[neveroffensive]

There is no such thing as "financial freedom". Financial freedom is a concept that arises from personal beliefs and practices.

There is only one universal freedom, the freedom of chioce. I think this is more important than any 21st century pay day lending problem. We need to preserve free choice not just for our generation/set of problems, but for all time.

Edit: Don't confuse living a long, healthy, happy life with freedom. They could not be more different.

[Arbalest]

No, absolutely not. Choice in its purest form is and always was an illusion. People are driven by their circumstances and their environment, they do not have a consciousness that is capable of perceiving and acting apart from the world they live in. Jean-Paul Satre make a very cute case for Radical Freedom, but it is little more than a thought experiment.

Ultimately people would prefer to know that things are going to get better, but perhaps they don't have the tools and know-how to do it. Much like telling a depressed person they have a choice to not be depressed, someone desperately poor doesn't have the simple choice to not be poor.

Financial freedom can be thought of at many levels, some all the way up to super rich and able to subvert laws at their whim. In this context, I am meaning freedom from the emotional distress caused from being incapable of being secure in the knowledge that there is a high probability they will have a roof over their head and food to eat for at least a couple of months. In turn, this allows for forward planning, and forward planning is the manifestation of being capable of exercising choice with regards to that persons/family's future development.

So, considering that people are constrained by their environment, our "generation/set of problems" is absolutely relevant, suggesting there is some universal otherwise which can be preserved with impunity is akin to suggesting there exists/can exist a form of universal justice.

[neveroffensive]

I believe universal justice exists. I believe you can quantify justice. I think at the end of the day you and I are both right, and both wrong. We hold utterly different perspectives on life, choice, and freedom. These may be irreconcilable. For example, I genuinely believe depression can be cured by "not being depressed".

Edit:

What if I want to live my life paycheck to paycheck? What if none of what you just described about freedom from the emotional stress of finances matters to me? What right do you have to force me to make the "right" choices and be financially responsible? Why shouldn't I be allowed to hurt myself?

[Arbalest]

With respect to your edit, for those who have limited resources: I would suggest anyone who has taken on responsibilities is unlikely to think in a matter in which anything can be ignored, and anyone who is without responsibility is probably already disconnected enough from society that they can probably get what they want many other ways. It is the former that we try to protect, the latter doesn't care to be protected anyway. In terms of managing a society, the former is a far greater priority than the latter. The former is probably also the majority.

As for your statement about differing perspectives, I would argue that I'm talking about solutions for present problems, ie the practical side, whereas you talk about what should be, which may require a very large transition period, and thus is not useful at this point in time.

[neveroffensive]

> The former is probably also the majority

I think we also would disagree on the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

> for present problems, ie the practical side

I see your point here, but we can't lose sight of the big picture. Compromising in the short term, no matter how many people it might help, seems like a bad idea to me.