80% baked
I believe a good goal for this article is to publish it on Google Knol.
We probably agree individuals have the right to choose how to think and act, provided they respect those same rights for others, but what do we do when those rights conflict? Consider the following scenario.
The founders of Johnstown choose a town council form of government that among other things arranges to maintain the town's roads with property taxes. Over time a few citizens begin to feel the town should spend less money on roads and object to the coercive methods used to collect the taxes (e.g., property liens).
This scenario represents a conflict of rights. Is it reasonable to require everyone help pay for the roads even if some disagree with the amount spent? This may seem like unjust oppression of the minority by the majority, but if such decisions required unanimous agreement, one person would be able to prevent everyone else from maintaining any roads, resulting in oppression of the majority by a minority.
One way to resolve the dilemma is to note that individual freedom includes the right to make binding agreements with others. A town is a contract between 2 or more people who agree on rules for the town and perhaps even a form of government to establish future rules and enforce them. Individual freedom is still maintained to the extent that people are free to choose whether to reside in it and thereby accept its form of government.
It seems unreasonable for us to prevent such a town from existing even if we disagree with its form of government and the established laws, but we can choose whether to live in such a town. We are also free to form our own town or associate with people who more closely share our feelings regarding government.
To summarize the principle, coercive methods (e. g. taxes) are compatible with individual freedom to the extent people are free to voluntarily enter agreements permitting the coercion.
The principle described has a number of implications. For example, we shouldn't be too quick to judge a public policy as being inappropriate for everyone -- only for ourselves. Generally I'm very much against any form of coercion, but the principle suggests that to the extent that people are free to choose where to live, some coercion is acceptable.
This section is for miscellaneous notes including weak aspects of the article. Perhaps some of these notes should end up as their own section in the article itself.
Considering the principle described, the concept of federalism becomes extremely useful. Federalism generally refers to a government system where power is divided up between multiple levels. For example, in the United States, the Constitution divides power between the federal and state governments with the federal government being very limited in scope. Even though this constitutional requirement is routinely ignored today, the principle is solid, allowing greater individual freedom by allowing people to live in a state with other people who more closely meet their own views on public policy.
Parties to the agreement must take reasonable care in making sure other parties are, "responsible," able to reason sufficiently. Everyone is at a different level as to their ability to reason. Young children are typically considered ineligible to enter into legal agreements without parental consent. That seems appropriate.
As to whether someone is sufficiently responsible, it seems appropriate to make this a civil court matter. If someone feels that one or more parties violated this principle, they must convince a jury of peers.
Each party to an agreement has responsibility to fully understand the nature and ramifications of the agreement; however, they also have a responsibility to each other to disclose important aspects. In a properly executed agreement, both sides fully understand the implications and neither side would take advantage of another.
There's an aspect of freedom that has been only touched lightly and that is the cost of compliance or opting out. If the cost of compliance is high and the cost of opting out (e.g., moving) is also high, there is little freedom. For example, if someone has no money and no family and friends, they may feel coerced into signing away their freedom in return for critical health care. However, even in such a situation it doesn't seem right to eliminate the freedom to enter into such an agreement.
A less extreme example would be if someone bought a nice home in a town and then the town raised property taxes a great deal to make up for a down economy. If real estate prices are low, it may be very costly for this person to sell their home.
One way of dealing with this problem is a guideline requiring high levels of buy-in when the cost is high. Perhaps requiring a 90% approval from residents wouldn't be too high for certain types of regulations.