Could the Preservation of Freedom be "Planned"?

Occasionally over the years, some have mistaken my emphasis on planning for better economic outcomes, as government meddling which leads to losses in freedom. But what if basic freedoms need more protection across the board - even if government permission in specific local settings is a necessary prerequisite? Is it possible to distinguish intentional paths for full economic participation, from excess rules which instead stifle growth and dynamism?

Unfortunately for libertarians who see little need to "plan" for anything market related, too many initiatives against freedom become absolute definitions, in the form of marketplace production rights. Even the high costs of governing encourages loss of freedom, since legislatures continue to sell rights of production for the "right" price.

Meanwhile, too many individuals who increasingly find it difficult to secure legal forms of economic participation, are becoming criminalized essentially because they are poor. Sometimes, the libertarian impulse to protect freedoms mostly for the ones who can afford them, means standing back afterward and letting the chips fall where they may. Alas, this hands off approach encourages more regulatory "protections" from the disenfranchised, on the part of progressives and conservatives alike. Less freedom for the poor, sometimes translates into less freedom for the rich as well.

While I've especially focused on the loss of freedom re rights of production, others are voicing concerns about workplace freedoms. In a post which (again) highlighted John Locke's work, "John Locke: The Purpose of Law is Freedom", Miles Kimball notes how libertarians don't take the intentional design of hierarchical control into consideration, and writes:

Freedom is not just doing what you want, it is other people not doing what you desperately want them not to do.

He continues:

Liberty is not for a few people to be able to do whatever they want, but for each individual to have a sphere in which she or he is the master.

And concludes:

...To me, the most interesting new idea is that to count as freedom, there must be enough rules to prevent any individual from being domineering. That is a tough standard for a society to meet, but a worthy goal.

At the very least, today's workplaces usually provide reasonable options to escape domineering bosses and peers. Even if the best way to do so, eventually leads to self employment or otherwise starting a new enterprise. Indeed, the increased demands of our bodies as we age (having to take too many bathroom breaks for example) can occasionally make it all but necessary to do so. But when society's professional associations assume a wide array of production rights, that profoundly affects our self employment possibilities, and local choices take greater precedence as we age. Sometimes there's little means left to escape marketplace domination, in terms of the remaining economic options we still have for mutual relationships with others.

In short, the societal losses of freedom of association for mutually shared economic time, are becoming extensive. It's time to reserve a place in local environments where true freedom of association might finally be restored. One can only hope that tomorrow's libertarians will begin to recognize time based services provision, as a new frontier for freedom and economic potential.