Violations of Economic Freedom Are Violations of Personal Freedom

Chapter 6.2: A political spectrum must respect that freedom is freedom

Why this book | Title Page | Table of Contents
Preface | Introduction
PART 1
Chapter 1 (1.1) (1.2) | Chapter 2 (2.1) (2.2) (2.3) | Chapter 3 (3.1) (3.2) (3.3) (3.4) (3.5) (3.6)
PART 2
Chapter 4 (4.1) (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) (4.5) | Chapter 5 (5.1) (5.2) (5.3) (5.4) (5.5) (5.6) (5.7) (5.8) (5.9) |
Chapter 6 (6.1) | (6.2) |
PART 3
Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 12 | Chapter 13 | Chapter 14
PART 4
Chapter 15 | Chapter 16 | Chapter 17 |
PART 5
Chapter 18 | Chapter 19 | Chapter 20 | Conclusion
Appendix | Works Cited

---

Note: This is an installment of The Freedom Scale: An Accurate Measure of Left and Right. See here for installments of The Distributed Nation: A Plan for Human Independence.

---

6.2 Problems with the Nolan Chart

• Economic freedoms are personal freedoms.

• Personal freedoms are economic freedoms.

---

Problems with the Nolan Chart

Separating economic freedom from personal freedom may appeal to libertarians looking to distinguish themselves from conservatives, but it also creates several contradictions.

These contradictions fall into several categories:

Economic freedoms are personal freedoms.

Imagine that you are forced to…

Sell something you do not want to sell…

In 2000, the city of New London, Connecticut, wanted to turn over the Fort Trumbull district to private developers to “revitalize” the area. Using eminent domain, they threatened to condemn the property of any homeowner who did not sell “voluntarily.” Five years later, the Supreme Court ruled against Susette Kelo and her neighbors and gave New London the green light to tear down their homes and turn the land over to private entities (twisting the “public use” component of eminent domain beyond all recognition).

Was this only a violation of their economic freedom? After all, they were simply forced to sell something. Or is being told where one can and cannot live, what one can and cannot own, a violation of more than just economic rights?¹

In 1996, the citizens of Australia were forced to sell a wide variety of weapon types to the government in a massive “compensated confiscation.”² Was this a mere economic transaction?

Buy something you do not want to buy…

In 2010, the government passed the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”), which included the requirement that people without health insurance be forced to buy it or pay a penalty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld this “individual mandate,” doubling down on the misleadingly packaging of the mandate as a mere “tax” transaction. 

Is forcing someone to buy something, on pain of punishment, a simple violation of one’s economic freedom? For the matter, even taxes are imposed with the threat of violence to your person and property. That sounds like a lot more than just an “economic” threat.

Under this same law, insurance companies were forced to provide uniform coverage in their health insurance packages. Unable to seek out products customized to their individual circumstances, people ended up being forced to pay extra for services they could not possibly need (like regular mammograms for men). Is preventing two (putatively) free parties from transacting business on mutually agreeable terms merely a violation of economic freedom? 

Transact business in ways that violate conscience or belief …

A baker is perfectly willing to bake cakes for gay customers, but because of personal beliefs draws the line at participating in same-sex wedding ceremonies. So the state forces her to violate her conscience, fines her if she refuses, and arrests her or seizes her assets if she does not pay the fine.³ Is this a violation of her economic freedom or her personal freedom?

I suspect the baker would feel it is at least as much personal as economic…

---

To continue reading and support our ongoing work, upgrade your subscription here: