The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

The freedom to err

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Matthew Clausen:

Respecting Atheism in a religious world (January 17, 2005)
As the dollar falls (December 8, 2004)
Material world of gifts (November 30, 2004)
Reinvest in education (November 17, 2004)
The freedom to err (November 10, 2004)

by Matthew Clausen

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Who in their right mind allowed communists onto the election ballot? Let’s think about it:

Some argue that democratic voting reduces freedom, since it puts the individual at the whim of the majority. A capitalist nation, like the United States of America reputes itself to be, depends upon equal rights for all individuals. Every person has an equal right to succeed or fail, an equal right to protest, an equal right to vote. Everyone gets to vote because the capitalist requires customers and producers to trade with, and, if desiring a stable economy, all must deal with each other in a manner representing their equal human rights — meaning the mass must have as equal a say in their governance as the elite.

Ideally, all members of society work together in the capitalist frame for the highest level of production and reward. To achieve this, capitalism relies on freedom in choice. Without the consumer’s freedom to choose what product to purchase and without the producer’s freedom to choose whether and what they will produce, neither party has satisfied their desires. Instead, a biased ruler has subjugated their decisions.

But what if the individual makes a choice with negative repercussions? For freedom to really exist, a person must have the option to choose wrongly. What freedom is there if you can only select from options that are good for you? In essence, humans must possess the freedom to make mistakes.

Everyone can relate to that argument. If you are a Christian, you’ve heard the story of Adam and Eve. In the Christian mythology, God doesn’t remove the option for them to sin, but does warn against it. Eve chooses to eat the apple, then Adam chooses to follow suit. The very existence of their free will depended on the ability to disobey and make a wrong choice. Had God denied them the ability to eat the apple but still allowed them the desire for it, the pair would have been slaves in the garden. Greek mythology also recognizes that freedom resides in the ability to make poor choices. Throughout the Iliad, for example, gods dart in to pull aside their favorite heroes who too rashly confronted superior warriors. The heroes desire fame and victory and sometimes choose the wrong battles — but they are heroes because they exercise choice in taking those risks.

Alternatively, consider the power structure within your family. We have all made decisions that counter our parents’ advice and even their commands. Maybe it was when you touched the hot stove while trying to see how it worked. Maybe it was when you drove too fast and got a ticket a couple days after turning 16. Maybe it was when you went out drinking instead of studying for the exam. Your parents might even have advised against you attending college at Madison, suggesting instead something cheaper or closer to home. Nevertheless, here you are, and you have defined yourself by your choices. Without the freedom to disobey, to act with negative consequence, to risk the unknown, society would never advance since we would never learn from our mistakes.

So why would voters be given the choice to destroy their own system of freedom? Because in capitalism, the equality of rights is truly respected. The majority of society does not want to see capitalism abolished, but it is important that even those who do wish it are allowed to contribute to the nation. We must have the ability to choose negatively, at the threat of repercussions, to demonstrate and maintain the freedom of choice our capitalist society offers us.

Matthew Clausen (mgclausen@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in English.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (November 10, 2004 @ 12:31am):

So good does not exist without evil? Is there reletivism, or absolutism?

Anonymous (November 10, 2004 @ 12:38pm):

first of all, is this article really necessary? are the commies just around the corner, ready to force us all to wear gray hats and drive the same cars? are the wonders of the free market once again under attack? why does this article exist?

anyways,

"because in capitalism, the equality of rights is truly respected."

oh? what about basic human rights like food, shelter and health? i love how supporters of capitalism talk about "rights" like choosing which kind of deodorant to buy out of 15 choices or (to play with your example) which rich, white, straight, corporate-controlled candidate to vote for once every four years.

that's all well and good, but when a billion people are living in abject poverty, dying of preventable diseases, and starving every day, those kinds of "rights" and "freedoms" aren't quite as awe-inspiring anymore.

sure, we're all free to choose what we do with the cards dealt to us, but in the end, the libertarian's fundamental oversight is that certain segments of the population are playing with five aces-- not DESPITE capitalism, but BECAUSE OF capitalism.

Anonymous (November 10, 2004 @ 9:11pm):

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005558

"The 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance."