The goal of people is to have the freedom to set their own damn goals.
That is simillar to what I feel, in that "goal of people" is to become the most free, and happy. But I don't think that this specifically means that each individual needs to control all of their own goals. Democracy is a substitute. (I talk about this more below)
I actually have a reason to support freedom, because since people are the only thing that matters we should all reach our potential abilities. Therefore, people should be free to puruse their own abilities.
but why do people need to set ALL of their own goals? shouldn't the end result of freedom matter more?
The limits to freedom are that exercise of someone's freedom should not interfere with someone else's similar freedom. However, that does not mean people should be robbed, since that violates their freedom.
People's freedoms can be violated if wealth distribution is abolished. It is impossible for everyone's freedoms to coincide perfectly together. We need to chose which has the MOST freedom. anything else is fooling yourself.
And since I don't believe that people have a "freedom" to their property (at least not on the same level as their civil liberties) it should be on a more case by case basis.
But I agree that people should be able to set their own goals, because anything else is tyranny. But of course, since I don't percieve private property being inherently a type of Freedom, if people decide that they want to collectively give wealth to the poor, then that is their decision.
People are more willing to give money (for the GREATER GOOD) if they know that others will agree to follow that. Sure, it should be made as local as possible to prevent people from being forced to help the poor, but some freedoms will be trampled for others.
Isn't a small tax worth allowing poor children the ability to be free to reach their abilities? I believe so.