@StevieB: only if freedom also implies capacity, which is arguable.
(I'd say not, otherwise none of us are free because of that damnable speed of light, laws of thermodynamics, etc. - which is a legitimate definition, I guess, just not a very useful one.)
@Alistair: what is freedom worth without capacity? Or put another way, freedom does not exist in any tangible way if it is not the freedom to do something or be something. I think this is a defining fault line between right and left in politics. Freedom without regard to capacity appeals to those on the right: freedom without capacity is meaningless to those on the left.
Quezako: That's not what I meant. My point was that freedom has a price greater than money can buy. Somebody, at some point in time, bled for your freedom.
@StevieB: ability to use whatever capacity you have got, and to go out and get some capacity. And, on a more serious note, not having some guy in jackboots telling you to tote barges and lift bales, thus preventing you from getting any capacity.
On that left/right business: I think those of us on the "right", or the "middle and up", depending on where you put the libertarians recognize the utility of capacity, but also two other things: one, freedom tends to generate capacity for those willing to seize it; and two, giving capacity to A almost inevitably means taking away from the freedom of B, and that's not a road that we want to go down.
@Quezako: Well, that's one way to define it, but I submit it's not the sense used by by far the vast majority of people, including dictionary manufacturers.
@Alistair: giving capacity to A almost inevitably means taking away from the freedom of B
Conversely, B's unfettered freedom is usually what's preventing A from achieving capacity. It's not about giving capacity to A: it's about preventing B from denying capacity to A. I'd put this more traditionally. Freedom without responsibility isn't freedom, it's self-indulgence. If B will not curb their freedom voluntarily to permit capacity for A, then it must be curbed for them. In a "good" society this function is performed by the law, before which all are equal. In practice...
@StevieB: How? Economics isn't zero-sum; the default case is that increasing the capacity of B doesn't affect the capacity of A, and since B will usually need A, C, D, E, and so forth to use his capacity, transactions generally increase their capacity also. Wealth gets generated.
High-capacity individuals, generally speaking, are usually benefactors to low-capacity individuals even if they don't intend do be.
@Alistair: High-capacity individuals, generally speaking, are usually benefactors to low-capacity individuals even if they don't intend do be
This is a posh presentation of the "trickle-down" theory. It ignores, of course, the source of B's capacity. Put crudely, wealth is not generated so much as extracted, often from A. The problem with this approach is that the upward flow is a darn sight faster and stronger than the downward flow. And you appear to predicate all this on the notion of individuals having some sort of intrinsic capacity unrelated to their economic and political relationships. Another defining fault line between left and right!
It's a variation, actually, because the low-capacity individual has to have some means of being productive before he gets trickled on. That's explicit in my version because I don't claim everyone can be productive.
But in any case, I've never bought into the alternative theory - of "extraction" - on the reasonable grounds that you can't extract from people what they never had in the first place. No single employee of a company could produce its products. On the global version of this argument we (the US, in this case) could march into the entire Third World, steal everything that's not nailed down, and not even power our economy for a day. If it's being extracted, where's it coming from?
As for the latter: well, obviously. Capacity is not a social construct, it's inherent to the individual, whether innate or learned. If it wasn't, then people would die immediately on being dropped alone in the wilderness, which they don't.
Perhaps I mean the capacity for capacity does not arise solely from the inherent properties of individuals! I don't think the undeniable fact that "no single employee of a company could produce its products" is either here or there. When I use the term extraction I'm clearly talking metaphorically and wealth is not a kind of mineral deposit inside individuals to be mined. Step-wise, and to join the dots: wealth is generated from labour, and is then sucked up fast and furious, and trickled down slowly and uncertainly. So you can't steal labour (slavery aside), but you sure can steal its productivity.
@StevieB: just to be clear, you are contending that the total value of/wealth contained in a given product/service is the sum of the values of the labor used in producing/providing it (plus, presumably but irrelevantly, the value of the material therein)?
Vietman: Thank you for reiterating that point. No, really. It was completely necessary to say it again. Did you even read the comments before you posted?
Discussion (34)
Based on what the INS charge for processing visa applications, freedom is very expensive indeed.
I'm free and it's free. I do not live in USA.
Wouldn't that make the poorest in our society as free as the richest? I doubt they'd agree.
I'm more free than I was, and it cost money. Such is subjectivity, I guess.
The cost of your freedom transcends money value.
(@Quezako)
@StevieB: only if freedom also implies capacity, which is arguable.
(I'd say not, otherwise none of us are free because of that damnable speed of light, laws of thermodynamics, etc. - which is a legitimate definition, I guess, just not a very useful one.)
Das Boot, freedom has no cost, then?
Suggested tags: freedom, philosophy, price
@Alistair: what is freedom worth without capacity? Or put another way, freedom does not exist in any tangible way if it is not the freedom to do something or be something. I think this is a defining fault line between right and left in politics. Freedom without regard to capacity appeals to those on the right: freedom without capacity is meaningless to those on the left.
Well put, Stevie.
Quezako: That's not what I meant. My point was that freedom has a price greater than money can buy. Somebody, at some point in time, bled for your freedom.
@StevieB: ability to use whatever capacity you have got, and to go out and get some capacity. And, on a more serious note, not having some guy in jackboots telling you to tote barges and lift bales, thus preventing you from getting any capacity.
On that left/right business: I think those of us on the "right", or the "middle and up", depending on where you put the libertarians recognize the utility of capacity, but also two other things: one, freedom tends to generate capacity for those willing to seize it; and two, giving capacity to A almost inevitably means taking away from the freedom of B, and that's not a road that we want to go down.
For me, freedom is only in my head. I can be in jail and be free. I can have billions of dollars and do not feel free.
I think to be free is not to want more than you have right now. Being pleased with your life, being happy, in one way.
Quezako: I see your point. I was debating about a different kind of freedom.
@Quezako: Well, that's one way to define it, but I submit it's not the sense used by by far the vast majority of people, including dictionary manufacturers.
I thought it was rather elegant myself.
Freedom costs a buck 'o five.
@Das Boot: well, it may be that, but it's also the sense that every would-be tyrant in the world wishes his people had.
"The tree of liberty must regularly be watered with the blood of patriots."
Thomas Jefferson.
Just because freedom costs no money does not make it free. Freeing Europe from Nazi control was a costly process indeed.
@Alistair: giving capacity to A almost inevitably means taking away from the freedom of B
Conversely, B's unfettered freedom is usually what's preventing A from achieving capacity. It's not about giving capacity to A: it's about preventing B from denying capacity to A. I'd put this more traditionally. Freedom without responsibility isn't freedom, it's self-indulgence. If B will not curb their freedom voluntarily to permit capacity for A, then it must be curbed for them. In a "good" society this function is performed by the law, before which all are equal. In practice...
Claims inspired by this comment
Economics is not a zero-sum game; wealth is generated, not reallocated.@StevieB: How? Economics isn't zero-sum; the default case is that increasing the capacity of B doesn't affect the capacity of A, and since B will usually need A, C, D, E, and so forth to use his capacity, transactions generally increase their capacity also. Wealth gets generated.
High-capacity individuals, generally speaking, are usually benefactors to low-capacity individuals even if they don't intend do be.
@Alistair: High-capacity individuals, generally speaking, are usually benefactors to low-capacity individuals even if they don't intend do be
This is a posh presentation of the "trickle-down" theory. It ignores, of course, the source of B's capacity. Put crudely, wealth is not generated so much as extracted, often from A. The problem with this approach is that the upward flow is a darn sight faster and stronger than the downward flow. And you appear to predicate all this on the notion of individuals having some sort of intrinsic capacity unrelated to their economic and political relationships. Another defining fault line between left and right!
It's a variation, actually, because the low-capacity individual has to have some means of being productive before he gets trickled on. That's explicit in my version because I don't claim everyone can be productive.
But in any case, I've never bought into the alternative theory - of "extraction" - on the reasonable grounds that you can't extract from people what they never had in the first place. No single employee of a company could produce its products. On the global version of this argument we (the US, in this case) could march into the entire Third World, steal everything that's not nailed down, and not even power our economy for a day. If it's being extracted, where's it coming from?
As for the latter: well, obviously. Capacity is not a social construct, it's inherent to the individual, whether innate or learned. If it wasn't, then people would die immediately on being dropped alone in the wilderness, which they don't.
(If we stole things that were nailed down, too - a couple of days, tops.)
Perhaps I mean the capacity for capacity does not arise solely from the inherent properties of individuals! I don't think the undeniable fact that "no single employee of a company could produce its products" is either here or there. When I use the term extraction I'm clearly talking metaphorically and wealth is not a kind of mineral deposit inside individuals to be mined. Step-wise, and to join the dots: wealth is generated from labour, and is then sucked up fast and furious, and trickled down slowly and uncertainly. So you can't steal labour (slavery aside), but you sure can steal its productivity.
@StevieB: just to be clear, you are contending that the total value of/wealth contained in a given product/service is the sum of the values of the labor used in producing/providing it (plus, presumably but irrelevantly, the value of the material therein)?
Also, how do you value different types of labor?
@Alistair: I contend that it includes that, but not that it consists only of that.
It's a tricky one. I think I'm going to have to understand the whole of your theory of value to really make progress here, though...
Hey, give me a chance to understand the whole of my theory first! :)
*grin* Okay, that works!
Freedom is not solely a mental concept as physical aspect of freedom is crucial.
As human society develops there's less space and less resources.
Hence, freedom is getting more expensive.
Our founding fathers paid a lot for their freedom.
Vietman: Thank you for reiterating that point. No, really. It was completely necessary to say it again. Did you even read the comments before you posted?