Pointing out that you can get be thrown in jail for breaking the law isn't really a good argument. The alternative to rule of law is anarchy. Just because you don't agree with specific laws doesn't mean freedom is a lie.

Besides, the point wasn't about platonic freedom, but instead about a specific flavor of "freedom" that exists in US culture. In the dinosaur park analogy, the electric fences can be likened to government safety net programs. As you may be familiar with, there is a political faction in the US that dislikes the idea of being "forced" to pay taxes to fund programs to help the less fortunate, and a lot of the issues related to various forms of crushing debt stem from that ideology that a rich person should be "free" to be selfish.

I mean, if you change the meaning of "freedom" to only mean "having to pay taxes but not for funding wellfare (and being allowed to own and carry firearms, but not information or drugs the government disagrees with)" then the word loses its meaning.

With the same kind reasoning you could argue that the DPRK is the freeest country in the world, for "their flavor of freedom".

To clarify, I'm not disagreeing with you, nor am I the one changing the meaning of "freedom". I'm merely relaying the ideology that is commonly associated with the word nowadays in the US, in order to make an association between it and the topic of why debt is seemingly so prevalent in the US. If you have a better word than "freedom" in air quotes to describe the ideology I'm describing, by all means do share.

However, when the laws greatly restrict one’s ability to do things, are they really free? Whether or not you agree with a law, laws are nearly always aimed at restricting people.

Of course there are laws that exist to restrict people. The rationale is the protection of the commons. You wouldn't want to allow willy nilly murder and arson in the name of freedom, that'd obviously be ridiculous.

Let's avoid the faux intellectualism of "if [cherrypicked example], is the whole invalid?" Freedom isn't a black-or-white matter, you can simultaneously be prohibited from killing and free to speak your mind while jaywalking on a quiet street. But IMHO, one ought to consider topics like maslow's hierarchy of needs and human rights conventions before bringing things like music piracy into the topic of freedom.

Paying higher tax rates to fund social safety nets is a law that impacts freedom too.

The US' top federal marginal rate of 37% is pretty low.

In countries with more expansivo safety nets, it looks like it's up around 50%.

Yes, and the impact on freedom is positive for those who need to take advantage of social safety nets, and essentially zero for those who are paying that top marginal rate.

I think the impact is near zero but not zero.

For example, it might mean someone has to work a year longer before accumulating wealth and retiring. The benefit far outweighs the cost, but the cost is still there.

Taxes are inherently a restriction on what one can do with their money. That said, without them we wouldn’t have roads, police, healthcare, social security, etc…which does add freedom to many peoples lives. I think another comment said it best, laws can increase overall freedom in a society, but they do still restrict individuals.

I don't understand whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Sorry, that was poorly explained. I’m agreeing that the overall benefit to society is positive. But, I disagree that the impact to the individual is essentially zero.

We see numbers differently if 13% = essentially zero.

For anybody who's got enough income post-deductions to land in the 37% bracket, they're well into the 99th percentile in income. Even if someone at the very bottom of the 37% bracket actually had to pay 37% on all their income (yes, I know that's not how it works), they'd still be in at least the 98th percentile of income. So, yes, I call that essentially zero impact.

I'd agree with you on the marginal utility of that wealth, and (unrelatedly) on the moral righteousness of redistributing that excess wealth.

But that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about the government taking an asset (the 13%) from an individual.

It's hard to bill that as a zero-impact action with regards to freedom.

One might say "I think net freedom is increased by redistributing money from the extraordinarily wealthy to the broader population." But it seems illogical to say "We can create more freedom by taxing the wealthy, because that creates more freedom for everyone not wealthy, and has no impact on the wealthy."

Why is that illogical? What impact do you think it would have on them?

Is there anything they could do with +13% of their income, that they wouldn't be able to do without it?

I'm hard pressed to come up with a justified "No" to answer that question.

It's a tautology that if someone makes more money, they will literally do something with it. The question is: who cares? In other words, would it be something meaningful, or no? Is anybody at that income level less "free" in any substantial sense because they have to pay a bit more in taxes? Again, I claim that for most people actually paying those tax rates, the answer is no, mostly because marginal propensity to consume decreases with increasing income. And, at that level of income, not having a few more bucks to invest just doesn't seem meaningful, either.

Let's hear some specifics. Name one specific thing someone at this level of income might do that extra income that meaningfully impacts their life. Your inability or refusal to do so so far seems to support my point here.

Here's my concrete example: if we added +13% to Jeff Bezos's accounts, do you really think that would change his life even a tiny bit? Would it change meaningfully even if we subtracted 13%? I'm just gonna say that's a no either way.

Presumably Bezos would spend more money on space travel. And Warren Buffett or Bill Gates would spend more on charity. And Larry Ellison would buy another and bigger yatch. Or Elon Musk would just keep it in a bank account.

Which one can feel on way or the other about, but it's disingenuous to claim that's nothing. It's not nothing.

So make the full claim you want ("I support laws that tax the rich and decrease their freedom, so that poorer people can have a stronger social safety net and more freedom."), being honest about all sides, instead of the edited version ("I support laws that increase freedom for everyone {because money doesn't have value to rich people}.").

And recognize that if it's moral umbrage you're taking, the same reasoning extends down the income scale. (Making the assumption that you're not making minimum wage, and I'm not) Presumably someone who is making minimum wage would believe many of the things we do with our additional income, but would not do without it, are "not meaningful."

Laws outlawing victimless crimes have a distinct and inherent flavour of anti-freedom associated with them, though. This is the way the US is lacking in freedom. It often feels as primarily freedom of the rich to oppress the poor.