't have a pet elephant here. What about for you, Ster? 

[Metric]

Just generally, I like the concept of being free from commtting three arguable felonies per day in the course of normal life:  http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

[MrCapitalism]

Anything I would want to be doing, if the last 5 years of my life hadn't been an economic disaster.

[Victor]

The list has no particular order:

Save money.

Buy stuff at reasonable prices.

Travel the world.

Have time for myself and my family.

Not worry so much about economic disasters.

Not live in constant disgust of the culture and most institutions that surround me.

Be safe from criminals.

Have my property protected and secured.

Be safe from an abusive, intrusive and popular state.

Not be ashamed and sad about my generation.

Helping the poor.

Improving the environment.

Reducing the unjust suffering of countless people.

Fly into space.

 

[Formelyknown]

I once lost my job and saw how the system screwed me. I couldn't just take the money I saved, find an empty spot and put down a little shed with a garden  while finding a new job or start my business by using wifi in a cofee shop.

Nope. I had to fill a bunch of papers to prove I had rent to pay. I had to put enough money on the side to pay for my income taxes as an autonmous worker.  So that I can prove I deserved the money I owe because of the government's regulation and taxes which supposed to pay for my safety net.

Furthemore I owed some money after I found a new job, because I did the awful crime of taking my retirement money to pay some debts.

Social security is so awesome.

[nathanm]

Ever-increasing inflation means there's very little perception of long term gain throughout my working career.  The numbers keep going up but the standard of living remains the same.

I take only half credit for making bad financial choices.  The other half is thanks to huge amounts of income being destroyed by federal, state, medicare and other taxes.  Interest rates are so low there's little incentive to save money.  Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to play the stock market.  My father saved money and it worked great for him, but I am not entirely sure if it's because he's more savvy or that when he was my age there was far less government intrusion.

Forced (more or less) to put money into a 401K even though I have no idea how it works, nor do I want to.

Medical costs are ridiculousy overpriced.  My incentive is to avoid medical care as much as possible.  I have to go through a $120 office visit in order to get $7 worth of pills.

Who knows how many things would've been cured by now if not for the FDA and it's decades-long trials and patent bullshit.

Taxation and low interest rates made the idea of owning a home completely unthinkable, until now, but even so it's still not great.  But even that may be a result of government intervention wherein people even poorer than me bought homes they couldn't afford.

Property taxes and building permits.  Not even people who "own" property can escape being under someone else's yoke.  Can't put up a damn shed without asking permission from some bureaucrat.  Completely pointless.

Shitty roads are beating the hell out of my car. Since they're using a limitless pile of stolen money why can't they give construction contracts to the HIGHEST bidder rather than the lowest?  Where's the innovation in road surfaces?  Fucking nowhere.  Same shit all the time.  Some slob standing by the side of the road shoveling asphalt into potholes cause the road can't hack temperature and moisture changes.

I don't travel often, but my experiences with the TSA were pointless.  I feel bad for people that have to fly a lot.

There's no freedom of speech in broadcast radio or TV, forcing natural language into a contorted mess of beeps and euphemisms.

Smart, innovative people in science and engineering get sucked into government jobs where their talents go towards destroying wealth rather than creating it

Public school education ensures no shortage of idiots who can't communicate and actively celebrate their ignorance.

[STer]

 

Nice thread.

I think for me, being a student with few marketable skills, I am frustrated by the fact that I can't sell any of my skills at a price that the employer and I personally negotiate on. I don't like that when I submit an application for employment to a given business, I have to work from a minimum price established by some party other than the buyer and seller. 

I am also frustrated that I cannot simply start up my own business without having to go through obtaining licenses/permits and having to pay taxes. I considered starting up a simple lawn business with a close friend of mine, but didn't like trying to weigh in whether to do it under the table (and not be able to do much advertising or develop a strong customer base) or go commercial and compete, which would have included startup costs that I don't think we could have covered.

One does not simply start up a business. 

You would think entrepneurs would share this frustration, but it seems there are many big names still who support the government barriers to entry/exit in the market, and the regulations. 

 

So for you the frustration is mostly wishing you could charge less than the minimum wage for your services and disliking the red tape in starting a business?

I am sure a lot of entrepreneurs are a bit annoyed by the latter one. But most people aren't entrepreneurs. And I don't think most people would be that upset that they can't go under the minimum wage. I'm sure many even feel protected by that, right or wrong.

This points out part of why I started this thread. I have a feeling the things that frustrate a lot of people on this board are not things that are very powerful in moving people in the general public to get really active and resistant. When people feel really oppressed in more basic ways like what you can say, what you can wear and so on, as in some really repressive societies, I think they're more likely to become fed up. But if the lack of freedom here amounts to things like this, I can't see it being strong enough to really motivate people to resist or even perceive much of a lack of freedom.

[STer]

 

It's fairly easy to see the most obvious and directly visible effects by the state, like taxes and business complications, but I suspect that the really important things we are missing out on are the invisible ones - in particular those that we don't even know...

 

So a lot of yours are economic too like others. And besides those, you just wonder what we might be able to do that we aren't even aware is possible. Again, not that motivating to the average person if you compare it to the types of things that really get people feeling oppressed to the point of wanting to change society.

I think this thread is showing why most people, though they feel some annoyances at taxes and red tape, don't really perceive a "lack of freedom" as a major problem in the West. They don't wake up feeling all the things they really want to do but can't because of the government.

[STer]

 

Just generally, I like the concept of being free from commtting three arguable felonies per day in the course of normal life:  http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

 

Meaningful in theory. But until most people you meet have a family member or good friend who actually was put in prison for these kinds of things, people will not perceive these kinds of laws as really limiting their freedom. In practice, I doubt they're really enforced strictly very often. So they end up being like a lot of laws that remain on the books but are just, as an unwritten rule, not really used except in extreme or some arbitrary few cases. So they aren't perceived as onerous by most people who have no personal experience with them at all and probably aren't even aware of them because of that.

[STer]

 

Anything I would want to be doing, if the last 5 years of my life hadn't been an economic disaster.

 

I highly doubt you have been prevented from doing all the things you wanted to do. That's an exaggeration. Some of them, sure, if your finances wouldn't allow it. But yet again if the economics are the main thing here, I doubt most people will perceive that as a "limit to freedom" by the government in the same way that people in really openly oppressive societies perceive their freedom being limited.

[STer]

 

I once lost my job and saw how the system screwed me. I couldn't just take the money I saved, find an empty spot and put down a little shed with a garden  while finding a new job or start my business by using wifi in a cofee shop.

Nope. I had to fill a bunch of papers to prove I had rent to pay. I had to put enough money on the side to pay for my income taxes as an autonmous worker.  So that I can prove I deserved the money I owe because of the government's regulation and taxes which supposed to pay for my safety net.

Furthemore I owed some money after I found a new job, because I did the awful crime of taking my retirement money to pay some debts.

Social security is so awesome.

 

These can certainly be frustrations. But they are frustrations most people perceive as having at least some other side to them. A lot of people, for example, perceive social security overall as a good idea even if it can be a pain when paying in. Filling out papers, paying taxes and social security would have to get pretty onerous before I think people would resist on the basis of these things. I just go back to my point that if you look at really opressive societies that control much more openly where people can go , how they have to dress, who can go to school and who can't and so on, you can see the type of perception of "lack of freedom" that eventually makes people stand up (or think about the civil rights movement in the 60's in the US and consider the feeling of lack of freedom that led to that vs. the kinds of complaints most people are putting up in this thread). I don't think these types of lacks of freedom will motivate people because, as annoying as they may be, people wake up and can pretty much go about and do as they please as long as they go through a few steps that most just find a minor annoyance.

The main lack of freedom I think most people feel is being unable to do what they want because they have to go to work and work so hard to make a living. But I don't think they perceive that as some imposition from the government. They just see it as kind of the way it is.

[MrCapitalism]

I can't quite say I buy the premise (more repressive societies have more resistance)... Most people in those societies like the restrictions, and have learned to live with them for a long time. I'm sure the government imposition is just as invisible to them as our government is invisible to us.

[STer]

 

I can't quite say I buy the premise (more repressive societies have more resistance)... Most people in those societies like the restrictions, and have learned to live with them for a long time. I'm sure the government imposition is just as invisible to them as our government is invisible to us.

 

Well we know the government imposition isn't so invisible to them as we are seeing uprisings like the Arab spring. When the government controls things down to the level of what you can wear and being unable to even have freedom of speech, that is serious lack of freedom that is very keenly felt. I don't deny, as you say, that many people have internalized this or have it rationalized. But I think a lot more people find it stifling than we know since it is dangerous to say so out loud. Also, even when that level of repression is rationalized, unconsciously the anger can build.

My point is simply that there is an important distinction between the types of indirect lacks of freedom felt immediately only by a portion of people (such as having to fill out papers to start a business) and very overt lacks of freedom like having extremely limited freedom of speech or movement or expression. In the latter case, many people have a very specific, basic and precise answer to what they wish they could do but can't. It only takes a few words to say something like "I wish I could criticize my government" or "I wish I could go outside with my face uncovered." It takes a lot more explanation to get into the kinds of complex lacks of freedom that we in the West may experience. And that's why I think it's a lot harder to generate the motivation for any great level of resistance. Most people don't really wake up in this society and feel unfree as a result of the government. I think the only major lack of freedom they feel is the rat race, which they don't really blame on the government. In fact, the people who lack jobs are only wishing to get back into the rat race.

What I'm also pointing to here is that I think in the West a lot of people feel more of a fear of not having their needs met than a feeling of being repressed or their freedom being limited. They don't so much feel violated and pushed out of their freedoms. They feel abandoned, left to the whims of fate, neglected.

[Agalloch]

Do Americans seriously believe they don't live in an oppressive regime? The Government *does* control what you can wear and you *don't* have freedom of speech... If anything the people rising up in the Arab Spring have more self respect, but not necessarily worse government. It's so easy to be comfortable believing they have such obviously evil government, where even elections aren't free, but struggle to believe the pretty obvious fact that American elections are openly rigged...

And the premise of the post seems so passive aggressive. As if the State is some theoretical evil that doesn't effect us in our day to day lifes, so does anyone have any *actual* evidence, of some *real* prevention of liberties in your *personal* life.

Everything? Prevented from having a childhood, prevented from getting an education, prevented from going back to school, prevented from entering any of numerous professions I might want to, prevented from keeping my pay, prevented from buying what I want, prevented from doing what I want, prevented from living as I want.

[STer]

 

Do Americans seriously believe they don't live in an oppressive regime? The Government *does* control what you can wear and you *don't* have freedom of speech... If anything the people rising up in the Arab Spring have more self respect, but not necessarily worse government. It's so easy to be comfortable believing they have such obviously evil government, where even elections aren't free, but struggle to believe the pretty obvious fact that American elections are openly rigged...

And the premise of the post seems so passive aggressive. As if the State is some theoretical evil that doesn't effect us in our day to day lifes, so does anyone have any *actual* evidence, of some *real* prevention of liberties in your *personal* life.

Everything? Prevented from having a childhood, prevented from getting an education, prevented from going back to school, prevented from entering any of numerous professions I might want to, prevented from keeping my pay, prevented from buying what I want, prevented from doing what I want, prevented from living as I want.

 

I doubt many Americans would describe feeling "oppressed" by our government. How does the government control what I can wear? Maybe you can come up with some extreme examples that few people would ever care about, but I have never had any issue wearing anything I wanted. I guess someone like a nudist could complain a bit more, but even then there are places they can go to be nudists, they just can't do it on a public street. Hardly enough to motivate most to revolt.

We don't have freedom of speech? Not totally 100%, no, there is the yelling fire in a crowded theater type exception. But I have never felt unable to speak on any topic I cared about. The very existence of this website is a testament to how strong freedom of speech is in most Western societies, even if you strongly criticize the government.

I didn't say the State doesn't affect us. What I said is that in the West the State allows most of the surface level freedoms that the everyday person cares about and that's why I don't think most are in a constant state of outrage at the government. It takes a lot more theory and consideration to see through to the level at which the State limits freedom in the West and I don't think most people feel driven to do that consideration. The limits are more indirect than in some other regions of the world is my point.

I'm not even sure what your last paragraph means. I don't know anyone prevented by the government from "having a childhood." That's especially true since, if your argument there is about schools, homeschooling is allowed here. The government is preventing you from going back to school and entering a profession? Or do you just mean they are putting some red tape in the way that would be a hassle? You seem to be talking in all or nothing terms about things that are actually shades of grey. The government doesn't prevent you from keeping any of your pay, but some of it. It may prevent you from buying a few things you want, but certainly not all. And my point is that I don't think most people feel terribly personally encumbered by the things the government won't let them buy. I'd be interested to see polling on these kinds of questions.

I hope you aren't misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying the government doesn't limit freedom and do some very harmful things in some cases. And I'm not discounting the frustration the people in this thread expressed. What I'm pointing out is simply why I think there is such a lack of concern about the whole topic among most of the public. It's because they don't really feel any massive prevention of freedom on a daily basis linked to the government. And even taxes, which pretty much annoy everyone, don't seem to most people a big enough encumberance to want to actively resist anything.

[Alan C.]

It's not unsual for people to show apathy about things which don't personally affect them. For example, a welfare parasite isn't going to care about a local business which spends millions of dollars annually on taxes and regulatory compliance.

The mistake is thinking that such people need convincing that their freedom is in jeopardy unless they do something.

[Formelyknown]

It isn't only annoyances. Those are fundamental issues. I can't build the house I want for less then 10000$ but stuck to buy a 350 000$ house or be slave to a guy renting me a room. Ironically it is what socialist /communist are scared off and why they hate free-market. 

Furthemore the gov took money from me and others not because I need it but the system does. Because a guy in the governement want to keep his job. If the average joe doesn't care about that. The problem is not liberty but the guy who think it's normal.

[tasmlab]

Some great lists here!

 

FAMILIES WHERE ONLY ONE PARENT WORKS:

A lot of the families in my neighborhood and most of my friends have to have both parents working to support their families*.  I would bet if the 20-40% we ship to Fed and state levels (let's even keep our town taxes with the garbage pick up and the police and the parks and the firemen, library, etc. for the sake of arguement), then these families could have full time moms at home raising their kids.  40% is probably what an average mother contributes, with 60% from the dads (I'm generalizing badly, but bear with me)

 

STRANGLEHOLD ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS and MEDICAL LISCENSURE IN GENERAL

Getting stoned is just a little bit of drugs being illegal.  It costs millions to get a new drug to market so it is essentially illegal for small start-ups to invent medicine.  And hugely expensive to buy new medicines because of the development costs.  For all we know, a free market in medicine could've solved cancer or even death by now if the industry wasn't so heavily cartelized through regulation.  After you get rid of them, we could also stop liscensure of doctors, get rid of HMOs and on and on.

This is the differenece between us dying and living in many instances.  If the state has taken from me 40 years of life at some point, I'll be pretty pissed.

There's two more for the pile!

 

* My family is fortunate enough to have a stay at home mommie.

[LovePrevails]

Training as a therapist - statist regulations it would take up to or exceeding 7 years.

 

In a free market where ability to perform the job was the basis on which qualifications were handed out, I could probably do the training in a year or so given the work I have been doing independently.

[prohexa]

 

 

It's fairly easy to see the most obvious and directly visible effects by the state, like taxes and business complications, but I suspect that the really important things we are missing out on are the invisible ones - in particular those that we don't even know...

 

So a lot of yours are economic too like others. And besides those, you just wonder what we might be able to do that we aren't even aware is possible. Again, not that motivating to the average person if you compare it to the types of things that really get people feeling oppressed to the point of wanting to change society.

I think this thread is showing why most people, though they feel some annoyances at taxes and red tape, don't really perceive a "lack of freedom" as a major problem in the West. They don't wake up feeling all the things they really want to do but can't because of the government.

 

Oops, I realize now that this thread was probably more about what arguments would convince the average voter of the illegitimacy of the state, rather than the day-to-day implications of it. I had mistakenly focused on this part in the first post:

 

So I'm curious. In your daily life, what are the activities that you
really want to do but feel unable to do because of this lack of freedom
or liberty?

 

As for arguments of economic factors not being very convincing I absolutely agree. As usual it's "the argument from efficiency" vs. "the argument from morality", as often mentioned by Stef. The short summary is that people will do and accept pretty much anything, as long as they think it's morally good.

I remember all too well how I used to think that the state was simply the better choice of two evils; some unfortunate but necessary oppression vs. starving people, poor children and chaos. It was not until I was properly confronted with the moral arguments that I finally accepted that the state was fundamentally immoral. After I had accepted the NAP as an absolute principle I had no other choice than to reject the whole idea of a state, even though such a society initally seemed unthinkable. I believe this is the best approach to get people over to our side...

[STer]

 

It isn't only annoyances. Those are fundamental issues. I can't build the house I want for less then 10000$ but stuck to buy a 350 000$ house or be slave to a guy renting me a room. Ironically it is what socialist /communist are scared off and why they hate free-market. 

Furthemore the gov took money from me and others not because I need it but the system does. Because a guy in the governement want to keep his job. If the average joe doesn't care about that. The problem is not liberty but the guy who think it's normal.

 

The government is forcing you to buy a $350,000 house? Never heard of that before. And I already said that yes people are annoyed that the government takes money from them. But most people don't find that alone a high enough price to cause them to rebel. Especially because at least some of it is spent providing things that they use. I actually think many millions of people, if they lived elsewhere and were told "You can come live in the West but you'll have to pay 25% taxes" would consider that a steal for themselves and gladly take that deal, not be enraged at having to pay that.

[STer]

 

Some great lists here!

 

FAMILIES WHERE ONLY ONE PARENT WORKS:

A lot of the families in my neighborhood and most of my friends have to have both parents working to support their families*.  I would bet if the 20-40% we ship to Fed and state levels (let's even keep our town taxes with the garbage pick up and the police and the parks and the firemen, library, etc. for the sake of arguement), then these families could have full time moms at home raising their kids.  40% is probably what an average mother contributes, with 60% from the dads (I'm generalizing badly, but bear with me)

 

I don't think most people blame taxes for putting them in this position. I think they blame companies who they see as becoming greedy and giving fat bonuses to their higher ups while laying off workers. I'm just saying I think that's the common perception.

 

STRANGLEHOLD ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS and MEDICAL LISCENSURE IN GENERAL

Getting stoned is just a little bit of drugs being illegal.  It costs millions to get a new drug to market so it is essentially illegal for small start-ups to invent medicine.  And hugely expensive to buy new medicines because of the development costs.  For all we know, a free market in medicine could've solved cancer or even death by now if the industry wasn't so heavily cartelized through regulation.  After you get rid of them, we could also stop liscensure of doctors, get rid of HMOs and on and on.

This is the differenece between us dying and living in many instances.  If the state has taken from me 40 years of life at some point, I'll be pretty pissed.

 

I think most people see these types of regulations as protecting them. They want to know their doctor had to get through a lot of regulation to get to that position, for example. So I don't see people being driven to revolt because it's not easy enough for people to become doctors without licenses. I wonder how low the poll #'s would be supporting making it easier to become a doctor.

Again not to minimize any frustration these things cause you. But I'm just trying to put it in perspective as to why - if these are the things that personally upset people about government on FDR - I don't think they translate that well to motivating the general public.

[STer]

 

Oops, I realize now that this thread was probably more about what arguments would convince the average voter of the illegitimacy of the state, rather than the day-to-day implications of it. I had mistakenly focused on this part in the first post:

 

Well for me it was about both. I am curious what people feel limited by on a daily basis. And I also am curious whether the things that people here feel limited by are things that the average person in the West is significantly upset about. If not it might explain the gap between the two audiences.

 

As for arguments of economic factors not being very convincing I absolutely agree. As usual it's "the argument from efficiency" vs. "the argument from morality", as often mentioned by Stef. The short summary is that people will do and accept pretty much anything, as long as they think it's morally good.

I remember all too well how I used to think that the state was simply the better choice of two evils; some unfortunate but necessary oppression vs. starving people, poor children and chaos. It was not until I was properly confronted with the moral arguments that I finally accepted that the state was fundamentally immoral. After I had accepted the NAP as an absolute principle I had no other choice than to reject the whole idea of a state, even though such a society initally seemed unthinkable. I believe this is the best approach to get people over to our side...

 

This raises a very related discussion that I'm not sure I've seen on these boards, per se, although it is absolutely core to Stefan's approach. Are people more deontological or consequentialist in our society? It seems that with this thinking people are counting on them being deontological almost completely. But I don't think they are. I don't think they are as totally consequentialist as you claim here either. I think most people blend the two. They do care about moral rights and wrongs. But they also are willing to put up with a moral wrong in principle to some extent if they can point to some good coming out of it. So even if you do convince people on basic principles that the State isn't moral, they can say "Yes perhaps technically so, but still it's helping in these various ways so I can live with it," which I think would be a very very common answer. You can't convince people with purely moral arguments unless they are extremely strong deontologists.

[PatrickC]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the premise for this thread STer. It seems that people are giving you their particular reasons and then you go ahead dismissing them one by one with no more reasoning let's say than their own. What is the purpose of this thread for you?

[tasmlab]

 

Again not to minimize any frustration these things cause you. But I'm just trying to put it in perspective as to why - if these are the things that personally upset people about government on FDR - I don't think they translate that well to motivating the general public.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree!  I think the public would think I was batshit to not require doctors to be approved through the state and require 10 years of education.

How long would it take to convince people that they should probably spend four hours a year with a nutritionist instead of seeing a guy who makes a $1,000,000 a year for five minutes?  Or that anybody should be able to approve thier own pharma?  Yea, people would think I was nuts.  But just think of the low cost options people would have if the insurers, pharma and the doctors didn't fascistically hold on to this thing.

I didn't know the point of the thread was to find oppression releif that would appeal to the public.  That's quite a fish to fry!

[STer]

 

I'm not entirely sure I understand the premise for this thread STer. It seems that people are giving you their particular reasons and then you go ahead dismissing them one by one with no more reasoning let's say than their own. What is the purpose of this thread for you?

 

I didn't dismiss them (at least most of them, a couple of them I do dismiss if they just aren't accurate). I mainly keep pointing out that their answers don't seem to be ones that most people in the public would be motivated by. I'm shining a light on the gap between the things people on FDR feel strongly about, leading them to this general sense of being somehow oppressed by the government and the sense in the general public, which I think is more on the other side, if anything - that they are too often neglected and left to fend for themselves.

Like I said, I certainly don't mean to diminish the frustrations people really do feel. And I'm sure many of them are quite real. I just find it an interesting contrast between the view of government on FDR as oppressive and limiting of freedom and the general sense in the public that, for the most part, in the West, we can do as we please as long as we aren't being too extreme (more extreme than most people care to be anyway.)

It goes back to the last part of my OP where I said "I think this topic is pretty important because if you're trying to convince people to work and make sacrifices to bring about more freedom and liberty, there would have to be clear things people really want to do but can't currently to motivate them to put in such effort."

[STer]

 

 

Again not to minimize any frustration these things cause you. But I'm just trying to put it in perspective as to why - if these are the things that personally upset people about government on FDR - I don't think they translate that well to motivating the general public.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree!  I think the public would think I was batshit to not require doctors to be approved through the state and require 10 years of education.

How long would it take to convince people that they should probably spend four hours a year with a nutritionist instead of seeing a guy who makes a $1,000,000 a year for five minutes?  Or that anybody should be able to approve thier own pharma?  Yea, people would think I was nuts.  But just think of the low cost options people would have if the insurers, pharma and the doctors didn't fascistically hold on to this thing.

I didn't know the point of the thread was to find oppression releif that would appeal to the public.  That's quite a fish to fry!

 

A couple things. Those who complain about too much government control tend to focus on the con artists in government (who certainly exist) and how we need to get things out of their hands to have liberty. But on the other side, you have con artists who would run rampant doing tremendous damage if not for some standards, as well. And that also has costs. I believe most people in the public, for all their skepticism about government, still fear the con artist down the street more than they truly fear government officials when it comes to their day to day lives.

As far as the point of the thread, like I've said it was both to hear what people's answers were and to see how they compare to the general public sense. I guess it comes down to the fact that anarchists and libertarians frame things in terms of freedom and liberty, which implies that there is this huge level of oppression going on. But if that's the case, why do so few people feel it? The reason is that the government in Western countries allows most everyday freedoms at this point. You can wear what you want, go pretty much where you want with minor inconveniences and so on. These things are not true in some countries and that's where I think a person starts to feel "I'm not free." So I wonder how effective the entire freedom/liberty message really is when you're talking to people who don't feel unfree in their basic day to day lives (and actually feel quite the opposite.)

And that brings up another point which is that there is a failure to speak the language of those who feel neglected and abandoned rather than intruded upon and violated, which keeps a huge portion of the public from being reached at all.

[MrCapitalism]

the language of those who feel neglected and abandoned

My personal opinion is that this is the language of emotionally dependent people.

rather than intruded upon and violated,

and this is the language of self sufficiency and personal efficacy.

 

What's your personal relationship to 'dependency' vs. 'self sufficiency'? Which do you consider superior?