Drawing the Freedom Line

2000-6-13 11:23:00

One of the main problems with the understanding of freedom is that the correct exercise of this principle is not black and white. For instance we can't say that he who loves freedom will never use force because force is sometimes necessary to insure freedom for the whole. The force of the Allies against Hitler was a prime example. Reasonable force to keep our communities safe from crime is another.

You can't say that he who loves freedom will live a life completely free from discipline, constraints and law. Justified law (which always involves some type of limitation) if made for the benefit of the whole will give more stability and freedom than it takes away. Discipline limits a person in certain areas, but has the advantage of expanding freedom in other desirable areas. Constraint, such as keeping drunk drivers off our highways, is a reasonable trade off for the added safety it gives the majority.

The trouble with many people who influence society is that they are extremists. For instance, those who make the laws may like the praise they received from making laws to keep drunk drivers off our roads so they sit around and daydream of what they can do next. Well maybe the thing to do next is nothing. Maybe they have done enough. Even if this is the case such schemers are not happy and they start dreaming up more constrains "for our own good."

The theory of these mislead souls is that "even if one life is saved our solution is worth whatever discomfort millions will have to endure." An example of this anti freedom philosophy at work is in the late 70's during the gas shortages, they reduced the national speed limit to a maximum of 55 MPH. Now this law was so extreme that I doubt that one out of 100 driving the freeways of the country obeyed this silly rule, but what irritated me about these do-gooders was what happened when the gas shortage was over and citizens wanted to repeal the law.

Many of our lawmakers refused, not to save gas now as we had plenty, but to save lives. Some thought that if we could even save one life by forcing millions of the rest of us to drive at 55 that the law should remain as it was. This thinking prevailed for about ten years until Senator Symms from Idaho introduced a bill raising the limit - thank God. The funny thing was after the law was passed, the freeways deaths decreased in many states including Idaho. One reason, I am sure, is that there was much less frustration for drivers.

Then what really got to me was that even though there was iron clad statistics showing that raising the speed limit from 55 to 65 was harmless, many still wanted to impose the lower speed limit "for our own good" because of "what might happen."

Now what is wrong with the reasoning that it is OK to restrict the freedom of millions to save one life? This is a great feel good statement that has a strong effect on those polarized in feeling, but what is wrong with the reasoning here?

Give examples where this idea just does not work.

"I have determined that there is no market for talking pictures." said Thomas Edison who invented the process.