Unrestricted Freedom Is A Zero-Sum Game. More Freedom For You Means Less Freedom For Me
We can’t both be free to do conflicting things. Without gov’t regulations our freedom is subject to the rule of Might Makes Right
By David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
Freedom Cannot Be Unlimited For Everyone
Few things are talked about so much and fundamentally misunderstood so greatly as the concept of “Freedom.”
The right-wing (Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians and Anarchists) think that the supply of freedom is like hikers’ access to oxygen in the wilderness, infinite, that my having more or less freedom has no effect on you having more or less freedom.
They are completely wrong.
Freedom Is A Zero-Sum Game Where The Most Powerful Win
In fact, freedom is like oxygen, but not oxygen in the wilderness. Instead freedom is like oxygen in an enclosed space.
The greater the number of people in the venue and the smaller the space the less oxygen is available for any one person, and as the space grows smaller and the number of people grows larger, each person’s access to oxygen increasingly becomes a zero-sum game, more for you means less for me.
- As population density increases, and
- a society’s complexity increases
what I want to do will be increasingly in conflict with whatever some other people want to do, so that the more power I have to do whatever I want, the less free those other people will be to do whatever they want.
When Our Goals Conflict, We Both Can’t Be Free To Get What We Want
We can’t both be free to do conflicting things at the same time in the same place. To the extent that one of us wins, the other one must lose.
- When my freedom to do what I want conflicts with your freedom to do what you want, freedom becomes a zero-sum game and the more powerful person wins.
- To the extent that one of us has the power to exercise more freedom, the other weaker person will have less freedom.
Without regulations, people’s freedom is dependent not on their innate, God-given rights but rather on the power they have to take it and keep it, in other words, Might Makes Right.
This is not a subtle, complicated, or difficult situation to recognize.
A Man In The Wilderness Is Free Because His Actions Don’t Affect Others
Consider a man living alone on an isolated farm. He has the freedom to play his electric guitar at three in the morning with the amp turned all the way up to 10, and because he won’t bother anyone his freedom to make as much noise as he likes can be unrestricted and absolute.
He Moves From The Wilderness To A Suburb
Then he moves to a suburban house on a quarter-acre lot. Now when he exercises his “freedom” to play his guitar at full, amplified volume at three in the morning he reduces the freedom of ten of his neighbors to have the quiet enjoyment of their property, to read a book, listen to their own music, their freedom of speech to converse with friends and family, their freedom to enjoy a good night’s sleep.
The more freedom he has to make noise the less freedom his neighbors have to do the things that his noise interferes with. His unrestricted exercise of his freedom reduces their exercise of their rights.
Between Guitar Man and his neighbors, his freedom to make noise and their right to the quiet enjoyment of their property is a zero sum game. To the extent that he wins, they lose.
He Moves From A Suburb To The Heart Of The City
Next, he moves to a large apartment building. If he is able to exercise the unrestricted freedom to play his guitar at full, amplified volume at three in the morning he’s going to reduce the freedom and interfere with the rights not just of ten other people but of two hundred other people who have the right to have the quiet enjoyment of their homes.
Because he is now in an environment where his actions materially affect many other peoples’ rights, his unrestricted freedom to play his guitar whenever and however loudly he wants versus the rights of his neighbors to the quiet enjoyment of their property and their freedom of speech both to talk to others and listen to others talking to them is a zero sum game.
The Conflict Between Two People Who Each Want To Have Freedom Of Speech At The Same Time In The Same Place
Or, consider this scenario:
In this town people can go to two “free speech” platforms at opposite ends of a public park. Members of the public come to listen to the various speakers. Our guitar player decides to take his amp and a microphone to the park and for two uninterrupted hours he blasts out his thoughts at a volume that drowns out everyone else.
His exercise of his unrestricted freedom of speech
- (1) destroys the freedom of speech of the other people who want to speak at the other platform,
- (2) destroys the freedom of hundreds of citizens to hear the ideas of those other people who want to exercise their freedom of speech, and
- (3) destroys the freedom of the members of the audience near the other platform not to listen to the speech Guitar Man is blasting out over his amplifier.
To protect the freedom of speech of the other speakers, the freedom of the audience to hear the other speaker’s thoughts and the freedom of the audience not to hear the Guitar Man’s ideas, Guitar Man’s freedom must be restricted by government regulations
- (1) requiring people who wish to speak to make an appointment on a sign-up sheet,
- (2) limiting the duration of each speaker’s speech,
- (3) prohibiting speakers from using amplification above a certain number of decibels.
See my column Should Everyone Except The Gov’t Be Allowed To Restrict Your Freedom Of Religion? for other examples of how the unrestricted freedom of powerful individuals and organizations can reduce the freedom of less powerful individuals and organizations.
When Our Actions Affect Others, Without Regulations The Stronger Person Wins
As population density increases and the complexity of the society increases, people’s actions increasingly conflict with the rights and freedom of others, and the unrestricted ability of individuals and organizations to do whatever they want becomes a zero-sum game between the conflicting desires of each side.
It’s a contest that the more powerful will always win and the less powerful will always lose. Unrestricted freedom is a pure exercise of the principle of “Might makes right.”
Regulations Prevent The Strong From Taking Away The Freedom Of The Weak
The more a person’s actions negatively impact the freedom and rights of others, the greater the need for government restrictions on the ability of people and organizations to do whatever they want.
Your unrestricted freedom to shout from your rooftop proportionally reduces my freedom to have a good night’s sleep and my right to the quiet enjoyment of my property.
That’s why we have government rules restricting people’s freedom to do whatever they want.
Unregulated Freedom Is Nothing More Than Might Makes Right
The demand to eliminate government rules and allow the people and organizations to have the unrestricted freedom to do whatever they want short of theft and violence is nothing more than the demand by the powerful to leave them free to take away the freedom and rights of those weaker than themselves.
It’s nothing more than a plea to prevent government regulations from interfering with their taking advantage of the principle of “Might makes right.”
— David Grace (Amazon Page — David Grace Website)
