Freedom v. being poor

Over at the blog of the Adam Smith Institute Madsen Pirie has a message which deals with the idea that "It's all very well to talk of freedom, but poor people are not free to buy Rolls Royces."

Pirie opens his message by pointing out that poor people are free to buy Rolls Royces, they just can't afford to do so. But they are not stopped from buying such things "by the whim or will of others".

If they had or could get money they could buy luxury goods, but there are some things people are not free to do, be they rich or poor. They cannot smoke with impunity in a public bar, or demonstrate within the vicinity of Parliament. Being banned from doing something is about curbs on freedom. Being able to afford something is about power over circumstance.

Pirie goes on to make the important point that there is a crucial difference between being unable to do something because of circumstance and being prevented from acting due to the superior power of others.

In the first case you have aspirations beyond your present abilities, but in the second case you are subject to the arbitrary dictates of an authority which makes you live as it sees fit, rather than as you want to do.

In a free society you are able to make your own decisions rather than suffer the whims of those in power.

There are things they cannot do, not because they are unfree, but because they are unable. People are free to jump unaided over the Eiffel Tower, but are not able to do so. The difference is that people can overcome a lack of means more readily than gravity. In a free society they can hope to prosper, and to do the things hitherto beyond them. In an unfree society they cannot.