Freedom Isn’t For the Little People
George Mason University’s conservative Mercatus Center has just published a report on “Freedom in the 50 states” and guess what – the liberal bastions of New York and California are running dead last for the second year in a row! But fear not severely repressed Angelenos and New Yorkers. The study says far more about the contemporary Right’s distorted views on freedom than it does about the range of choices available to Americans.
Freedom is for the rich…
The report’s main revelation is that conservatives equate freedom almost exclusively with “the freedom to spend money as you see fit (especially if you’re a business).” More than two-thirds of the freedom score is based on fiscal and regulatory “freedom,” with a blunt measure of the overall state and local tax burden alone accounting for almost 30%. Under Mercatus’ rubric, things like allowing businesses to harm consumers with reduced consequences, banning free speech on private property and not paying for health insurance that allows people to live fuller lives are freedom promoting. Giving new mothers family leave to spend with their children, assuring workers the right to speak freely in the workplace and providing tax dollars to poor people for benefits like food stamps or childcare subsidies, these are all freedom reducing.
Freedom is for the powerful…
This gets at a larger point that comes increasingly into focus as you read through the reports details: Conservative freedom is freedom for the wolf, not the sheep. Freedom is the right of your boss to fire you for your political beliefs, not your right to express your political opinion at work. Freedom is the right of rentiers to jack up your rental rates, not your right to have an affordable place to live. Freedom is the right of a business to pay you as little as they want, not your right to a minimum wage that dramatically expands the choices of you and your family. Primacy is given to business and the wealthy consumer, with only indirect scraps of freedom left to workers and other citizens.
Freedom is not your grandpappy’s freedom…
Items one traditionally associates with freedom – civil liberties, free speech laws, civil rights, freedom from unjust incarceration – are either completely absent or given short shrift. Restrictions on police and judiciary power are only important as they relate to the victimless crimes of drug and alcohol use. If you so much as think about lifting that 7-11 Twinkie though, your ass can rot in a cage for 25 to life with nary a dent in “freedom.” Totally fine to have police fly mini-drones down your suburban street or place recording devices on all downtown light poles, but god help Lady Freedom if the local town council mandates that businesses have to marginally limit the size of their neon beer signs. Also absent from the report’s analysis is racial/gender/sexual orientation discrimination, which dramatically impacts a person’s freedom to live where they want, have the job they desire and gain access to things like bank loans.
Freedom is not applicable in your daily life…
This seemingly glaring oversight is only possible because Mercatus’s “freedom” relates exclusively to freedom vis-à-vis business and (to a lesser extent) individual interactions with government. There is no room in this conservative framework for freedom in spheres where most of us spend our time: at work, in our community or interacting with large corporations. Racial bigotry or misogyny doesn’t restrict freedom in the right-wing worldview, as long as it’s perpetuated by landowners, businesses or dominant social groups (and not the government). Similarly, the dictatorial workplace power of business owners, who can fire employees for their party affiliation or the color of their hair, doesn’t budge the free-o-meter because freedom doesn’t extend to the work sphere. Culturally, conservatives view San Francisco’s nose-ring wearing, tattooed green anarchists as less free than blue-haired Tennessee churchgoers because they completely ignore the role of progressive social/cultural heterogeneity in giving people the freedom to live without oppressive social norms.
… and freedom is definitely not for the masses
Overall then, the right-wing vision for freedom is a sad one. Gone are the enlightenment emphases on freedom of speech, freedom of association and the broader right of the little man to be free from interference by large institutions. Instead, conservative freedom is largely freedom for business owners and the rich to exercise control over their property, workers and money. For the rest of us, Mercatus carves out a tiny free-space where we can consume unregulated corporate products, work long days for shit pay for said corporations, and smoke, drink, and gamble away the pain of losing real control over our lives. Who’s ready to vote Libertarian!?
Posted on March 31, 2013, in Economics, Freedom and tagged corporate control, Libertarian, Mercatus, regulation, worker rights. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.
Westside Scribe 
Actually, you have it backwards: a large government is for the wolves, freedom is for the little people.
While one should have the freedom to spend money how one pleases (so long as one’s behavior doesn’t violate the rights of others), you have misunderstood the other “money freedoms”.
-“businesses to harm consumers with reduced consequences”-I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to, but I think we can both agree that if (as I think it is) the law is too harsh towards business then the law needs rebalancing.
-“banning free speech on private property”-you have the freedom to decide who can say what on your own property but nowhere else. “My house, my rules”. To allow the government the power to ban people from regulating speech on their own property certainly isn’t freedom.
-“not paying for health insurance that allows people to live fuller lives”-it adds to freedom because you are not being FORCED to pay for other people’s health insurance. Remember: force is the opposite of freedom. That is a theme that will be recurring throughout this comment.
-“Giving new mothers family leave to spend with their children, assuring workers the right to speak freely in the workplace”-the employer has the FREEDOM to either give the mother her maternity leave or not give it to her, just as the employer has the FREEDOM to allow his workers to express their political beliefs. If you’re a worker and you want paid maternity leave and the right to express your opinions at work, then don’t work for an employer who doesn’t give you those things cine you as the worker have the FREEDOM to choose whom you work for.
-“providing tax dollars to poor people for benefits like food stamps or childcare subsidies”-first of all, taxes pay for many things, most of it being wasted on fraud or overly generous salaries, but when on the rare occasion when they do pay for things like welfare, you have to remember that while the money provided to the downtrodden does do some nominal good, the money had to be taken away by force (which, again, is the opposite of freedom) to be provided to the downtrodden in the first place. If I were to come to your house, bap you on the head, and steal your money, only to give it to some starving child, that does not make me a good person.
-“Freedom is the right of your boss to fire you for your political beliefs, not your right to express your political opinion at work. Freedom is the right of rentiers to jack up your rental rates”-YES, they have the freedom to do those things, just as they have the freedom not to, just as you have the freedom not to work for them or rent from them. Would you want to live under a government that had the power to force employers to hear their employees’ political beliefs or had the power to determine rents? How would you like it if the government also decided it had the power to determine wages, and set your hourly wage at $2, regardless of the fact that your employer wants to pay you $100 an hour?
-“not your right to have an affordable place to live”-you do not have such a right because such a right takes away the rights of others (specifically the right to property. It would be as though I said I have “the right to live in your house, eat your food, and sleep with your wife”.
-“Freedom is the right of a business to pay you as little as they want”-yes, they have the FREEDOM to pay you what they want, be it $5 an hour or 100, just as you have the FREEDOM to not work for someone whom you think doesn’t pay enough for your labor.
-As for minimum wage: sure, having a $10 an hour minimum wage would be great, but if the government said businesses had to pay everyone a minimum of $10 an hour, there would be fewer jobs. So would you rather be unemployed or make $5 an hour? And of course: if the minimum wage is so great at $10 an hour, why not make it $100 an hour?Any economist worth their salt says the minimum wage hurts workers. If you don’t believe me, watch the Economic Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman here:
-“Primacy is given to business and the wealthy consumer, with only indirect scraps of freedom left to workers and other citizens.”-that is only because you are ignoring the freedoms you have, like the aforementioned freedom to choose whom you work for, the freedom to not work, the freedom to start your own business (which is being taken away from common people in states like California or New York), the freedom to negotiate your wages with prospective employers, in addition to freedoms from government (what you call “Items one traditionally associates with freedom – civil liberties”).
The point is: you can do anything you like so long as it does not infringe upon the freedoms of others. That is the definition of freedom, but the government is now saying that it can tell you what you may and may not do, regardless of whether it actually hurts others or not. That is contrary to the principle of enumerated powers in the Constitution and it is contrary to the idea of freedom.
When you do talk about civil liberties, you either make a muddled point or get it wrong. I’m not sure what you were trying to prove with your 7/11 comment, but people like me DO care about police and the proliferation of drones among the police forces. That is not good, and I want the police to have less power because currently they have too much.
-“god help Lady Freedom if the local town council mandates that businesses have to marginally limit the size of their neon beer signs.”-and if the town council can do that, who’s to say they can’t limit the size of drink you can buy, or say you can’t buy alcohol on Sunday, or make blowjobs illegal, or mandate you attend church every Sunday? Government is all about limits. The lower we place the limits on government, the harder it will be for them to take away the rights that actually matter. That is the main aspect of freedom you seem to miss.
-“Also absent from the report’s analysis is racial/gender/sexual orientation discrimination, which dramatically impacts a person’s freedom to live where they want, have the job they desire and gain access to things like bank loans.”-well I hate to break it to you, but we have the right to discriminate just as much as we have the right to be an asshole-just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Freedom from racial discrimination is an important part of freedom, but when the government forces people to not be bigoted that is not freedom (again: force=opposite of freedom). Therefore things like discrimination should be measured on an index separate of freedom.
-“There is no room in this conservative framework for freedom in spheres where most of us spend our time: at work, in our community or interacting with large corporations”-this gets back to the idea of enumerated powers and negative rights. You have so many freedoms that it is impossible to list them all. You have the freedom to sleep in a bed or on the floor, in a twin bed or a king bed, you have the freedom to eat a donut or cereal for breakfast, you have the freedom to walk or drive or bike to work. How are these not applicable in your daily life when your daily life is demonstrative of freedom? Think of all the things you did today, did you do any of them because the government told you to? Everything you did without the government telling you to do it: THAT IS FREEDOM!
-“Racial bigotry or misogyny doesn’t restrict freedom in the right-wing worldview, as long as it’s perpetuated by landowners, businesses or dominant social groups (and not the government)”-yes, because they have the freedom to be assholes, just like you have the freedom to not understand freedom. You too can be racially bigoted, you have that freedom, but it doesn’t mean you should be bigoted (and neither should you be forced not to be bigoted).
-“freedom doesn’t extend to the work sphere”-NO, freedom DOES apply to the work sphere, except your boss can limit your freedoms because by agreeing to work for your boss you agreed to have your freedoms limited by your boss. If you don’t like it then you can leave, because no one is forcing you to work for anyone just as no one forced the Tennesseean church-goers into that church.
-“in giving people the freedom to live without oppressive social norms.”-if you don’t like social norms where you live, then don’t live there. You have freedom of movement, so move to a place where there aren’t repressive social norms. The reasons social factors are not considered in the freedom index is because you are not forced to live under them if you don’t want to (force=opposite of freedom) and you have the freedom to challenge and/or change the norms. 40 years ago, gays had practically no rights and now they are on the verge of being granted marriage equality. They accomplished this feat by using their FREEDOM to challenge social norms.
-“Gone are the enlightenment emphases on freedom of speech, freedom of association and the broader right of the little man to be free from interference by large institutions”-first of all, they are not gone, they are simply better protected than the other freedoms and thus do not need as much attention. Secondly, you are not free from interference by large institution, you are only guaranteed freedom from government molestation (at least, you should be). If the interference by “large institutions” infringes on your rights or your freedoms, then you have the freedom to challenge that “large institution” in court and be given due process, and if the interference is legal but you don’t like the interference, then you can challenge it in the court of public opinion. That is freedom.
So basically you have completely misunderstood the entire concept of freedom, but I hope you bothered to read what I have written and learn from your mistakes.
-SL
@Barnettlanepolitics – An interesting and voluminous comment. Don’t have time to address all your points, but here are a few responses to the important issues you raise.
1. “Businesses to harm consumers with reduced consequences” refers to the tort law “reforms” that Mercatus argues account for 11% of our freedoms in the U.S. “Reform” in this case means a reduction in penalties or smaller payments to people who have been wronged.
2. While I respect “my house, my rules” on personal property, this privileging of property over speech rights is really about “my formerly public common space now privatized into a mall or large outdoor convening area, my rules.” Spaces that effectively act as public space under private ownership (including privatized roads, parks, large outdoor venues etc…) should preserve free speech rights.
3. Being healthy opens up a huge array of freedoms, like the ability to physically move, spend time with friends and loved ones, enjoy leisure time and ultimately be alive. These freedoms are far more important than someone’s freedom to pay slightly less for healthcare taxes.
4. Saying the employer has the freedom to choose whether workers have family leave or exercise political speech is exactly my point – this is freedom for the big man, not the small man. The only freedom accorded to the little man is to lose his livelihood.
5. Giving money to poor people to enjoy a variety of freedoms, in exchange for a marginal decline in other peoples’ freedom to spend money as they see fit, is a worthy trade.
6. Rent control can be debated on economic grounds, but again, I think providing people with a place to live and extra cash to spend enhances freedom more than cutting into the profits of rich landlords.
7. Minimum wage laws typically benefit workers by improving the total amount of wages earned because the percentage boost in incomes outweighs the percentage loss of employment. Additionally, minimum wages exert upward wage pressure on workers earning just above the minimum because it improves their bargaining power. From a freedom perspective, again I think putting money in the pocket of millions to do as they please outweighs taking money from thousands to stack in their vaults.
8. Saying that little people have the right to either quit, not work or become a business owner is part of my point, as is your “freedom” to move if you don’t like oppressive social norms. The freedom you reserve for little people is the freedom to not participate in a given sphere, whereas the dominant groups are given complete freedom to dictate terms in all spheres. Your freedom is the freedom of the rich and powerful. Under your rubric, a world in which one man has privatized all public land and banned anyone from working, moving or speaking, is a “free” one. Thanks, but I’d prefer that the government preserve other freedoms besides the ability to be a despot on your own property.
9. I agree that government must be limited in their ability to infringe on freedoms because they will always abuse this power. Restrictions on eminent domain, government surveillance, police powers, corruption and self-serving regulations are all important. But preserving freedoms, like speech and association in private places, is completely different than impinging on freedoms in the aforementioned way. And democratic government at least has a built in mechanism for reform – voting – that corporations and other private entities lack.
10. The fact that you don’t think discrimination impedes freedom is incredibly telling. Being denied the right to work where you want to, live where you want to or buy what you want to are blatantly anti-freedom. You just privilege the freedom of corporations over the freedom of individuals.
11. In sum then, I think your points further my argument that the conservative view of freedom is freedom for the powerful. Individuals preserve the freedom to “eat a donut or cereal for breakfast” i.e. “consume unregulated corporate products”; your boss can “pay you what they want” i.e. “long days for shit pay”; and if you don’t like it, “you can leave” or “smoke, drink, and gamble away the pain.” Meanwhile, the rich and powerful have full dictatorial control over the workplace where “your boss can limit your freedoms” (and where the vast majority of us spend most of our time), full control over social space (you can just “move”), and increasingly control over privatized public spaces where they can dictate what people are allowed to say, how they’re allowed to dress and who they’re allowed to speak with. To me this conservative vision is not freedom.
I will get to the other points, but the one I thought I could deal with most briefly is #10.
Wants have nothing to do with freedoms nor discrimination. I want to drive a Ferrari, but simply wanting a Ferrari does not entitle me the right to a Ferrari. Likewise, my want does not put an obligation on Ferrari to provide me with a car. If they do not give me a car simply because I say I want one does not make it discrimination, nor does it infringe on my freedom, because if they were required to give me a car, their freedom to choose whom they sell cars to (people with money versus people without it) would be undermined and very quickly they would stop making cars. Likewise, it would infringe on Ferrari’s right to property if the government took one of their cars and gave it to me. If Ferrari refused to sell me the car simply because they don’t like the looks of me, then why would I want to support Ferrari with my money? Furthermore, I have the freedom to start a social campaign for “Ferrari Equality” and if enough people agree with me, then Ferrari Equality will become a reality. That is freedom.
“Being denied the right to work where you want to, live where you want to or buy what you want to are blatantly anti-freedom”-If you want to work in a particular area and you can’t get work because the employers are bigoted…why would you want to work there then? Why not move to a place where employers/people aren’t bigoted and get work? By working in the bigoted area you are merely propping up your oppressors. And if you really want to live or work in that particular area then you will have to live with the consequences of choosing to live there, which may include being discriminated against. That is freedom: you have to accept the good and bad things that happen to you because of your choices.
Freedom is for everyone and it is a double edged sword (you have the freedom to make good and bad decisions), yet you seem to think that freedom must be taken from some so that it may be given to others.