Partial Freedom

Here comes the rain again
Raining on my head like a tragedy
Tearing me apart like a new emotion
--Eurythmics

People frequently claim that they are 'socially liberal but fiscally conservative.' Or vice versa. The take away, it seems, is that many people ascribe to a philosophy of partial freedom.

Many socialists, for example, seem to think that it is possible to abolish economic freedom while maintaining other freedoms (e.g., freedom of speech).

But social life is holistic. What may be referred to as the economic sphere of social life is merely a conceptual convenience--a simplification of what in reality is inseparable from other dimensions of social life. If an omnipotent authority can dictate the tasks that individuals must perform, and confiscate the products of their work, then individuals possess no freedom or autonomy. The choice is between obeying or facing forceful penalty.

Recently, groups have assembled at various state capitals to protest legislation that would weaken public sector unions. They claim to have standing to stage these protests based on 'rights' of free speech and assembly. It would be interesting to know where these protestors think these rights come from.

On what basis do the rights of free speech and assembly exist?

The protesters also claim that the legislation that they protest violates another 'right'--the right to collectively bargain in public sector labor negotiations. The objective behind bargaining collectively is to employ 'strength in numbers' to increase negotiating power over economic resources. In the public sector, a right to collective bargaining is akin to granting the public sector unions coercive power over individual taxpayers. It would permit public sector workers to employ government agents to take wealth from others via force.

On what basis does the right of collective bargaining in the public sector exist?