Tom Kawczynski - Off the Record

One thing I struggle with is in trying to keep a completely logical framework, but to also be realistic with what I support.  I think it is important to know why you believe what you believe, because it shows you stand for something.  As I often say, you can compromise on policy, but never on principle.

I've chosen to wrap myself in the banner of liberty because it seems just to me that each individual should make their own choices, should be free to receive the benefits or costs of those decisions, and that those should not be imposed on others.  Spoken that way, it's hard to oppose liberty, but it becomes more complex when you get into details.  I've been participating in an interesting conversation where we are asking whether liberty means having something or having access to something.

For many issues, it is a clear cut case about liberty.  Having access to a series of choices and having those choices are one and the same.  People are able to make decisions and see them actuated.  But there are times with specific issues where this becomes harder, and there are two specific issues that trouble me in this light:  healthcare and education.

As I articulated in my earlier article, I value life, liberty, and property in that order.  If we presume someone has a right to their own life, what does that oblige us?  I've heard a compelling argument that it means nothing more than the right to exist without threat of that being taken.  But, I wonder what does that mean in terms of health?  Should we have the capacity to sustain life be a logical consequence of supporting life.  My thought is that while it is perhaps not a right, it might be part of a social contract.

I also think education falls into the same situation.  What does liberty mean without the functional ability to understand the concepts?  Or even more fundamentally, the language being used?  Without education, we lose the ability to function as social actors, and I think in order to be realized as an individual, we need society, the awareness of people around us who are not us, to realize that we are distinct.

These may not be rights.  If you define liberty such that access to education and access to health care are guaranteed, but the provision for them is dependent upon any involuntary classification (which for children, wealth would be included), are you depriving people of a necessary item?  I think it isn't, strictly, a right, because you're compelling services.  But, this leads to my next evolution in thought.

Liberty is the inherent state of man.  Nations, states, socieities, and communities are all compromises derived for mutual benefit.  The social contract is the balance between the liberty that is inherent and the security we desire for our own physical and intellectual protection.  Most accept things like borders, Courts, and other arbiters as governmental agencies.  But what distinguishes civilizations is what functions we choose beyond those, and where that balance is struck.

I love liberty, and want the utmost of freedom.  I try to design the minimalist state that I think would be successful as the object that I work to create.  But, I wonder on health care and education, because before the ideas we have, we need the ability to be and function as physical and material beings, and to understand wonderful discussions like the ones we have here.  Note that I am not arguing for how these should be structured, as I believe choice should always be retained to the individual to select care or service, or to refuse that option.  My assertion is more basic:  that we cannot deprive people of these, at least at some fundamental level.

Even if it is an affront to absolute liberty, I think it is the minimal requirement for a successful society in this day.