Freedom Through Unfreedom


That is why it is necessary for a people and a duty of their government to restrict this movement into their lands by force, through whatever physical or legal or punitive barriers prove necessary.

Followed four sentences later by this:

But for those of us with other goals - such as the continuation (at least thru our grandchildrens' lives) of the United States as a bastion of freedom and rule of law in an otherwise corrupt and lawless world...

Freedom through unfreedom. The disconnect is delicious. What kind of bastion of freedom is a country that punishes people for wanting to take part in that very same freedom? Not a country worth preserving.

Share this

Not just this issue

This is essentially the anarchism vs minarchism debate. Minarchists (like me) are willing to tolerate some restrictions on freedom from coercion because we believe on net it makes us more free, or at least happier. It even involves the sequencing problem: even if I supported privatizing the police, I would not want to shut down the homicide department even as the police maintained their monopoly and prevented people from defending themselves.

It's also reminiscent of

It's also reminiscent of deontological vs. teleological debates. The man who sees rights as side-constraints rejects restrictions on freedom even if they lead to more freedom, whereas the teleological man gladly accepts restrictions in freedom if it produces more freedom on net.