Freedom and Money

[integratedvelocity]

I'm not completely positive that this is the right section in which to place this topic...

I just finished reading a paper by G.A. Cohen (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) entitled, "Freedom and Money." In it, he argues that poverty carries with it lack of freedom, especially "negative" liberty, or freedom from interference. He gives the example of a woman who is capable of boarding the underground but is physically prevented from doing so because of lack of money. He further states that the value of money lies in the freedom it grants its possessor.

Also, you might find this quote interesting, since it seems that many on this forum are libertarians.

The counter-argument that I have provided will not detach hard-core “libertarians” from their political position, but that is precisely because, despite their rhetoric, they do not care about liberty or freedom as such.

Continuing this idea:
I do not doubt that they believe that they care about freedom, but that is because they confuse freedom with self-ownership.

Do you agree with Cohen's argument? Why or why not? What policy implications do you think it would have, were the majority to accept it?

(Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is the entire text of the paper, if you wish to read it. I promise it's virus-free!)

[SShack]

Just reading the quotes, the immediate flaw I see (as one of those libertarians) is that he has created a positive liberty -- a right to ride the subway -- that doesn't exist. He has confused liberty with entitlement. Nobody has a right to ride the subway. I'll read through in a bit, but I'm not impressed right now.

Edited to add: I haven't confused freedom with self-ownership. Freedom is self-ownership.

[LaoTzu]

'freedom from interference'

I've been looking for some of that too, but I don't have the cash to buy it...

[Tragic Hero]

Do you agree with Cohen's argument? Why or why not? What policy implications do you think it would have, were the majority to accept it?


The question is,
If a hurdle is one metre high and I can not physically jump over it, do I have the freedom to jump over it?

Another question.
If I am wearing weights on my ankles of my own volition; and for this reason alone I can not jump over the hurdle, do I have the freedom to jump over it?

[darynthe]

The author is right but his example was remarkably stupid and misleading. Even if the woman is stopped for lack of money she had the freedom to earn the money. We don't know the exact circumstances of the woman. Why she doesn't have money? Is because she decided not to work and live under social welfare? Then not having money was her choice.

I will give you the perfect example for why money=freedom. If you go to a third world country you will see that 2/3 of kids born don't eat more than bread and rice. They suffer from chronic malnutrition. Their IQs in some rural areas are in a average of 80-90. These kids do not have an access to any kind of education aside from learning to write their names. They only know misery, violence, mistreatment.

And when they grow up to commit crime and kill and steal and use drugs and do gangs, then the society claims why they can't be moral and productive persons. How can you ask that from someone who didn't have an education, who even if they did didn't have the nutrition to have a normal brain? That is the real lack of money takes away freedom. In fact it takes away humanity and hope.

[The Irish Lands]

Money and freedom is an interesting topic.

Generaly, I believe that more money can also provide you with more opportunities - and therefore with more freedom.

From the other point of view which I have, freedom is also a feeling - and so I can feel absolutely free when I am riding a bike with no money in my pocket and no duties awaiting me...

On this more concrete example, I do not agree with Cohen's argument. I think that self-ownership is a natural part of freedom --- and as I write it, I have to say: freedom is your self-ownership of your time and life as long as you do not take the same from the others.

[SShack]

Okay, so I managed to skim through about 12 pages before rolling my eyes and giving up. I was not at all surprised to find out Cohen was a Marxist on his Wiki link.

Cohen here is trying -- through extremely tortured logic -- to change the definition of words like "freedom" and "liberty," and most importantly, "interference." The fundamental flaw in his examples (which he keeps bringing up) is that the freedom of movement without government interference is transformed into an entitlement that a person be provided transportation to the destination. This doesn't logically follow. He argues that a lack of something (in this case, money) is an "interference" that restrains a person's freedom.

That makes no sense -- "hindrance" and "interference" are not synonyms, though they may seem similar. His argument is semantic, not rational. He is hoping by convincing us to see words in different ways from what is intended, he can convince others to agree with his theory.

Amateur stuff. Wonder if others find him convincing. I suspect he is only convincing to those who are interested in being convinced -- preaching to the choir.

[SeaCzar]

The author is right but his example was remarkably stupid and misleading. Even if the woman is stopped for lack of money she had the freedom to earn the money. We don't know the exact circumstances of the woman. Why she doesn't have money? Is because she decided not to work and live under social welfare? Then not having money was her choice.

I will give you the perfect example for why money=freedom. If you go to a third world country you will see that 2/3 of kids born don't eat more than bread and rice. They suffer from chronic malnutrition. Their IQs in some rural areas are in a average of 80-90. These kids do not have an access to any kind of education aside from learning to write their names. They only know misery, violence, mistreatment.

And when they grow up to commit crime and kill and steal and use drugs and do gangs, then the society claims why they can't be moral and productive persons. How can you ask that from someone who didn't have an education, who even if they did didn't have the nutrition to have a normal brain? That is the real lack of money takes away freedom. In fact it takes away humanity and hope.

You do not have to visit a third world country to witness this. Go to any less affluent (this is being kind) area of any major US city.

[jesse]

Too much or too little of something tends to be bad, not all of the time, however having too much typically also outweighs having nothing or too little.

Money both liberates and enslaves. Imagine you're a successful company's president, CEO, whatever you want to call the person calling the shots. Since the company is doing well, said person can command a huge salary, benefits, pensions and the perceived glamor and admiration from the public and peers. For the sake of argument, let's assume much of the benefits are tied to financial success, times get hard or the company president makes unsound decisions which eventually infuriates the board of directors and has the president fired. You have money however it is not yours and specifically tied-up with an office and unless you were wise enough to save a percentage of your income rather than wantonly blowing it off on any and every whim.

The example of the woman not being able to ride the underground because she has no money is not something I view as a liberty. You can use the service if you have enough of the means to acquire the service as it is not a charity. You might think you are entitled to, but in reality we are not entitled for anything if you think about it. For instance in Finland, especially in the largest metropolitan areas public transport is abundant. People who can afford to pay for the fares many times actually do not pay the ticket because it is not evenly enforced. On trains and privately-run bus companies they do enforce this much better than on city-owned transport where you can easily sneak a ride as ticket inspectors are few and far between randomly boarding to check everyone they can if they have a valid ticket. In practice if you're awake and look around you, it's not too difficult to dodge them.

As public transport is not a charity, unless you pay for the ticket, you have no right to use the service. Even if the city-owned buses and other forms of service are utilitarian, they still are businesses and operate as such. Freedom of movement means you have the ability to choose where you go. It does not guarantee you can board any and every form of transport.

[dogwoodlover]

There are plenty of stupid counter-arguments in this thread. By my understandings of most of them, if I were to say, create a libertarian society in which running for office is restricted to those who have a billion dollars (this sounds strangely familiar...), everyone is still just as free and unhindered to run for office because everyone has the right to make a billion dollars?

This is where I find right-wing libertarians absurdly idealistic. Rights don't mean jack shit. What counts is whether you are actually capable (we are talking about REALITY here) of doing something.

I may have as much of a "right" to express my beliefs publicly as the owner of a large media corporation does, but guess who can actually express their beliefs? Guess whose opinion gets heard and whose doesn't?

Political rights are of zero consequence when material limitations restrict their expression. What is the difference in the acting ability between a poor man in Colombia and a poor man in Compton? One has "rights" and the other doesn't, but neither of them will be heard, unless if they by some miracle they join the economic elite, or become directly employed by them for such purposes (as is the case with SShack). The average American has no more capacity to express his views in the public forum than does the average Chinese citizen. (Note: the internet has provided a wonderful temporary exception to this, but it has been a relatively recent phenomenon, and I suspect in the future it will eventually become as "restricted" and "controlled" as is television and radio.)

I can imagine an absurd "libertarian" society in which one man controls the land, the media, the infrastructure, the industry, etc. while everyone else is left to work for this one man. Surely, he is a tyrant, as he exerts complete economic control of society (read: dictatorship) yet as they would conceive of it, all are "free."

Freedom does not consist of series of unrestricted logical possibilities. Freedom consists of possibilities that extend from actual circumstances. By "libertarian" reasoning, using the "coneptual freedom" model in which money is no object, it seems that in America the homeless are in fact the "freemen" of our society. They have little in the way of obligations, besides basic survival, and truly are the "sons of liberty."

[eternaltriangle]

dogwoodlover,

If that was true, why did the guy on your profile picture move to England? How was he able to be one of the most influential writers of the 19th century, in spite of his poverty? Your real issue with the fellow from Compton is that everybody has not just a right to free speech, but a right to ignore others.

[Tyrant Soup]

Political rights are of zero consequence when material limitations restrict their expression.

That is very true. Deception is a powerful tool.

[Pandemonium]

In our current monetary system; money is not freedom. Money is only an obligation to pay off debt. I heard for every dollar in circulation there is anything from $10 to $100 of debt attached. New money is created through debt and debt is payed off with money (which is essentially debt itself). One day interest is going to bite us in the ass. Perhaps, that day is coming soon and this financial crisis is the symptoms of its inevitability.

The last one hundred years of financial policy enacted through legislation has made money essentially worthless, such as the removal of the gold standard and the creation of the fundamentally unconstitutional Federal Reserve. The U.S. Central Bank / Federal Reserve is a private bank owned by a consortium of banks that controls the supply of money in America. The U.S. government sells bonds to the reserve in exchange for promissory currency. The bonds eventually have to be payed back with interest. Due to the fact that the government must pay off its debt and the tax on your labor was created (which is also unconstitutional).

It is interesting to note that the ethos of neo-liberalism is to essentially have an outside influence free market but neo-liberals themselves enact legislation which influences the market in favor of their vested interests.

If you want a truly free market the Fed. should really be shut down.

I don't really particularly care about this issue but maybe some of you may.

[Mericrat]

while the influence of a central bank has never been anything but harmful, i would say that a gold standard would be equally destructive in it's own right. especially with the world bank holding half the accounted gold in the world. what happens to our money when they manipulate the price of gold? a fiat currency properly regulated by a responsible treasury would be preferable. though this is a tangent.


The socialist view of freedom (glide through life without conflict) does not hold up to any government... or nature for that matter. the only socialist government i've ever seen that worked was on Star Trek: the Next generation, and the only reason why that worked was because of two inventions: the replicator and fusion power. In other words how does socialism address the competition of resources? would they ban the product? would it become more expensive than anyone could afford with their prearranged salaries?

actually let's throw out how wonderful it may or may not be if complete economic oversight actually worked and focus on a fundamental issue of human nature that is far more relevant. That amount of power always corrupts. sorry, to sling around cliches but it's true. Government is a nessecary evil, but their is no reason to give it more power than it needs.

[Tyrant Soup]

Government is a nessecary evil, but their is no reason to give it more power than it needs.

The same can be said for corporations.

[Mericrat]

The same can be said for corporations.



I agree with you. i never agreed with the concept of a corporation. the government should never see you as anything but an individual.

[MortenM]

There's economic and practical freedom. If you got the cash, you got the freedom. If you got a needed car to get to work f.ex., then you have the freedom to earn money.

And there's personal freedom. You can choose your actions and attitude in life within it's possibilities without anyone else being able to control it. Of course, someone who is tortured and constrained may not have the personal freedom to choose a positive attitude f.ex., but he will when the circumstances change.

Economic and practical freedom = if u got the cash, u got the freedom
Personal freedom = under allowing circumstances, you have the freedom to choose your own actions and attitude. That space of personal freedom changes with the circumstances.

[Ace1337]

Ofcourse money is freedom. You are more independent and powerful when you're rich. You get to do more of what you want and pay people to do the stuff you don't want to do.

I'd like to travel the world, but I can't because I'm poor. My freedom is restricted. Money=power=freedom.

[Beulah]

As Ace says. Money ='s freedom. Without it you get interference eg can't sue people for compensation who've somehow interfered with your freedom eg run you over putting you in a wheelchair, or who've placed unreasonable job demands on you...
Insuficient money ties you to basic struggles when time would preferably be better spent eg reading

[PunkinA]

I agree with the conclusions of the article, but I find the argument itself to be unnecessarily convoluted, if not unsound. I see no advantage in muddying the argument with superfluous concepts.

Each person will act within a range of possible actions that is constrained by the nature of the environment. In some cases Cohen uses the term "freedom" to mean the range of possible actions, and in some cases he uses "liberty". In other parts he uses the word "ability" in comparison to the word "freedom" and thusly implies a comparison. I can't distinquish that his use of "ability" covers a different range than the word "freedom" in his context, rendering his assertions either redundant or meaningless.

I also see his use of the word "interference" as being problematic. He asks us to follow the assumption that all laws are perfectly enforced, which for the model makes the legal laws synonomous with natural (physical) laws. Their application is equivalent in scope and effect. Within this framework he sets aside the word "interference" as some kind of occurrence which restricts the range of possible actions which is specifically caused by human means. By introducing a concept of "interference" we are allowed to make distinctions between "freedom" and "liberty" as they each relate to "interference." But if the interference is legal, then it is (in his model) indistinguishible from natural law, which in turn means that "freedom" and "liberty" do not describe distinct sets of actions, but are equivalently defined. Comparisons between the terms either become redundant, or tautologous. His conclusions follow strictly from his definitions of the terms. He fails to assert.

On the other hand, I appreciate his strong efforts to refrain from making normative claims.

[MaleVolentworld]

"Freedom and Money." In it, he argues that poverty carries with it lack of freedom, especially "negative" liberty, or freedom from interference. He gives the example of a woman who is capable of boarding the underground but is physically prevented from doing so because of lack of money. He further states that the value of money lies in the freedom it grants its possessor.

A woman is not fully free because she cannot afford to ride a train. This is a tragedy, we must rectify this by giving her her freedom back, but how shall we do this? we can take away the freedom of the owners to set their own prices or just make them work for free, in which case they'll also end up poor and lacking freedom to even eat.

So let's make everyone poor and everyone works for free, this would give everyone their freedom back, we can look back at history and see this working in the Soviet Union. Everyone was freely persecuted and free to get punished.

Hey I can say free and freedom so much to make it mean anything, I am a master magician. You are now free to submit to my command and freely be my servant. I shall be your free dictator and freely tell you to do whatever I demand, which you shall freely accept of course, since I am guarenteeing your freedom.

[PunkinA]

A woman is not fully free because she cannot afford to ride a train. This is a tragedy, we must rectify this by giving her her freedom back, but how shall we do this? we can take away the freedom of the owners to set their own prices or just make them work for free, in which case they'll also end up poor and lacking freedom to even eat.


Your normative conclusion (in bold) does not follow from the established premise. Furthermore your argument from an undesired conclusion (deleted portion) does no supply sufficient grounds to overturn the premise.

Your Jedi rhetoric tricks will not work on me.

[MaleVolentworld]

Who said nonsense had to make sense?

[phej]

You need to s/money/U.S. Dollars/gi. Or if you don't speak regex, you need to replace every instance of "money" with "U.S. Dollars" Money by common definition is anything that is used for payment of goods or services. It just so happens in the U.S. the primary kind of money is based on the greenback. I say based because, for example, when you write a check, you are not directly using a greenback in the transaction.

You seem to care deeply about inflation. There's actually a good reason why there's inflation: the economy grows. For each new technology, for each new worker in the economy, it grows. If the money supply doesn't grow, then there will be deflation. Deflation is major brake on an economy because deflation removes credit. Most enterprises rely on credit. For example, you go to amazon and order a book. The book happens to be in a warehouse someplace so they wrap it up and ship it to you. Without credit, amazon wouldn't have bought that book and stored it in a warehouse because it didn't have the funds for it. We need credit because none of our production systems is fast enough to build everything with instant demand. Also, deflation inhibits investment because the price of a capital good declines and nominally looks like a bad investment (when it may not after you correct of deflation). So to get price stability, you want the money supply to grow lockstep with the economy.

In actuality, nobody needs to use the U.S. dollar as money. The only place where it's required is when you deal with the Federal government. There's nothing stopping you from bartering or using stamps or using gold bullion to pay for things. It just so happens that everybody doesn't mind using the U.S. dollar as money. There's nothing unconstitutional about the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve also happens to be a quasi public entity: Ben Bernanke was appointed by the Executive office of the U.S. Yes, the financial companies are shareholders of the Federal Reserve System. But then again, the public collectively owns the financial companies.

But to get back on topic, money and freedom are not good comparisons. Wealth and freedom is a better comparison to make. But that's easy to judge: wealth and freedom are orthogonal from each other. You can be dirt poor and free (e.g. anybody living a monastic life). You can also be wealthy and not free (e.g. Jacob Marley)

In our current monetary system; money is not freedom. Money is only an obligation to pay off debt. I heard for every dollar in circulation there is anything from $10 to $100 of debt attached. New money is created through debt and debt is payed off with money (which is essentially debt itself). One day interest is going to bite us in the ass. Perhaps, that day is coming soon and this financial crisis is the symptoms of its inevitability.

The last one hundred years of financial policy enacted through legislation has made money essentially worthless, such as the removal of the gold standard and the creation of the fundamentally unconstitutional Federal Reserve. The U.S. Central Bank / Federal Reserve is a private bank owned by a consortium of banks that controls the supply of money in America. The U.S. government sells bonds to the reserve in exchange for promissory currency. The bonds eventually have to be payed back with interest. Due to the fact that the government must pay off its debt and the tax on your labor was created (which is also unconstitutional).

It is interesting to note that the ethos of neo-liberalism is to essentially have an outside influence free market but neo-liberals themselves enact legislation which influences the market in favor of their vested interests.

If you want a truly free market the Fed. should really be shut down.

I don't really particularly care about this issue but maybe some of you may.

[JeffersonFawkes]

I'm not completely positive that this is the right section in which to place this topic...

I just finished reading a paper by G.A. Cohen (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) entitled, "Freedom and Money." In it, he argues that poverty carries with it lack of freedom, especially "negative" liberty, or freedom from interference. He gives the example of a woman who is capable of boarding the underground but is physically prevented from doing so because of lack of money. He further states that the value of money lies in the freedom it grants its possessor.

Do you agree with Cohen's argument? Why or why not? What policy implications do you think it would have, were the majority to accept it?

(Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is the entire text of the paper, if you wish to read it. I promise it's virus-free!)

Who is he to define freedom for me? Last I checked, he was not a dictionary, and if he was, and that is what the word freedom meant, than I would look for the word that I want and fight with all of my might for that. Can somebody be really free if they are reliant on the whims of others?

Money is merely supposed to be a non-fluctuating standard by which we trade. Should I expect something for nothing or more value than I put in to be returned?

To demand things as a right that I have no way of earning or working for?

more importantly even if this were a right of mine, would it be moral to steal from those
who did earn their wages against their will? if so, on what justification?

is their money not theirs even after they have worked, and if it doesn't belong to them, than why should anybody work for money?

Is there something we can work for that will be fully ours once we work for it? or does the Cohen believe that nothing anyone works for or is given is really theirs?

If a man may only work for what he needs, what shall he leave for his family?

Finally, does Cohen intend to use his own earned money to bring about this good, and reason, or does he intend to raid people under the guise of the IRS and use their money?

I find it funny and sad that so many people are so very generous, when it comes to other peoples money.

If Cohen really believes this, I vote that we raid his house, take all of his money, and give it to the "less fortunate". He won't mind, after all, its what he fights for.

[Tyrant Soup]

I find it funny and sad that so many people are so very generous, when it comes to other peoples money.

If Cohen really believes this, I vote that we raid his house, take all of his money, and give it to the "less fortunate". He won't mind, after all, its what he fights for.

You would have no property rights if society was unwilling to defend it. You need to compensate society for that service.

[JeffersonFawkes]

You would have no property rights if society was unwilling to defend it. You need to compensate society for that service.

Slight correction, if society has to give it to you, than it is by legal definition a privilege not a right. Thomas Jefferson said "You only have the rights, that you will fight and die for" I agree that property must be protected, even my enemies should be treated with that respect. My last statement was more sarcasm to make a point.

[maxpot46]

You would have no property rights if society was unwilling to defend it. You need to compensate society for that service.I can protect my own property rights, with my own physical powers and those I contract with. I acknowledge no "need" to compensate anyone for a "service" which I don't care for.

[PunkinA]

Who is he to define freedom for me? Last I checked, he was not a dictionary, and if he was, and that is what the word freedom meant, than I would look for the word that I want and fight with all of my might for that. Can somebody be really free if they are reliant on the whims of others?.

It is worthwhile, in the pursuit of ferreting out true statements, to question the terms used by other people in sculpting their arguments. I also question Cohen's use of the word freedom. On the other hand, you go on to define terms of your own. You also seem to assume a different meaning for the words right, moral, earn, or justification, than I would use. I would have no desire to defend your principle of earn or justification any more than I am compelled to defend Cohen's version of freedom. Both lack.

Money is merely supposed to be a non-fluctuating standard by which we trade. Should I expect something for nothing or more value than I put in to be returned?

To demand things as a right that I have no way of earning or working for?

more importantly even if this were a right of mine, would it be moral to steal from those
who did earn their wages against their will? if so, on what justification?.

Most specifically though, in the above, I would question what you mean by the word value.

is their money not theirs even after they have worked, and if it doesn't belong to them, than why should anybody work for money?

Is there something we can work for that will be fully ours once we work for it? or does the Cohen believe that nothing anyone works for or is given is really theirs?

If a man may only work for what he needs, what shall he leave for his family?

Your questions here beg a question. Your questions assume both that property rights exist, and that they are justified. These are normative conclusions. In avoiding normative claims, in other words avoiding telling us what should happen, he does not clearly take a stand to answer your questions. What he does is show that certain assumptions will lead to certain results. Essentially he says the impoverished will experience limits to their freedoms, as defined by conservatives, as a result of enforcing capitalist laws. He does not make claims as how to alleviate the problem.

Also Cohen never says "a man may only work for what he needs." You put words in his mouth. It is easy to make a man appear wrong, when you argue against words that he never said. This is a classic type of "straw-man" argument.

Finally, does Cohen intend to use his own earned money to bring about this good, and reason, or does he intend to raid people under the guise of the IRS and use their money?

I find it funny and sad that so many people are so very generous, when it comes to other peoples money.

If Cohen really believes this, I vote that we raid his house, take all of his money, and give it to the "less fortunate". He won't mind, after all, its what he fights for.

Cohen never states a desire to relieve a person of all possessions. Again you have misstated his claims. Another "straw-man."

Outside of the claims of this essay, Cohen has spent a great deal of resources in trying to allevieate the suffering of those he felt were less fortunate than himself. His work often occurs at the opportunity cost of making larger amounts of money. This is an aside though. Information of his personal life has any bearing on the truth value of the statements within his article. Nice try at an ad hominem.

Also, and finally, the position usually taken by Marxists, though not asserted in the text, is that most individuals in society will benefit by forceful re-distribution of wealth, more than a forceful execution of individual property laws by the state. Reducing one man's total ability of possession to nothing is the expressed condition a marxist is attempting to alleviate. This is simple math. If the total wealth of a society is greater than zero, then dividing this total wealth among all the citizenry will always result in an amount greater than zero. Your scenario of taking all of Cohen's wealth does not contradict his claims. Another "straw-man."

Mr. JeffersonFawkes, your effigies may do well to modify the behaviors of the masses, though I suspect you have hit on the wrong audience in this forum. INTJ's are more likely to be persuaded by logical arguments than rhetorical ones. I think you have mismatched your arguments with the audience.