Trip the frustrated idealist...

Things should work right...hose should not run, engines should not stall, people should not steal and markets should work free of outside intervention. But it would be folly to accept this as the way of things merely because these are what would be considered right. I just finished reading Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, and I have to say there have been few things as intellectually enlightening. After reading this book I have learned that just because things seem to be working and are possibly the best possible realistic solution, as a proponent of personal freedoms I should express regret at any situation in which free decisions were replaced with forced ones. I have also taken it upon myself that in light of any opinion I may strongly hold, to always entertain the balance of compulsion and freedom. Joel and Eddie have heard these already and will no doubt hear them again but these are just a few of the things that I frown upon due to their infractions of the ideals of personal liberty yet accept as the realistic solution.

• Minimum Voting Age - While I understand that there are certain physiological barriers and uncontrollable instances of parent or authority figure coercion for children, it is still a violation of their personal freedoms to deny them the ability to control the government of which has immeasurable effects on them. I realize the realities of letting a child vote are real and not something of opposing speculation and this is why I accept the current situation as currently the best of all possible solutions.

• Minimum Wage Laws -This is a more complex situation to explain in text form so let me try and sum it up by saying that Minimum wages prevent those who are willing to work for a certain amount of money (which the government feels is too little) getting placed in the positions that fit their abilities and simultaneously prevent employers from finding workers at the most efficient hourly compensation rate. In the spectrum of price and compensation there is a gap from 0 to currently 5.15 dollars per hour for compensation. The concept is equally as unnerving as the government mandating that dime store candy be sold for no less than 5 dollars because it is unnatural to pay that little for candy. While the argument is that if we do not pay them a minimum they will be living in substandard and poverty stricken environments. To a certain degree one in favor of removing the minimum wage could argue that the drop in the minimum wage would also lower the prices of all related goods because now goods could be made for less money making them cheaper and therefore raising real incomes of everyone. Obviously there is a degree to how much this will actually benefit the workers but in the end it also helps decrease unemployment. The point is that perhaps the status quo is not the right or the best solution, but it is a case where the people who are making minimum wage will have a vested interest in making sure legislation goes through that will never lower their wages. It is a similar dilemma that is faced within free trade negotiations.

• Public Housing and general Concept of Wealth Distribution - The bottom line here is that if left unchecked the people who care about helping those less fortunate will operate in private markets untouched by the government and redistribute the wealth to those who they see fit. Once again this is the use of voluntary means to achieve an end which a certain number of people value. The sad truth is that people freeride. People know that there are other people who care enough to cover their tab o to speak. These "freeriders" are the reason that government intervention is needed. Because people may infact care about the concept of helping those living in poverty, but still feel as though they can freeride and that others will help the poverty stricken people without them laying out a dime. This necessitates collection of taxes to be used to pay towards those who are in need ( a subjective term it may be). This outcome is obviously not preferred by the person who abhors mandatory behavior like redistribution of one's own money against his or her will.
  

This goes back to Joel's post about what is right and what is best which is mostly the spawn of a conversation that the three of us had one night. I have now taken it upon myself to perpetually entertain the ideas which hold the foundations of freedom in the highest priority even if for no other reason than I feel it should be looked at as an alternative in every situation. I think I have illustrated here with these examples exactly why choices which exert only free choice will never be the sole functioning ideals of a society. I am sure someone somewhere has said something along these lines, but it should be said nevertheless. One should hold freedom high but accept the reality that sometimes for the sake of many piece of freedom must be sacrificed to achieve this...this person however should never let that piece go before identifying alternatives and exhausting all options...and whenever this is the case that freedom is relinquished that person should always be aware of what he or she has lost and question those constantly who are responsible for making "better" use of it.

If there is any arena in which we should be equal it is the arena of personal freedoms. But, hey...then again, I am an Idealist.


Joel's note: The problem with being a proponent of such ideals, particularly the first two, is that everything would have to work perfectly, including everyone holding the same ideals. To ask "what does economic theory state should happen if we remove the minimum wage/remove all rent controls/remove all mandatory taxes" is the fallacy of economics because economic theory is created in a fictionalized perfect world. Also, giving complete freedom to people is one step from anarchy. The government would get very little revenue and would no longer have the power to police. Soon, there would be no government at all.