Ignorance: The Enemy of Freedom
Transparency, and everything that goes with it, is a prerequisite of freedom.
For how is it I can claim freedom of choice if I'm intentionally left ignorant of the choices or the consequences of those choices?
But there are some trade-offs involved in the process.
To the end of rectifying the ignorance that is a barrier to freedom, government passes and enforces laws against fraud (where someone deprives another of the fruits of his labor under false pretenses), waste (where the fruits of labor are devalued for use on things for which it has no mandate), and abuse (the difference from waste being only malicious intent).
However, these regulations have a cost. Transparency in food, for instance, requires accurate nutritional measurements and labeling. This costs the manufacturer/distributor money, which they build into the cost of the goods sold.
Plus, any time there is a regulation, there is someone there to claim a violation, which results in a strain on the judicial system (not to mention the risk of an unfavorable judgment, regardless of guilt, which must also be accounted for in pricing).
So in addition to the costs that are built into the costs of goods, the legislative and judicial costs (i.e., government overhead) that these regulations incur are ultimately borne by the taxpayer.
In order to raise these funds, the government must require the governed to sacrifice a portion of the fruits of their labor to pay for the infrastructure and the added cost of enforcement.
Since this taxation is an inherent limit of the freedom of the taxpayer, who cannot spend the money the government took on other things he feels more likely to satisfy his happiness, it can be said that regulations and freedom are negatively correlated.
Thus, people should regard regulations with jealous suspicion, understanding that though regulations often change, the power that they imbue on the government that passes them is only very rarely given up voluntarily.
Consequently, regulations tend to have an additive effect, which makes diligence and skepticism -- regardless of the party in power -- that much more important.
For how is it I can claim freedom of choice if I'm intentionally left ignorant of the choices or the consequences of those choices?
But there are some trade-offs involved in the process.
To the end of rectifying the ignorance that is a barrier to freedom, government passes and enforces laws against fraud (where someone deprives another of the fruits of his labor under false pretenses), waste (where the fruits of labor are devalued for use on things for which it has no mandate), and abuse (the difference from waste being only malicious intent).
However, these regulations have a cost. Transparency in food, for instance, requires accurate nutritional measurements and labeling. This costs the manufacturer/distributor money, which they build into the cost of the goods sold.
Plus, any time there is a regulation, there is someone there to claim a violation, which results in a strain on the judicial system (not to mention the risk of an unfavorable judgment, regardless of guilt, which must also be accounted for in pricing).
So in addition to the costs that are built into the costs of goods, the legislative and judicial costs (i.e., government overhead) that these regulations incur are ultimately borne by the taxpayer.
In order to raise these funds, the government must require the governed to sacrifice a portion of the fruits of their labor to pay for the infrastructure and the added cost of enforcement.
Since this taxation is an inherent limit of the freedom of the taxpayer, who cannot spend the money the government took on other things he feels more likely to satisfy his happiness, it can be said that regulations and freedom are negatively correlated.
Thus, people should regard regulations with jealous suspicion, understanding that though regulations often change, the power that they imbue on the government that passes them is only very rarely given up voluntarily.
Consequently, regulations tend to have an additive effect, which makes diligence and skepticism -- regardless of the party in power -- that much more important.
Labels: freedom, government, ignorance
posted by Cameron Beck at 6:51 PM
6 comments
