“To trade away that freedom for the illusion of security is a very bad exchange.” That was my closing sentence intended to summarize the points made earlier.

Is this “a very tough generality to defend”? I don’t think so. The opposing point of view would be that freedom SHOULD be traded away for the illusion of security. Apparently I have not convinced you of the “illusion” part.

Yes, I believe the government actions I refer to provide only the illusion of security. Efforts to control the economy by propping up failing businesses, so they may continue operating and employing people (voters), may seem to be a godsend to those directly affected, but even that is only temporary. However, the effect of the failing businesses has not been eliminated; merely spread out over the economy as a whole. Eventually, many other business managers no longer believe serving the customer is the key to success. Being needy enough to qualify for a government bailout starts to interfere with customer service. (Have you flown on a commercial airline lately?)

When government interferes with the workings of a free market, for example by taking from the producers of wealth and transferring to the less productive, there are consequences to the economy as a whole. The receipt of those transfer payments may seem free; may seem to provide security against poverty; but I maintain that the net cost to the economy is greater than the benefit provided. Entrepreneurial activity and productivity have been discouraged through taxation and bureaucratic red tape. GDP and the quality of life in “a free society” suffer.

Government takes and gives, but keeps a bug chunk of what it takes before it gives.

And, incidentally, I include unemployment benefits in the above. If one needed unemployment insurance, it could be provided much more efficiently by the private sector, and without adding costs and burdensome reporting requirements to employers. If you value the benefit, pay for it. If you don’t value the benefit enough to pay for it, why should the rest of us pay for it? If the benefit is “free”, you will not value it. If everything is free, who will produce it?

The “security” benefits offered by governments could be provided much more effectively by the private sector, if they are needed at all. And, that includes charity.

I believe those government functions not enumerated in the Constitution are destructive and should be abolished. They do not provide true economic security - that is illusory.

With that said, I don’t think you were truly fair in your representation of your fears. For example, the sentence “To trade away that freedom for the illusion of security is a very bad exchange.” This is a very tough generality to defend.

Now before we can consider the sentence we have to deal with a roadblock which is the word “illusion.” Of course it seems silly to trade something as valuable as freedom for anything which is an illusion. So anyone would agree that it’s a bad deal to trade your freedoms for the illusion of world peace. So this stance lives or dies on whether the socialist programs you have in mind do only provide illusory security which is not so easy to write off. For example, many have benefited from the concrete security offered to them (and myself) by unemployment insurance.

So leaving behind the idea of actual traded for illusion, the real crux is either that freedom should not be traded for security or - much weaker - that some specific program is not a good deal for us (if this is your point, you should dismiss with the generalities and talk specifics as this is an isolated gripe). I am fairly certain that you intended the first. But this is not a fair presentations of your beliefs since I very much doubt that you are in support of eliminating social services funded by taxation like transportation infrastructure, defense spending, the prison system, etc…

*The following is a guess and I apologize if I am way off the mark* I would guess that you are particularly miffed by the current rash of bail-outs plaguing this nation.

Building on my above assumption, as a proud Libertarian I agree with you in principle; however, I think that our case would be better served if we kept our arguments in the realm of the concrete, and if we keep our statements transparent and precise. The real world is never black and white, and whenever we pretend that it is, we turn listeners off. So instead of “never trade freedom for security” we might write “some social programs are indispensable and should always remain and continue to be bolstered - like education - but we need to realize that freedom is our most precious asset and should not be traded idly.”

Overall though, thank you for your article. It’s wonderful to read that there are still those who believe in the merits of freedom, risk, and responsibility.

PS. Thinking about your article has inspired me to write my own thoughts on socialism in the United States. Thank you.

Tom Humes

Allen Taylor