“I saw that in the literal sense, China was freer than America.” Brandon Ferdig compares freedoms and their limits.
My friend, Susan, attends a very liberal liberal-arts college. It offers no majors or class requirements. The intention is to remove all roadblocks from a student pursuing their interests. I thought it sounded great. In high school and college I hated having to take classes I didn’t want. Also, I thought about the whiz kids whose gifts were being held back by requirement detours and the other students I knew who wanted to be in shop class but were forced to read Dickens.
Susan contrasted her college experience with her days at a parochial boarding high school. There she had curfew. But Susan is a bird of her own feather and would often stay up late studying. For this, she was punished.
I see the best in people when they are free to spread their wings, unfettered by policy holding them back for being “too young,” “too irresponsible,” or because “it’s too late to be up.” “Treat people like adults, and they’ll act like adults,” I liked to say. Broad-brushing policy groups police people and remove a sense of identity and responsibility.
But there was a problem with my thinking. It wasn’t that I was wrong; I just always failed to see the other side.
Last summer, I took part in a nine-day stay at a tai chi school on a mountain in Hubei Province, China. There, I and the ten or so other attendees awoke at 5:30 each morning and were on the road jogging by 6:00. We practiced together; we ate together. Days were structured, directing my time and actions, and the group provided support to strive higher and stay focused. Restrictions and control rub me the wrong way, yet my freedom at this school was restricted, and my life was enhanced by the experience. Counter-intuitively, the structure concentrated my activities, freeing up more of my time to do with as I pleased.
Sure, I could have done this activity on my own, relying on my own discipline to get up early and out the door. But I hadn’t. And following my training, I tried to keep the routine going. That first morning after I left the school, I rose from bed and noticed immediately how much harder it was to do so when there wasn’t the expectation of a schedule given to me.
So my motto about always treating people like adults simply isn’t always true. (Or maybe it isn’t so juvenile to have rules.) Being overly concerned about the wrongs that rules may lead to misses the point of them, for the majority of adults benefit, at least at times, from being given orders.
Susan also says of her liberal, liberal-arts college that many seniors she knows have no idea what topic to write their graduate thesis on. This is unnerving as they’ve spent 4 or 5 years of their life, shelled out a ton of money ($43,000/yr tuition), and now can’t decide why they did so. (And this is after a competitive screening process presumably designed to accept only those who would succeed in this kind of environment.)
I had to think that some of these students would have benefited from a few orders. I also wondered whether this same argument for directives and mandates could be made in support of the Affordable Care Act.
Freedom, I realized from my experience in the tai chi school, is a malleable notion. And that was made evident all year I was in China.
In China, I saw two teenage boys playing one of those claw crane games—you know, that fun arcade/vending machine that requires the user to direct a claw over their desired item, hit a button, and then hope that the claw grasps and retrieves it. Well, back in China, inside the machine weren’t cute fuzzy froggies and teddy bears.
Inside were packs of cigarettes.
In this strange example—and others—I saw that in the literal sense, China was freer than America. In areas of smoking, drinking, seatbelt use, car seat use, and driving laws, Chinese citizens are freer to choose whether or not to use them or not, without state intervention. Figuratively, China also seemed to me to offer a greater camaraderie of people out in the streets. I saw neighbors interacting and relaxing, kids walked home by themselves after school, and the police were more approachable. Things just felt more free. Meanwhile, however, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) shapes these people’s lives by limiting many activities—speech, religion—that we in the West believe are fundamental human rights.
America offers greater personal freedoms to say, read, and believe as people like, while it is also more rigid when it comes to personal safety: drinking laws, curfews, and no toys with McDonald’s Happy Meals.
|
So while Chinese citizens live in more of a bubble, created by the CCP, within that bubble, people relied more on personal choice than people do in the United States. America offers greater personal freedoms to say, read, and believe as people like, while it is also more rigid when it comes to personal safety: drinking laws, curfews, and no toys with McDonald’s Happy Meals.
Depending on who you ask and how you define freedom will determine which place is freer. And what we in America think is universal—what makes a country better—isn’t always so. The Chinese I got to know preferred their system, and from looking around while over there, I could see why. Americans get on China’s case for not having democracy but freedom of choice for one’s leadership doesn’t look like such a good trade when people in a democracy repeatedly elect bad leaders.
Also, one can’t know the repercussions of this ruling. So I try and ignore the cheerers and the moaners about the recent Supreme Court ruling. Anyone happy or upset probably isn’t so because they care about people getting healthcare; they’re overjoyed or angry because they’re either relieved or scared their ideology was supported or threatened. It’s either Heaven or Hell to them, and we all know we’re on Earth.
The truth is, there’s a lot to consider when reviewing this case. I saw the way orders benefitted me, but there’s also a difference between voluntarily committing oneself to a period of structure and having it forced upon you.
The strongest point I do believe in is what the law indicates.
Let’s say this law does benefit our country. What does that say about America that we have to force people into an activity they ought to make on their own anyway? This is nothing to cheer.
Also, I believe, in a death-by-papercuts kinds of way, that each freedom lost is another slit into our humanity—so small that you may not detect the cost. But paper cuts add up. More people get healthcare now—because it’s a law. Fewer people smoke now—because we tax the heck out it. More people wear seatbelts—because we fine them if they don’t. Get the picture?
By making an action a law, the state is replacing the right reason to do it. The law has the capability of shunting an activity of self-care into the realm of “because the state says so.”
And while I appreciate China’s own version of freedom—that it showed me how different can also be good—I also saw while living there a culture lacking the independence and initiative in technological and expressive endeavors that America has historically exhibited.
It’s this I’d hate to see papercut.
Read more about Freedom on The Good Life.
—Photos courtesy of the author
“Let’s say this law does benefit our country. What does that say about America that we have to force people into an activity they ought to make on their own anyway? This is nothing to cheer.” Um, are you suggesting that individual people just aren’t getting health insurance even though they could? That is sort of what it sounds like you’re saying here. I’d argue no…it’s the healthcare system that is broken. The problem isn’t that individuals are deciding not to get healthcare because they can’t see the value in it, or are being obstinate, or whatever. The problem is… Read more »
I don’t know the statistics, but I believe the vast majority of people w/o health insurance don’t have it because they choose not to.
Yeah, that’s wrong. It’s a problem of having access to it. If you make too much money for medicaid, and you are too young for medicare, and you don’t have a job that provides medical insurance…you’re basically screwed. Finding affordable private health insurance that isn’t through your employer is basically impossible. I also know small business owners who basically don’t have any health insurance because they can’t afford it. I’m talking the “mom & pop” type companies. People want insurance…they just can’t afford it.
“Yeah, that’s wrong.” Heather, you can’t just say that without any data.
“Finding affordable private health insurance that isn’t through your employer is basically impossible.” I can say without hesitation that this is false. Last I checked, I could get private coverage for $60-$80/mo.
Yes, but what exactly is covered in such a plan? What is your co-pay or the limit to how much they’ll pay for a hospital stay? Do they pay for ambulances? Prescriptions? And prior to the ACA, would there be huge limits to getting that insurance if you had pre-existing medical conditions? Does that cover dental and vision? It’s not enough to say that cheap coverage exists…the point is that cheap coverage (that actually covers you worth a damn) doesn’t exist. Some stats: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/health_nutrition/health_insurance.html Specifically with regards to wage: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0157.pdf (If you scroll to the second chart, it shows information… Read more »
Thanks, Heather. I looked at a bit of the data and see that young adults don’t make up as big a slice as I thought, but who’s to say most still aren’t making the choice not to get it? As for the plan I referred to, it had a $5K deductible. But so what? That’s what insurance was meant for–emergencies. In fact, a part of why it wasn’t $4K or even $3K is because we in America started to think every little expense should be covered. We’re an insurance-happy country. I actually sold health insurance policies for 2.5 years, and… Read more »
“But I will add this: In my state–Minnesota–one cannot NOT be insured–unless it is their choice, because if one of the four allowed health care providers won’t take you, the state has a program that, by that pre-requisite, you are qualified for. Many other states already have a program like this. So why the ACA?” Because “many other states,” isn’t everyone. If you remember, back when the ACA was first being introduced it provided a “public option.” Basically it was meant to be the option for people who were otherwise unable to get insurance. I’m coming at this from the… Read more »
Brandon, you’re really overlooking a lot of things in your arguments, and that’s a big part of the problem as to why people don’t understand what the problem is with getting healthcare. First of all, as I pointed out earlier, there’s no way you could find insurance for $60-80 a month, even with a high deductible, unless you are young and healthy and most likely male (women are generally charged more for insurance, another thing ACA will prohibit). As you get older, your rates will go up. And if you had employer provided coverage and then lose your job, and… Read more »
So how is the ACA going to make your insurance cheaper? Why are costs so high? Therein lies the issue.
Well like I said, the costs are so high in large part because so many people are uninsured. The way insurance companies determine what your premium is (assuming the actual cost of health care doesn’t change, which is another can of worms) is by two factors: 1) the size of the insurance pool, 2) the odds of any one person in that pool getting sick or injured, which they determine by your age and personal and family medical history, etc. Just to simplify this, let’s say you work for a small company of 20 employees, and you get insurance through… Read more »
Apart from what Heather said, you must be a young guy with no health issues. Insurance companies will keep jacking up the rate as you get older, and if you get sick or injured, forget it. And that’s exactly the problem with the current system – a lot of people don’t see the problem because they’re currently young and healthy, and think they either don’t “need” insurance or that it’s cheap. Then they get a rude awakening in middle age, especially if they’ve been getting employer covered health insurance and then get laid off in middle age and all the… Read more »
“In this strange example—and others—I saw that in the literal sense, China was freer than America. In areas of smoking, drinking, seatbelt use, car seat use, and driving laws, Chinese citizens are freer to choose whether or not to use them or not, without state intervention.”
Maybe in those few specific examples, but in general the PRC is pretty heavy handed when it comes to interfereing in people’s lives.
This whole question about how much structure is good to have might be one that splits America. It seems to me that those who are good self-starters and need less structure and less security to feel happy and “free” tend to impose their ideals on the majority which is cruel. It also seems to me that men are expected to have to deal with less structure and more “freedom” than women are. I think a lot of women who tell themselves that men are better off do so because they happen to be people who value that sort of “freedom”… Read more »
What does that say about America that we have to force people into an activity they ought to make on their own anyway? Well that’s just the tragedy of the commons isn’t it? That’s any sort of social solution to a social problem. Often in life there are situations where the outcome can benefit everyone if everyone agrees to follow a few simple rules which as individuals they would do better to ignore, but if everyone ignored them everyone would be worse off. The usual example is fishing. If everyone fishes as much as they like the fish die out… Read more »
Nice comments, David.
“Everyone benefits from having the agreed upon rule.”
But we also lose a bit of ourselves, too, which I argue further down. I believe a less independent citizen is a less productive and innovative one. So whether we benefit overall depends on weighing these factors against one another.
Again, I’ll say that if it’s the case that we have to force others to protect themselves, then that’s a bad indicator.
Speaking as a westerner who has lived in China for a number of years… I agree that the Chinese government is more repressive than our governments, and that the horrors of the Cultural Revolution are not all that far in the past. But I think the write is quite right – there are many aspects of Chinese life and society which do work better than ours and which we could benefit from learning from. Off the top of my head: – Chinese people are generally more friendly towards people they know and family; and more generous. – As the writer… Read more »
Even the “best” paternalistic laws have downsides. Look at mandatory seatbelts. It is entirely possible there is a better invention than the seatbelt. However no one has an incentive to figure out what it might be or experiment. Car seats are much worse since they are so ineffective. Still as long as they are mandated we have crippled innovation in the area.
I do think you make a good point about structure often offering more freedom. This is something I’m currently struggling with, having worked hard to get to a point where my time is mostly unstructured (I’m a musician and need a lot of unstructured time) and yet still often finding it hard to get time that is truly “free.” But I think using China to illustrate your point may not have been the wisest idea. And I have to take great exception to this: “Anyone happy or upset probably isn’t so because they care about people getting healthcare; they’re overjoyed… Read more »
@LF “Sorry, but my primary concern is whether people get healthcare.” “I find the whole idea of health insurance for profit abhorrent.” – The second statement not only contradicts the first (since a company can be profitable and still offer accessible healthcare), but is a perfect example of a reactive response to a threatened ideology. ” they have to spend the money I give them on actual health care instead of outlandish CEO salaries and lobbying against healthcare reform.” – The major healthcare companies actually supported Obamacare’s passage because they will benefit financially when the government subsidizes those that can’t… Read more »
Luckey: “The second statement not only contradicts the first (since a company can be profitable and still offer accessible healthcare), but is a perfect example of a reactive response to a threatened ideology.” Obviously you completely missed the point. The two statements don’t contradict each other at all because my whole point was that, despite the fact that Obamacare as it stands does not entirely fit with my preferred ideology (in terms of healthcare anyway, not necessarily overall), I support it and am fine with it because it actually does provide people with healthcare, and that’s my main concern. “The… Read more »
“This is BS. The healthcare companies spent millions of dollars lobbying against Obamacare.”
– No. They spent millions against a single-payer system (which is not Obamacare)…and they won.
“Medicare works quite well,”
– Seriously? Medicare is rife with fraud and best case scenario is it will be bankrupt in just 12 years, with worst case being in 4 years. Quite well, indeed!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/23/trustees-medicare-will-go-broke-in-2016-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/
Single payer was never even on the table. The insurance companies continued to spend staggering amounts of money lobbying against it and advocating the defeat of Obamacare even after the current plan was already agreed upon. And Medicare is not “going bankrupt.” The concerns that were cited in your link didn’t even start till 2008, and the projections presume that both revenues and costs will remain what they are – which they won’t. Stuff like this happens all the time and people have been predicting the “bankruptcy” of Medicare and Social Security since they started. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/Is-Medicare-Going-Bankrupt-Not-Really.html The fact of the… Read more »
“The Chinese I got to know preferred their system…” Well, sure, if you don’t know anything better…many of my closest relatives who escaped long ago may go back for brief visits but certainly do not prefer that system over that of the U.S. ….and they have been here in the U.S. for 5 decades… I have heard the stories about families ripped apart because of who were considered “true revolutionaries” vs. “landlords”…I know stories about executions and torture during the years of Mao’s rule and his efforts to rout out his detractors…perhaps what people will say while still trapped in… Read more »
As the son of an immigrant who grew up during the Cultural Revolution (and escaped to America) and is currently visiting family in Beijing, I can attest to this. There is a strong culture of corruption here (one of my father’s cousins is a banker, and I was shocked by 3000-yuan dinners in a country where the cost of living is such that one could pay 10-50 yuan for a decent meal and 2 yuan for a breakfast). For the record, one US dollar is roughly 6 yuan. One caveat is that the Chinese government isn’t all fun and games… Read more »