Personal freedom (often part of liberal and libertarian perspectives):
(1) People seem better at understanding what is good for them, as individuals, than regulators are at figuring out what those same people need, so I think personal freedom to do what you like should be the default position unless there is a good reason to deviate from it.
(2) I think it makes our society better, on average, when any person who is critical of government or authority can publicly state their criticism without fear of punishment by the state, since this type of personal freedom exerts a useful pressure on authorities not to go against what people want and need.
Limits on personal freedom (often part of conservative and authoritarian perspectives):
1) Some activities that people choose freely end up making both themselves and society more broadly, worse off (e.g., some highly addictive drugs or reckless behaviors that put others in danger), and so restricting these types of personal freedoms can improve society.
(2) Some types of communication can trigger widespread harm and fear, such as publicly inciting others to commit terrorism, and so I think restricting very specific types of communication can be societally beneficial.
Economic freedom (often part of conservative and libertarian perspectives):
(1) Most of the time, when people freely choose to engage in a trade, I think the total benefit to the two parties is greater than the total costs of the transaction so that economic freedom tends to be beneficial.
(2) On average technological development has made humans enormously better off, and I think economic freedom accelerates technological progress.
Limits on economic freedom (often part of liberal and authoritarian perspectives):
(1) Human welfare is not what capitalism optimizes for, and sometimes the two are even directly at odds (e.g., when companies lie to us about harms of their products, pollute the environment, convince us we are deficient unless we have what they offer, etc.), and so some restrictions on company activities are important to preserve human welfare.
(2) Some technological developments in the next 15-100 years may end up causing catastrophic problems for humanity if they aren’t approached with extreme caution (e.g., technologies for designing biological threats or advanced Artificial Intelligence), but unfettered capitalism tends to produce rapid production and arms races, the opposite of what is needed to reduce the chance of calamity.
Comments