Despite widespread disgruntlement and much pessimism about the direction of the nation, we in the United States still have much for which to give thanks this year. I personally am thankful for family, friends, health and that all the material needs of my wife and I are amply met.
Moreover, I am thankful that we enjoy a high level of freedom and liberty, both as a society and as individuals. Having lived in Brazil during a time of a repressive military regime and in Peru as it returned to democracy after 12 years of dictatorship, and having consulted in Bulgaria as it made the transition to democracy, I don’t take freedom for granted.
That does not mean, however, that individual liberty is always the most important value in society. As a Christian, justice and stewardship also rank very high for me, and I know many people of other faiths who feel the same.
Moreover, because liberty is vital, it should not be trivialized. I frequently hear from readers who warn me that our society is on “the road to serfdom” and that individual freedom is being sacrificed through growing government regulations. I find this to be balderdash.
A reader responded to a recent column on a compulsory promotion check-off voted for by Christmas tree producers.
In the Christmas tree column, I noted that such agricultural promotion programs do impinge, at least slightly, on the freedom of individual producers by forcing them to contribute to marketing efforts with which they may personally disagree. However, these programs also increase the incomes of producers of the commodities in question.
The reader wrote that in questions of liberty, he believed in Patrick Henry’s argument: “Give me liberty or give me death.”
At some level, many of us would agree with that sentiment. I would not have put in 29 years of active and reserve U.S. Army service if I did not think that defending our liberty as a nation is worth some sacrifice.
But I was also raised as a pragmatic farm kid; I know that a 15-cent fee per tree is not something for anyone to lose his life over. And I know enough philosophy to recognize a “false dichotomy” when one leaps out at me.
Individual freedom is important but it is not absolute. In a just society, any single person’s freedom to do what he wants is always limited by how his actions affect other people. And that line between individual autonomy and the needs of society as a whole is not always distinct.
When I was a little kid, government-ordered “cattle testers” came to the farm to test for Brucellosis, a disease often transmitted to humans through meat or milk. Cattle testing positive had to be slaughtered.
This advanced public health, but certainly was an infringement on the individual freedom of millions of farmers to raise and sell their livestock as they saw fit.
I cannot legally drive my pickup as fast as I might like and personally deem safe. Nor can I easily buy a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons per flush, and eventually I won’t be able to buy incandescent light bulbs. If I buy a new car, it has to have tire pressure sensors.
I cannot move earth within 300 feet of the creek that flows through our farm without getting a permit. I cannot buy dynamite at a farm store in Slayton the way we did when I was a kid, despite my army training in explosives and demolitions. Nor can I shoot squirrels in my back yard in St. Paul with my .22 rifle, even when they denude my cherry tree and grape vines.
Do these laws limit my freedom? Of course they do. Are they good public policies that advance the good of society as a whole? In my view, some are and some are not. Should I rise in revolt because they erase the last traces of my liberty? Don’t be silly!
When I was 7, the owner of the farm where we lived passed away and my mother either had to buy it from his estate or find another home for us. When she applied for a loan from the Federal Land Bank office in Slayton, she was told: “I’m sorry, Mrs. Lotterman, but our policy is that we don’t make loans to women.”
It was more than a decade before federal legislation outlawed such policies. Yet some see laws that ban gender discrimination in lending as more unwarranted government intrusion into private business, and thus another nail in the coffin of individual liberty. I don’t.
Out of every $100 that my wife and I pay in federal income tax, about 60 cents goes to fund “welfare” in the form of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Another $1.16 goes for Supplemental Security Income and $1.58 for food stamps. Are my wife and I victimized by these government programs that wrest money from hard workers to give it to the shiftless? Does this government action to reduce inequality erase our freedom? Does it sap our willingness to work, save and invest?
Certainly not. We have so much that we would be very happy to see these amounts increased.
But that is enough of a rant. I still have 11 pies to bake.
© 2011 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.