LIBERTY has little value if those who
ostensibly possess it lack the resources to make their rights effective.
For
example, freedom to hire a lawyer means little if all lawyers charge fees, if
the state will not help, and if you have no money. The right to private
property, an important part of liberty, means little if you lack the resources
to protect what you own and the police are unavailable. Liberties must be
valuable in practice or they have no practical legitimacy.
How much freedom I have depends on the number and nature of my options. And
that, in turn, depends both on the rules of the game and on the assets of the
players. Do you understand that it is a very important and widely neglected
truth that freedom does not depend on the rules of the game alone?
"I AM NOT A NUMBER - I AM A FREE MAN!" [ Patrick McGoohan, as "The Prisoner"]
I challenge the prevailing conservative dogma which assumes unfettered
laissez-faire capitalism is the economic system which will produce the greatest
benefit for the greatest number. Where's the empirical evidence? Indeed,
where's the "unfettered laissez-faire capitalism"? (No - Singapore doesn't qualify...)
While I believe we must remain eternally vigilant of our gummint - I don't
"hate" gummint - or consider it a "necessary evil". In the
world of no gummint, only the tyrant is free...
QUOTE/UNQUOTE
"The function of State coercion is to override individual coercion, and, of course, coercion exercised by any association of individuals within the State. It is by this means that it maintains liberty of expression, security of person and property, genuine freedom of contract, the rights of public meeting and association, and finally its own power to carry out common objects undefeated by the recalcitrance of individual members."
[L. T. Hobhouse, "Liberalism", Chapter 7]
