Er…but that happens anyways. Taxation is part of government. You’re not introducing any new restriction of freedom. It’s one that already exists. And a restriction of freedom that’s actually written into the Constitution.

That’s not really relevant to my point. Taxation is a limitation on your freedom (which doesn’t automatically mean it’s bad). Its constitutionality isn’t what’s being discussed here. Note that I said warrants allow violations of my freedom, but they’re in the Constitution as well.

You’re also assuming that providing a social system means additional taxation, correct? That’s the conservative rhetoric anyway, an additional burden that throttles innovation or economic incentives to self-betterment. Not only are government budgets a matter of priority (e.g., we could have fixed Social Security into the next two centuries with the money we spent on Iraq), there’s no evidence that proves the latter claims. End corporate welfare, and fund the systems (like schooling) that promote economic egalitarianism. That promotes economic freedom without unduly threatening the goodie bags of the upper classes.

You’re assuming (for some reason) that I don’t think social programs are practically justified. That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m saying that to pay for social programs you will have to take people’s property, which is a restriction on how they use it. I do realize that the phrase “economic freedom” is somewhat ambiguous. You can say that we’re all better off with this restriction and that it actually increases a person’s ability to do what they want in life, which is a form of freedom. I’m inclined to agree with that, but that’s not the conception of economic freedom I’m using. I’m talking more about the freedom to do what you wish with your property, which is more closely related to civil liberties. In that sense, if two people are proportionally taxed, and allowed to spend their money otherwise, they’re equally free economically, even if one has more money after that taxation. The other conception is useful in other arguments, but the one I just described is more relevant here.

I’m right there with you in believing that social safety net programs can have practical benefits that outweigh the negatives. That’s why I’m a liberal and I support those programs if the net result is positive. However, they do restrict what I can do with my property because they’re funded with taxes that I have to pay and because of that are a restriction on my freedom. That’s not conservative rhetoric, that’s just the truth. Conservatives have to make the argument that such restrictions are illegitimate or have adverse consequences. That’s where the disagreement comes in.

You’re also assuming that providing a social system means additional taxation, correct? That’s the conservative rhetoric anyway, an additional burden that throttles innovation or economic incentives to self-betterment. Not only are government budgets a matter of priority (e.g., we could have fixed Social Security into the next two centuries with the money we spent on Iraq), there’s no evidence that proves the latter claims. End corporate welfare, and fund the systems (like schooling) that promote economic egalitarianism. That promotes economic freedom without unduly threatening the goodie bags of the upper classes.

In short, Craig’s comparison is simplistic and inaccurate.