Milton Friedman On The Role Of Government In A Free Society
Versus a "free lunch" society:
John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty":
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." -- John Stuart Mill, Essay on Liberty (Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.13)More from Mill:
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant -- society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it -- its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. -- On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.
Some examples of this:
The 18th amendment was an abysmal failure. A portion of society decreed what was "right" morally for everyone.
Where the more modern DUI laws have been turned into something similar, but the original intent was to prevent harm to others -- you can drink to your hearts content, but not drive and harm others in society.
Jim P. at October 25, 2012 6:42 PM
Nice example. If the "portion of society" had been heeded, we wouldn't be losing over 17,000 people per year directly to alcohol abuse.
What the repeal did was yield to the mob - that part of the public which basically said, "Screw you, I'm going to get drunk, and that's all I care about".
So Darwin culls the stupid now, and that's OK? Some people - another "portion of society" - even hold this magnificent success up as an example for the legalization of drugs with a much larger addiction factor and rate of impairment. They then claim that responsible behavior will follow.
Start counting the laws dealing with alcohol, and you'll realize just what this obsession has cost the nation. Hint: the BATFE actually has final say on the appearance and content of alcoholic beverage labels in the USA. Your tax dollar goes to those stalwart government employees because consumer protection law also covers such beverages, so you don't get poisoned more than you think you will.
You may count on similar expenses for other legalization. IT'S NOT FREE.
Radwaste at October 27, 2012 5:45 AM
Moral and practical considerations aside, there should simply be no laws where there is no broad concensus. That would include laws against abortion or laws mandating Obamacare. 51% of the people simply have no business telling the other 49% how to live their lives. That way lies hatred and social division, as we are now, sadly, witnessing.
Jim Simon at October 27, 2012 6:39 AM
I read the rest of your post, but this sentence states your position quite clearly. You are saying that you have a right to control what everyone else does regardless of how it affects you. You would say I have no right to drink, or drug myself to my detriment even if I don't do a single thing to damage you.
What about gay marriage. Two men or women get married -- how does that hurt you?
I will agree that no one has a right to claim your or my money to support them in bad choices.
But you go even further saying that no one can be allowed to make a bad decision without your approval.
Plan and simple: Go fornicate yourself and the equine you arrived on.
Jim P. at October 27, 2012 9:34 PM
I see your emotions robbed you of what logic you could have employed.
Hope you get better soon.
Radwaste at May 8, 2015 11:02 AM
Leave a comment