The Value of Freedom

Isn't it the right of the citizen to choose what he likes for breakfast. However, in this country we do have freedom of speech, the right to vote, and so on. Of course, within restrictions that do not impinge on the rights of others. All this is well-known. So you must think what I just wrote is wrong.

If you are satisfied with the freedom you have , I'm happy for you. I still say its an illusion. Take for instance lobbying, do you consider this bribery or a normal democratic method?

No I don't. And if there is bribery, it is an abuse of lobbying, and should be stopped. And there is voter fraud, and that should be stopped too. And there is welfare fraud, that that should be stopped too.

So you see lobbying as an act of democratic freedom? I understand now how you imagine you have freedom.

Lobbying has its place in the political process. But not when it is abused. What has it to do with freedom?

Lobbying cannot be stopped. The government can ban 'lobbyists' from working in the Capitol, but there is no way or reason in a free society to prevent individuals from having conversations with elected officials. The solution to the problem of de facto government by and for the corporations is much simpler and more elegant than some monstrous law that puts elected officials in a sanitized bubble in an effort to free them undue influence by certain parties. The solution is to abolish the powers of government that the corporations 'persuade' the politicians to use in their favor. Abolish all subsidies, simplify and make uniform the tax code, eliminate all federal regulation of private enterprise except insofar as that commerce crosses national bordersor concerns inter-state tarrifs (the real, much abused meaning of the interstate commerce clause), change the process by which governments contract with private parties, abolish the Federal Reserve, institute rules regarding former employees/investors of companies filling official positions whose power involves said companies, etc.

Lobbying with the aid of agencies is the problem. Corporate bodies have unfair influence by the accepted system. 70,000 employed directly with the lobbying system must give any free society a sense of injustice. These are not minority interests trying to make their voice heard, its chemical, pharmaceuticals vying for contracts through a system that evolved to give the electorate a voice in government. Politicians love it, its their source of revenue for the next round of supposed free elections.

Some people regard freedom as the ultimate political value, while others regard equality as being more valuable or equally as valuable as freedom. Why is it that some people value freedom with little to no constraints (anarchists, libertarians, etc) even when there are obvious negative externalities? Is it because of their will to power?

Some people regard freedom as the ultimate political value, while others regard equality as being more valuable or equally as valuable as freedom. Why is it that some people value freedom with little to no constraints (anarchists, libertarians, etc) even when there are obvious negative externalities? Is it because of their will to power?

Why do some want freedom, and others equality? It's about self-interest. If there is freedom, then our own abilities determine our success. If there is equality, then they do not. Someone who trusts in his own abilities wants freedom to make the most of himself. Someone who feels he is a loser does not want success to be determined by his abilities. So the quest for equality is entirely due to selfishness, not some concern for the downtrodden.

That's very western thinking,

That's right. That whole equality, entitlement culture is a western invention.
It does depend on what values one is raised to believe in. And in the west we gradually exchange the values of freedom with that of socialism.

Equality of opportunity is an ideal, it's ambitious but theoretically possible.
Advantages are inevitable, but opportunities entitled. We are born with the "opportunity" to achieve ANY value. Some lack the means, but that can be fixed.(probably not anytime soon) ...there are inequalities among individuals, ...

... Capitalism creates the social hierarchy based on worth, based on ability, as it should be.

Greeting EmperorNero,

Would you please define your terms: "freedom"; "socialism."

I can think of a dozen definitions of the last word alone. Which one do you have in mind??

Every Socialist that I have ever met believes that the way-of-life s/he is supporting would enhance freedom !! And he or she could state why.

Freedom means the freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men.
Socialism just broadly means any political system which advocates common ownership and allocation of production; eliminating individual property rights. I.e. an anti-individualist organizations of society. It's not really important what we call it here, if socialism is supposed to mean something more specific.
That anti-individualist systems limit individual freedom follows from the definitions.

Socialists believe they enhance freedom because their leaders re-defined "freedom" to include the freedom from material necessity; i.e. wealth. Equal freedom now means equal wealth. Thus wealth redistribution creates "equal freedom". That, of course, makes the word "freedom" meaningless. But it allows them to carry on the Marxist polemic, just with the word "wealth" exchanged for "freedom" (because it now means wealth).