Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (2592)	10/11/2006 5:49:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

Perhaps a better term would be "a very high priority". Freedom is a value that I hold higher than say, a balanced budget, or economic equality, or even democracy (but I value democracy not just for itself but also as an instrument to help increase freedom). If I was making the decision I would require a relatively large benefit in other areas in order to accept even a relatively small reduction in freedom. That's the "special status" I would give it. However I am not automatically for freedom above all other concerns in every situation. If a minute decrease in freedom, could prevent all terrorism for all time, or could cause the rate of real economic growth to increase ten fold, or could save a million lives a year from disease (all with no additional negative consequences), I wouldn't say "no, can't do it, it involves at least a microscopic decrease in freedom, so it is vetoed". So freedom is a high priority but not an absolute priority. Phelps stated that Hayek and Rand considered it an absolute priority. I think he's wrong, at least about Hayek.