you may put a nigner value on seclusion, l

you may put a nigner value on seclusion, l ne whole point ot individual liberty is the freedom to make these choices and to pursue whatever you value most.

Any economic system that enables others to define what is best for you, no matter how well intentioned, will constrain your freedom. This is where socialist systems, including Carla’s “Saneism,” fail to achieve what their designers intend.

It is a most interesting paradox that, while well-meaning liberals such as Carla admit that socialism has failed, they invariably support ever-increasing growth of government so long as it is in the name of alleviating poverty, protecting the environment, protecting individuals and society from big, bad, corporations or promoting equality. They fail to comprehend that every bit of power that is concentrated in government is freedom that is taken away from individuals.

Carla’s Saneism, like other socialist systems designed to make a better world, requires the concentration of power in various central commissions, committees or other “select” groups of experts (read - intellectual elites) who know what is best for you and me. Under such schemes, even in theory, governments come first, people second. Whether through government ownership of the means of production or through taxation and regulation, these “superiors” hold back “government's share,” then dole out the rest in the form of a “personal income” to each citizen, regardless of whether that citizen produces or merely consumes.

Granted, such a system would give greater freedom of choice to those who would not work at all if they could. Under Carla’s Saneism, these deadbeats would be free to spend their days smelling roses, reading poetry or simply goofing off, yet still receive the same income as those who produced something useful for others. There would be no incentive to work, to invent, to be productive, creative or entrepreneurial - and there would be consequences.

In an effort to promote equality and the freedom to choose any pursuit in life, Saneism would deny the right of an individual to reap greater rewards for working harder and producing more. It would deny industrious workers and inventors the opportunity to benefit from their efforts. Consequently, less would be produced, there would be little innovation, and there would be a lower standard of living.

As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman once said, “The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both. ”

In a free-market, capitalist society, individuals are free to succeed and to fail. They are free to innovate without having to convince some central, government authority of the merits of their ideas. These activities create more and better jobs - jobs that provide opportunity for achievement, advancement and a sense of satisfaction. They also produce more abundance for all.

There is no question that there is an important role for government to play. Capitalism cannot prosper without the rule of law. Government provides the rules under which a society functions and enforces compliance with those rules. It provides an orderly means for modifying those rules, and it provides protection from threats, including national defense, that cannot be provided easily by private markets. There will always be tension between reasonable freedom of action and the protective role of government.

More than 60 years ago, Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek warned that despite noble ideals, granting more economic power to government leads not to utopian bliss but to serfdom. His warning rings no less true today. We live in a society that increasingly gives lip service to liberty, which taxes its citizens more with each passing day, and cedes power to government to grant largesse to those it favors. This is not a way of fostering liberty and protecting individual freedom. It is a recipe for dependency and mediocrity.