The Freedom to Move
This article is excerpted from a pamphlet originally published by FEE in 1951.
Can we hope to explain the blessings of freedom to foreign people while we deny them the freedom to cross our boundaries?
Freedom of movement underlies the concept of private property rights. A person has the right to exclusive possession and use of that which he has assembled and improved without trespass against others—the right to the product of his own labor. Any move of a man might be deemed proper and beneficial when he acts to assemble, transport, or otherwise convert the free gifts of Nature so that they may satisfy human needs more readily. This involves no infringement on the equal right of others. It would seem to be the kind of movement that should not be discouraged by man or by government.
On the other hand, freedom of movement may lead to trespass. A person may move or act in such a way as to threaten the life, or to seize or damage the property, of someone else. His apparent personal gain would be at the direct expense of another person. Surely, government should lend no encouragement to such harmful actions or threats of harm by individuals.
The problem of society, then, is to permit and encourage individuals to move and act in a productive and beneficial manner, and to avoid harmful intervention or trespass. The founding fathers wisely depended upon voluntary exchange—freedom of trade in the competitive market place—as the automatic, non-governmental guide to productivity and progress among men. They delegated to government the power to restrict only those actions of individuals designed to circumvent the free market through fraud, deceit, or coercion. The penalty for violation was restitution for damages, or imprisonment, or some other restraint upon that person’s freedom to act or move.
The freedom of the individual to move toward greener pastures, wherever they may seem to be, has been a vital part of the freedom of commerce—the freedom of choice that has constituted the truly distinctive characteristic of “the American way.”
In view of our long experience of near-perfect freedom to move about as each might choose, some of us may not realize the limitations that confront people in many other parts of the world who might like to move toward something better. Many who might choose to enter the United States, peacefully observing our laws and paying their own way, are denied entry. Our community slogans now seem to read: “Welcome to all peaceful and productive newcomers—except foreigners.” And a foreigner here is an individual who has crossed a special political line, supposedly which bounds “the land of the free”!
If it is sound to erect a barrier along our national boundary lines, against those who see greater opportunities here than in their native lands, why should we not erect similar barriers between states and localities within our nation? Why should a low-paid worker—“obviously ignorant, and probably a Socialist”—be allowed to migrate from a failing buggy shop in Massachusetts to the expanding automobile shops of Detroit? According to the common attitude toward immigrants, he would compete with native Detroiters for food and clothing and housing. He might be willing to work for less than the prevailing wage rate in Detroit, “upsetting the labor market” there. His wife and children might “contaminate” the local sewing circles and playgrounds with foreign ways and ideas. Anyhow, he was a native of Massachusetts, and therefore that state should bear the full “responsibility for his welfare.”
Those are matters we might ponder, but our honest answer to all of them is reflected in our actions—we’d rather ride in automobiles than in buggies. It would be foolish to try to buy an automobile or anything else in the free market, and at the same time deny any individual an opportunity to help produce those things we want.
Our domestic relationships would be harmed seriously by restraints upon man’s freedom to migrate. But why shouldn’t the same reasoning hold for our foreign relationships?
Fear No. 1: The “melting pot” might fail to assimilate newcomers. This notion has as little merit as the idea that a third-generation Yankee’s digestive tract isn’t capable of assimilating a bunch of carrots grown by a foreign-born Japanese or Italian vegetable gardener. The assimilation of a foreign-born person is accomplished when the immigrant willingly comes to America, paying his own way not only to get here but also after he arrives, and peacefully submitting to the laws and customs of his newly adopted country. Freedom to exchange goods and services voluntarily in the market place is the economic catalyst of the American “melting pot.” Christian-like morality is the social catalyst—and if it has come to be in short supply among native Americans, the blame for that shortage should not be laid upon our immigrants.
Fear No. 2: The “wrong kind” of people might come to America. The danger that “a poorer class” might come from Asia or Africa or Southern and Eastern Europe and contaminate our society, undoubtedly seems real to any person who thinks of himself as a member of a superior class or race. Such a person, like any good disciple of Marx, is assuming the existence of classes and is convinced that he is qualified to judge others and to sort them into these classes.
Perhaps what is feared is the importation of a new idea of the relationship between the individual and his government. If that has been our fear, it very well might have been justified. For America has been rapidly substituting a socialistic State control for the traditional system of private enterprise. But let us not mistake persons for ideas; the ideas are the root of the problem. Migration of persons is not a reliable measure of the flow of ideas.
Fear No. 3: Immigrants might deprive our own workers of jobs and depress the wage scale. The fear that immigrants might take the jobs of American workers is based on the fantasy that the number of jobs to be filled within our economy is strictly limited. Individuals still do—and undoubtedly always will—entertain unsatisfied desires for more and more goods and services, which industrious and ingenious individuals constantly are producing in response to opportunities. If there is freedom to think, to trade, and to move, then opportunities for new, creative jobs are not limited to the wilderness or a spot of idle land.
The fear that heavy immigration of workers would depress the wages of native workers is an outgrowth of socialist doctrine. Socialism is so concerned with consumption and “equitable distribution” that it neglects the source of production. It fails to recognize that there can be more and more to consume only if capital and tools are first produced to give leverage to the productive power of man.
Can we hope to explain the blessings of freedom to foreign people while we deny them the freedom to cross our boundaries? To advertise America as the “land of the free,” and to pose as the world champion of freedom in the contest with communism, is hypocritical, if at the same time we deny the freedom of immigration as well as the freedom of trade. And we may be sure that our neighbors overseas are not blind to this hypocrisy.
A community operating on the competitive basis of the free market will welcome any willing newcomer for his potential productivity, whether he brings capital goods or merely a willingness to work. Capital and labor then attract each other, in a kind of growth that spells healthy progress and prosperity in that community. That principle seems to be well recognized and accepted by those who support the activities of a local chamber of commerce. Why do we not dare risk the same attitude as applied to national immigration policy?
Our collective abandonment of the economic system of the free market leaves for us the controlled communal life, where everyone wants to be a consumer without producing anything.
The Basic Problem
Our immigration policy merely reflects the existence of this serious internal problem in America. Our present policy toward immigrants is consistent with the rest of the controls
over persons which inevitably go with national socialism. But the controlled human relationships within the “welfare state” are not consistent with freedom. Great Britain once thought she could deny freedom to American colonists. And now, her own people have traded their freedom for nationalized austerity. Even a “prosperous” modern America can ill afford traveling that same course. If we do, our community, too, will lose its capacity to attract newcomers. Then we wouldn’t need an immigration policy. But who among us would want to remain in a community where opportunities no longer exist?
Comment by Drik on 10 June 2010:
re: fear #3
the wage scale will not be depressed by newcomers because we are artificially fixing the cost via minimum wage. Like all price fixing, this creates artificial shortages, in this case, of jobs. Jobs are not a fixed quantity, but they are not infinite either, and they respond to the market, at least as long as we still are not mandating that they exist; that someone has to provide “X” number of “X” type jobs. That may be next on the horizon, as the government “guarantees” a job so that they can collect the mandated insurance premium along with taxes.
Once all the jobs are mandated, and all of the salaries are leveled, and all of the benefits are uniform, and everything is guaranteed, no doubt production will just soar.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 10 June 2010:
Drik,
Minimum Wage is an artificial floor that moves the curve to the right. If labor goes up uniformly by $1.00 an hour this gets distributed though the entire model and causes inflation. For instance, if you raise the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $100 an hour the price of gas goes from $3.00 a gallon to $30.00 a gallon, the price of a burger goes from $1.00 per patty to $10.00 per patty, and you have done exactly zero to increase the ability of the lower class to pay rent, buy essentials, etc. It is a feel good tactic politicians use to make the economically illiterate feel obligated to keep them in power while doing exactly nothing to help the constituents they supposedly want to help.
On the other hand labor is threatrned by illegal immigration. Examining various positions in the US economy such as trade jobs, fast food, and other places where illegal immigrants tend to be employed wages have stagnated since the late 1980’s whereas prior to that they kept pace with the rate of inflation. In fact in some cases real wages have actually dropped.
Drawing a Supply/Demand curve you have the following equation. What amounts to an infinite supply of labor since the birth rate in Latin America is on a par with India and China. In the time it took the US to triple our population the population of Latin America went up by a multiple of 10. If scarcity of labor decreases and demand remains the same or increases at a lesser rate then the value of labor decreases relative to the difference.
I worked in the roofing industry for a year putting myself through college. Trained roofers were only used to supervise the illegal aliens. Who did this help? The IA’s were essentially slave labor. If one fell off the roof he would end up in the ER where he was fixed up at taxpayer expense. If he couldn’t work he was either completely screwed or ended up collecting money from a system he didn’t pay into. The displaced roofers were using entitlements. The builder didn’t pass the savings to the consumer. So the buyer ended up investing a quarter million or more on a house that was supposedly built by professionals but was actually built by people that in some cases had never held a hammer in their hand much less a nail gun. So the buyer was screwed, the tradesmen were screwed, the IA’s were screwed, the hospital was screwed, the taxpayer was screwed, the tax base was screwed, the government was screwed all in an effort to make rich men richer. brilliant.
It is not uncommon for friends I have in the teaching profession to report complaints that kids can’t find entry level jobs because rather than being filled and vacated by other students looking for work experience, gas money, etc. they are being filled long term by foreign nationals that don’t have any job skills besides being able to ask if you want fries with your order in broken English.
The best thing the US can do for our citizens as well as the rest of the World, including Latin America, is to close off our boarder and force these countries to get a handle on unsustainable population growth, corrupt governments, and other social, political, and economic ills that have created the need to emigrate in such massive numbers. If we allow them to export their problems to us all that is going to happen is they are going to drag us down as two eternally disparate markets try to equalize. We don’t need cheaper labor. We need wealthier customers. You don’t get that by pandering to countries where the average annual wage is a so low that buying a pair of discount sneakers is a fiscal coupe.
Comment by Rick Herceg on 10 June 2010:
It is against the law to enter this country without going through proper channels. States should be able to enforce their laws. Whether they are good laws or not is tied to how you view our Constitution (See protection of borders clause). I am for liberalized legal immigration not illegal immigration. The fact that our welfare state pays illegals to be here and stay here creates an unnatural mess and puts a burden on our government programs and welfare system. I’d be for “open borders” if our social welfare system didn’t give illegals our tax money. Also, what do you do with the right to vote for those who are here illegally. Wouldn’t make greater sense for each state to enforce its own standard for determining who can vote.
Besides, we’ve pretty much had open borders since before the Reagan years and look at the mess it creates. Financially and politically it spells disaster. Does liberty mean no immigration laws?
Comment by hiraethin on 12 June 2010:
Disclaimer: I am not a US citizen, nor do I reside in the US.
“In view of our long experience of near-perfect freedom to move about as each might choose…” — inside the US. Liberal democracies normally practice freedom of movement within their national borders. So do many other countries. No country with a functional government fails to address movement across its national border.
“Many who might choose to enter the United States, peacefully observing our laws and paying their own way, are denied entry.” Sovereign nations have to right to control their own borders, and they do. The US is no exception.
“Our community slogans now seem to read: “Welcome to all peaceful and productive newcomers—except foreigners.””
Subjective. Assuming that this is an accurate assertion, it doesn’t seem to be having much effect, does it?
“And a foreigner here is an individual who has crossed a special political line, supposedly which bounds “the land of the free”!”
Well, yes. Isn’t that the definition of “foreigner”? A person from another place? In the context of a specific country, a foreigner would be a person from another country. A country, after all, is a geographic region inhabited by a people who collectively assert that they are separate and distinct from other countries, independent and ruling themselves. This implies the assertion of the right to determine who will and who will not become a member of the country in the future.
The author infers that the idea of “the land of the free” is inconsistent with discriminating between citizens and non-citizens. It isn’t. One could argue that just because the US is ostensibly “the land of the free” does not mean that it is the land of whoever can enter it and claim it for their own; it is supposed to mean that the people who are of that land are free. The people who are of that land are its citizens, not just whoever wants to be one.
The author’s introduction discusses private property rights, one of the most basic elements of a free and prosperous society. Another basic element is the rule of law: the concept that all persons in a society must be subject to the law. The law in the US, as in almost every country in the world (I can’t think of one offhand, though there may be one or two), restricts membership in US society – that is, citizenship – to persons born in the US to a parent that is a citizen, or who are granted citizenship.
Furthermore, as the author has stated, private property implies the potential for infringement of same – theft or trespass. Taxpayers in a society are the sole source of funding for government and public works in that society. Self-funded visitors place no burden on the society they visit. Visitors that do not self-fund do place a burden on the society they visit. It is for that society – that is, in a liberal democracy, voters, elected officials, and their appointed servants – to determine how much of a burden they will accept from such visitors. No society has an infinite capacity to bear the burden of unfunded visitors, nor any responsibility to do so.
“…why should we not erect similar barriers between states and localities within our nation?”
Evidently it would be disastrous to do so. The author has examined this issue, I presume, to infer that barriers to movement across national borders are equally bad ideas. But the two are not the same. The national government, conducting business with the consent of the citizenry, acts in all parts of the national and across internal barriers, if any. The national government has no control over the world beyond its borders, within the territory of other countries. To dismantle barriers between territory where one has control and where one does not is to surrender control.
This is easily demonstrated. Imagine an apartment building with no doors or walls, only floors, ceilings, and pillars. Apart from being subject to the elements, the inhabitants are denied privacy one from another, as well as protection. The estranged girlfriend has no door to close in the face of her drunken ex-boyfriend. The mother no walls to enclose the bedrooms of her young children. The gay couple have no place to retreat from the ugly behaviour of prejudiced passers-by.
It is further worth mentioning, as a legal point, that failure to assert a right is tantamount to surrender of that right, in law as well as in reality.
Another issue is reciprocity. As mentioned earlier, no country fails to secure their own borders. Mexico, for example, has strict laws regarding the entry and registration of aliens, and maintains a stern watch on its southern border. Canada, similarly, asserts the right to maintain its borders. Every country in the Americas is the same. With sea and air travel, the US effectively shares a border with every other country in the world. Opening one’s borders unilaterally is as sensible as eliminating all trade barriers unilaterally. It is, in other words, to surrender control to all other countries involved.
The remainder of the author’s argument deals with fear. Fear is subjective, but like pain it is a useful stimulus, and like pain it is often justified and should be heeded. Fear of the dark is not unreasonable when one is lost in a dangerous place. The fears of the apartment dwellers in my example above are not unreasonable. Danger exists and only fools are without fear.
“Fear No. 1: The “melting pot” might fail to assimilate newcomers.” Studies show that a failure of assimilation represents a threat to the integrity of a society, and furthermore, that an excess of new immigrants tends to slow assimilation. The author fails to address issues such as new immigrants who fail to learn the local language (and are enabled by opposition to such ‘racist’ ideas as a national language), who recreate their societies of origin in their new country (often more conservatively than the original, as they are seeking literally to remain as they were before they left), and who may not peacefully submit to the laws and customs of their new country – or who may attempt to subvert those laws and customs by demanding new rights, exceptions or concessions which did not exist hitherto. The author does not deal with the issue of the unfunded burden on society, which is often most resented by self-funded immigrants or children of immigrants, who laboured to achieve their present position. Blaming the lack of ‘Christian-like morality’ in existing citizens is a cheap shot. It is not for the existing citizens to make social space for the newcomers; assimilation infers that the newcomers have a responsibility to adapt to the society they find.
“Fear No. 2: The “wrong kind” of people might come to America.” It is true that some people are racist, that some people are xenophobes, and that such people no doubt oppose immigration, or any relaxing of immigration law, at least in part because of their prejudices. However, it is possible to oppose immigration, or any relaxing of immigration law, without prejudice. I recommend dealing with issues through reasoned argument. Claiming or implying that opponents on any particular issue are racist is offensive, it is counterproductive, it tends to harden opposition rather than bringing about compromise, and it is cheap.
That said, of course, there are “wrong kinds” of people who should not be permitted into the country. It is important to discriminate: not against people of any particular race, or social class, or creed, or financial level – but against people who present a risk to society, for example criminals or carriers of infectious disease. Such discrimination is the practical upshot of the right to determine who will enter a country.
“Fear No. 3: Immigrants might deprive our own workers of jobs and depress the wage scale.” I largely agree with the author that freedom of movement maximises the power of the free market to generate wealth. However, the government is concerned with the welfare of the nation, not with the economic welfare of all people. Government must therefore seek a balance that maximises all benefits to the people of the nation, while minimising the social costs discussed above among others.
It is possible for an influx of immigrants to distort the labour market, this is much more of a problem in, for example, an island nation with a small populace, than in the US. In addition, this problem is easily controlled by adjusting legal migration numbers. This assumes, however, that illegal immigration is effectively suppressed – not a given in the US.
Pingback by Obama Setting Record for Deportations | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 26 July 2010:
[...] Timely Classic “The Freedom to Move” by Oscar W. Cooley and Paul A. [...]
Comment by Bryan Björnson on 26 July 2010:
“The assimilation of a foreign-born person is accomplished when the immigrant willingly comes to America, paying his own way not only to get here but also after he arrives, and peacefully submitting to the laws and customs of his newly adopted country.”
That sentence is the flaw in this article. Back in 1986 when it was written the illegal immigrants did submit to the laws and customs of the United States. Now they do not. I live in a state that borders Canada not Mexico yet there are places here where Spanish is spoken more than English is. The teenagers getting off the local school bus speak Spanish with each other not English. That is not the melting pot in action.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 26 July 2010:
Hiraethan,
Well said. I wanted to discuss your 3 fears you pointed out:.
Fear 1 – Failure to Integrate: The thing these authors fail to take into account is that the ideals located in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are not self evident. These concepts need to be taught. It is one thing for you, me, and this author to discuss philosophy and economics but the level of failed integration, especially in California, threatens to undermine the ideals and freedoms on which the US was based supplanting the culture that has fostered liberty for two centuries with a third world culture where gangs, thugs, and corrupt politicians rule as they do in most of Latin America.
Fear 2 – Racist Core: US born criminals have difficulty escaping their past so why should we allow a foreign criminal free access? Even if we allow reasonably free access to the US this does not mean we should allow other countries to rid themselves of unsavory elements and economic refugees by banishing them to the US. Even if entitlements magically disappeared overnight it takes thousands of dollars a month to incarcerate inmates. Even if the unskilled immigrant isn’t a criminal when he arrives when faced with exposure and starvation throwing a brick through a window ensures “three hots and a cot.” One way or the other we’re going to end up paying for them.
I’d also point out that 75% of illegal immigrants are from Latin America, 57% from Mexico alone. Why should illegal aliens from these countries be given priority while millions of others are not allowed in? If we are going to open the boarders then access should be granted equally to all racial groups rather than providing special status based solely on geographical convenience or we’re violating “equal protection” under A14.
Fear 3 – Job Loss and Depressed Wages: You can’t escape scarcity any more than you can escape inertia or entropy. When two disparate markets interact freely they have no choice but to equalize. This means the standard of living in the US will drop while the standard of living in Mexico increases. As business leave the US to capitalize on the cheap labor in Mexico their population gains employment and ours loses it.
In addition to this in the model being offered, free movement is unilateral. If we use Mexico as an example, cheap labor can move into the US but consumer access to undervalued Mexican capital is limited or nonexistent so the markets are only equalizing when it comes to scarcity of labor. When it comes to land, natural resources, and other consumer goods the markets are essentially isolated. If Mexico truly wants free movement they need to understand that it needs to be reciprocal as it is between US states not monodirectional.. While President Calderon seems disinterested in US sovereignty he is far less understanding when it comes to the sovereignty of his own country.
Comment by Luis Mauricio on 5 January 2011:
Its obviously that Immigration increase productivity, as the article mention those believes that USA are hurting by competition on labour are just primitive speculations, and now that american citizens realize about the inevitable collapse of the US dollar, people should recognize the wealth that immigrants produce for the United States, if America continues to promote laws as the SB 1070 from Arizona the only thing that can result is nothing less than mass unemployment. People wake up!, the USA is the more indebted nation in the world and in the History, dollar’s reserves in other countries will be wiped out in a blink of an eye when America defaults, and then you will have hyperinflation, US labour is OVER, OVER, OVER VALUATED, what the government borrow from Asia wasn’t money, but instead CAPITAL!!, what the government will need to repaid is CAPITAL. And how in the world did the USA will produce CAPITAL if citizens did not want to reduce their wages? Those union and immigration policies in the US hurt the economy as the same rate that the Federal Reserve and government depreciates the dollar.
Pingback by Supreme Court Affirms Anti-Immigrant Hiring Law | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 27 May 2011:
[...] Timely Classic “The Freedom to Move” by Oscar W. Cooley and Paul L. [...]
Comment by Ed on 27 May 2011:
There is a larger economic issue here, which this article does not take into consideration… basically a nation builds an infrastructure together… roads, utilities, economics, etc… why?… so their children can have a better more stable place to live… this takes time, energy, and capital… if you let anyone come in and enjoy that, nay, consume that… then where is the incentive of people to build such things, enduring the sacrifice it takes to establish such things?… if anyone could simply come in and consume its benefits without having had to pay for it, in some way… this is the basic fallacy of the articles thinking is that everything in a nation is a basic level playing field and it is not… we build and pay for infrastructure not for anyone to come in and consume but for OUR children to consume… when you start letting anyone come in and do that you remove that incentive… I am all for freedom… but that is NOT the end-all-be-all… it also has its set backs… and they are very real… one can not ignore them
Comment by Shade Tree Economist on 31 May 2011:
As Milton Friedman opined – you can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both. The state of current US immigration is an object lesson in why.
While everything in the article is theoretically true, the US in 2011 is vastly different than the US in 1951 (when this article was written). A major fear is that US government social-welfare policies will attract non-economic immigrants, coming to seek relief from the squalor within their own borders but not via employment.
Dramatically cut the socio-economic “safety nets” and access to US services for unemployed immigrants (primarily education and medical care) and we will encourage only immigration for economic purposes.
Employed, tax paying immigrants are welcome from no matter where, especially those holding HB1 visas (why on earth do we encourage them to leave once they get a world class US education?).
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 May 2011:
Mr. Maricio has it backwards. The value of labor is undervalued in Latin America, China, India, and many other nations because their populations are out of control. The more illegal aliens that come here the fewer jobs there are for people looking for work so the value of labor drops. Illegal immigration does nothing to help our economy while doing a great deal to hurt it.
As Smith points out the value of labor is based on reproduction. The more people you have (supply) the less labor is valued.
The reason labor has had more value in the US than in other countries is the infrastructure Ed mentions relative to our population growth.
In the time it took the US to grow from 150 million to 300 million the population of Latin America grew from 60 million to 600 million, India went from 300 million to 1.2 billion, and China had to take draconian measured to curb its growth at 1.3 billion.
Population growth of this magnitude is not sustainable and will result in ignorance and poverty on a global scale.
This has been an economic law for a century now but the author fails to mention it, as is typical of the supporters of free movement.
Comment by Bladernr1001 on 13 December 2011:
This article fails to address one thing that violates the most important precept of libertarianism…..that peoples freedom of choice NOT deprive other of their freedom of choice.
The situation that we have with regards to immigration today is that whether they come legally or illegally, immigrants now have access to various government assisstance and services……that deprives citizens of resources they could otherwise put to other uses. Many immigrants would not come here be it not for the fact that they know that they can get such things as free schooling, free medical care and an array of other services.
Access to these services can also give them an unfair advantage over the tax paying citizen that does not qualify for such assistance.
I am all for compeltely open labor markets…..just don’t use the welfare state to give immigrants a competitive advantage over the citizens already here and paying taxes.
Comment by Tony on 14 December 2011:
@ Ed
“basically a nation builds an infrastructure together… ”
Actually, a nation does not build anything. Individuals do. And individuals make up a nation, not the other way around. It does not say ANYTHING about the ethnicity or nationality of those individuals.
“roads, utilities, economics, etc… why?… so their children can have a better more stable place to live…”
Is it? Or is it to make money? Don’t childless people build roads or utilities? Don’t people without children engage in economics? You are committing a non-sequitur and a begging the question fallacy to justify a further argument.
“this takes time, energy, and capital… if you let anyone come in and enjoy that, nay, consume that… then where is the incentive of people to build such things, enduring the sacrifice it takes to establish such things?…”
Apparently the incentive is still there, otherwise there would be no builders, no actual building being done, and no capital. Of course government action has something to do with this (forcible taxation), but if you have a problem with this, don’t blame foreigners, blame government. Don’t be a nationalist, be anti-public property.
“we build and pay for infrastructure not for anyone to come in and consume but for OUR children to consume…”
Who is this “we”? Is this everyone, or just the anti-immigration camp? Why do you think you can make up motivations, reasoning, justification and opinions for everyone? Who says there aren’t people who built and paid for infrastructure so that “anyone can come in and consume?”
You obviously want everyone to pay whether they like it or not, so then who are you to decide for others what their demands and conditions for paying should be?
“I am all for freedom…”
No, you are not, because… (see next line)
“but that is NOT the end-all-be-all…”
Yes, it is. Provided nobody is forced by anyone to do anything against their will. Who are you to dictate to others where their freedom should stop, provided they don’t impose their will on others?
“it also has its set backs…”
Yes, and that is why you can identity someone who loves freedom by how he does not reject it once it becomes personally inconvenient to him.