I was walking yesterday and overheard a single sentence of a conversation between three guys.  The first guy said, “They don’t understand that the only way to restore freedom is to temporarily take away all their rights.” The other two guys agreed.  I have no idea of the context of this sentence, but I would guess they were discussing the issue of freedom vs security (i.e. Do you give up rights for the purpose of being kept safe?).  Well, it got me thinking about whether or not this was true in any context.

I look at laws as restrictions of freedom, some necessary and some are not.  In deciding which of them are most useful and needed, I always end up thinking of a hose analogy:  If you turn on the water, it comes rushing out of the hose and onto the ground.  If you put a nozzle on it, the water becomes focused and sprays 10 to 20 times farther.  The nozzle can also be tightened to a point where the water is cut off.

If the water is society’s potential, laws are like the nozzle that can be used to restrict certain behaviors of society and focus the efforts of the rest toward prosperity.  An example is a law against fraud which, when enforced, promote investment.    On the other hand, if there are too many laws, or they are designed/enforced improperly, this cuts off the potential.  An example would be the “one-time bonus taxes” proposed on employees of companies that received TARP funds.

So back to the question… are there situations where either an individual or society should give up their rights in order to have freedom restored at a later time?  Here are a couple of my quick thoughts:

1. A does not always equal B.  The guy’s comment assumes two things: the only way to get freedom is to give up rights, and that once the rights are given up that they will be restored.  I don’t think either of those are true.
2. I’ve always liked a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Maybe its a little disingenuous to apply a quote from the days of war and where people dueled for honor, to circumstances today, but I think the principle is the same.
3. I don’t agree with the comment even in an financial sense.  The comparison would be someone, who in exchange for financial security, temporarily gives up their ability to produce.  The guy’s comment might be true if this led to greater production in the future, but I think that it has the opposite affect as seen by our welfare system.  People are compelled to give up their ability to produce, in exchange for financial security (a set financial payment).  This payment does not encourage one to step out and take risks, but breeds dependence.

Last 3 posts by Eric B.

• Nassim Taleb on the Economy - June 25th, 2010
• Full Circle - May 3rd, 2010
• The Dark Side :) - April 5th, 2010