Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#91

Post by Bromskloss »

mabub24 wrote: post #74
Bromskloss wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think devaluing democracy exhibits a profound devaluation of freedom. Doesn't that depend on what you would have instead? You could have either a more concentrated power and a less concentrated power.

You could have a more concentrated power, or a less concentrated power. Democracy is remarkably flexible in some ways. Consider the shifts from majority to minority governments, the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system, referendums, etc. But in other ways, it is not. Too concentrated and you easily become technocratic or authoritarian, to unconcentrated and you lose the expression of civic will that emerg…

Just to clarify, since I see that my comment was a bit unclear: By "have instead" I meant "have instead of democracy". An alternative with more concentrated power, and less freedom, would be having a dictator who decides everything. More free, with less concentrated power, would be an absence of government and everyone following their own wills.

(I do not intend this comment as a value judgement one way or the other.)

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#92

Post by white-flame »

ekanes wrote: post #25
danhak wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very fascinating. You argue that millennials favor restrictions on hate speech because they have not experienced anything like Hitler. Yet Germany censors hate speech precisely because of that history.

Hate speech is always a problem. "let's kill all the $value" isn't the type of free speech that most people are trying to preserve.

That's where the distinction between "hate" and "violence" comes in. (at least in the USA)

"Let's kill all the $X" is a call for violence. "I hate $X" isn't. It's hateful, but observably some values of $X are currently acceptable while others aren't, depending on what direction the popular outrage trends are heading. Should "I hate the rich/politicians/corporations/nazis/capitalists/white males/etc" be illegal speech? That's quite a can of worms.

These free speech arguments are sort of like the government wanting secure encryption, except that the they should still be able to break it. Encryption is either secure for both legal and illegal uses, or it isn't. In the same way, it's semantically unresolvable to have legally-protected free speech for acceptable speech only.

Any argument for free speech necessarily empowers unacceptable speech, and any argument against free speech necessarily criminalizes acceptable speech.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#93

Post by didibus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #82
hashmal wrote: post #3

Random thoughts: - Freedom and democracy are different things, if some people think democracy isn't that important, it does not mean they do not value freedom. - Maybe the millenials are "not open to diverse opinions", but maybe they're just sick of bullshit. "Free Speech" can be interpreted in different ways (and each country in the world does that).

> Freedom and democracy are different things, if some people think democracy isn't that important, it does not mean they do not value freedom. Democracy is a form of freedom (freedom from government in which one is not a participant), and clearly a form of freedom important in the historical American concept of freedom (though, to be fair, it's not just Millenials for whom that had weakened, with the colonial America…

Freedom must be balanced with notions of human rights. Maybe a lot of younger generations see a loss of balance. Maybe they see that a lot of the current freedoms of speech and behavior come at too high a cost on the protections for human rights. Things like targeted hate speech, mass shootings, etc.

Like you want freedom from government, but you also don't want oppression by the majority.

Not saying that's necessarily the case, but could be.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#94

Post by gwright »

Veratyr wrote: post #70
mabub24 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your first thought. I'll say this as someone who is unabashedly a fan of democracy. I love democracy (I would call myself a "democrat" except for the connotation with the American party). I think devaluing democracy exhibits a profound devaluation of freedom. Democracy is more than just casting a vote. Many non-democracies have elections. Democracies are an elegant and fragile relationship between civ…

I disagree with most of this. Democracy is merely a form of government. People can be free and not democratically governed. Yes a functional society must have laws but say you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? I thin…

I think you are abstracting away some key details of what is more accurately called a "liberal democracy" (vs. just "democracy"). These details are often left out of casual conversation about "democracy" and "freedom". For example:

    * fair and free elections
    * representative form of government (not a "tyranny of the majority")
    * limited government
    * individual rights that can not be usurped by majority  rule
    * separation of powers and checks and balances
    * rule of law
A "democracy" is not just having laws or holding elections. The nature of the laws and the nature of the processes involved in creating the laws are critical elements that distinguish a liberal democracy from other systems of government.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#95

Post by the_gastropod »

yahna wrote: post #33
the_gastropod wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest that you may be a bit out of touch. Over 40% of Americans earn under $30k per year [1]. And many more choose to live on this much. Ralph Nader, for example, lives on $25,000 per year [2], and accomplishes far more than anyone I personally know. [1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Personality_and_ch...

and do those people live lifestyles I would want?

If you value the ludicrously wasteful lifestyle that is so prevalent in the U.S., maybe not. But if you embrace the challenge of creativity, you can live quite well on $30k per year. I live in NYC on just a tad more ($32k spent last year) in a nice neighborhood with no roommates, vacation at least once a year, etc. It's amazing how far cooking your own food most of the time, using credit card rewards miles, riding a bicycle instead of driving, and shopping at thrift stores will take you. I suspect most people who spend ~$60k+ per year could cut their spending in half without significantly impacting things they actually care about in their "lifestyles".

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#96

Post by didibus »

Veratyr wrote: post #79
mabub24 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have two societies with the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. Are the people in the AI-governed society less free, even when subject to the same rules and restrictions? Yes. Because that's baked into your premise: > the same set of laws, one generated by dictatorial benevolent AI overlords and one generated by democracy. These are not the same…

> These are not the same sets of laws. > Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. Sorry, I did miss that part. I'll revise to say "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot rea…

I'd have to agree with your debater. By definition, the dictator is given control over you. He exist as a dictator because you are not free. Now that's different say from an elected leader who year over year gets re-elected because everyone approves of what he's doing. You can't say he's a dictator, even though he might rule as one, but he's not, because the people are in control, even if he has the same power to enact the same things then your benevolent dictator and rules for just as long.

So to rephrase, what would be the difference between someone doing exactly what a dictator does, same laws, same rules, but elected freely by the people, versus the dictator? It would be the freedom to choose who dictates. Thus, you would have one less freedom, making you less free.

Having said that, you have a good point. I think you're talking about the majority's rule problem. Democracy suffers from that, where you can't individually choose, you need support from others. Now some people have more power to influence, so much so, that they might be indirectly ruling. This practically limits you're freedom to choose who dictates. And given a majority whose singly influenced by a powerful actor, which doesn't listen to you, a benevolent dictator which were to be more considering of your needs and desires, you might actually enjoy your life better and practically have more freedom.

I think this is the situation we find ourselves more and more into. Strong actors are spawning, and they have such powerful influence on large swats of people, that they are tending towards partial dictatorship. Similarly, minorities voices are being shut more and more, so a larhe amount of people are feeling oppression, and their freedom taken away as they lose influence in the votes.

I think younger generations feel this. We need to find ways to reorient democracy, and keep its balance. If not, in practice, it can tend towards the same issues that dictatorships have, granted possibly less damaging, as it should be assumed that at least a majority of people will have what they want.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#97

Post by Veratyr »

mabub24 wrote: post #89
Veratyr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are not the same sets of laws. > Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. Sorry, I did miss that part. I'll revise to say "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot rea…

> "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". > The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot realistically change the rules, so losing that technicality makes me no less free. But the loss of the individual freedom to determine the rules is also the los…

> But the loss of the individual freedom to determine the rules is also the loss of freedom for a society to determine the rules for itself.

Freedom of society and freedom of the individual are two different things and a society can have different levels of both.

Say you have a democratic wolf and sheep society, where wolves are the majority and treat the sheep as a lower class, treat them horribly and basically just farm them for food. As a wolf in a this society governed by wolves, you may feel quite free, because your wishes are reflected by many and the changes you aim for tend to happen. How though, would you feel as a sheep? Technically you have the same individual freedom as a wolf but at a societal level, you are powerless. You live a terrible life and there's nothing you can do about it because of the very democratic system that's intended to ensure your freedom.

I believe the sheep would be more free in a benevolent dictatorship. A dictator could give the sheep green grass, sunshine, freedom from being eaten, freedom to live a long and happy life and much more. All it would take is giving up the ultimately useless theoretical ability to participate in democracy. The wolves could be too, perhaps they could eat chickens or somesuch.

> Governance is not a burden. [...] It is not a burden to vote or to take part in politics.

To some, it is. Democracy places responsibility on all its participants and being relieved of that responsibility is a form of freedom. In a dictatorial society, I have the freedom to spend time I'd spend participating in the democratic process doing other things. If the dictator makes a bad decision, I am in no way responsible for it.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#98

Post by didibus »

Bromskloss wrote: post #64
wfo wrote: post #38

Because freedom has failed them. Or, at least, "freedom" as defined implicitly by the author to mean "only a specifically enumerated list of negative freedoms that primarily benefit the wealthy" and "the ability to cast a vote which fundamentally does not matter" -- remember the adage "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal". Millenials don't feel particularly free to speak when they live in permanent deb…

> But it's ridiculous to say a homeless person is "free" because the cops don't arrest and harass him for speaking his mind. Shouldn't we rather say that he is free, but that there are _other_ things lacking in his life? Let's not load the word _freedom_ with everything that is good in this world. Being free doesn't guarantee having happiness, food, clothes, friends, health, a successful career, and so on. If we want…

Well, I think you're just reinforcing their point. If freedom doesn't give you anything good, such as food, clothes, friends, health, career, etc. Then what's the point?

Freedom used to mean these things, it was a way to see that you were in charge of your destiny in a realistic way. That the opportunities would be there, if you were only willing to take them, no one would stop you, you could be anything you wanted if you just walked the part.

If that's not true anymore, if freedom no longer leads to happiness, comfort and health, then maybe its time to go back to the drawing board.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#99

Post by Veratyr »

didibus wrote: post #96
Veratyr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are not the same sets of laws. > Those under the AI have no say in those laws or recourse to alter them. Sorry, I did miss that part. I'll revise to say "the same laws, save for the means of changing them". The only freedom that's really lost in my AI-dictated society is the freedom to determine the rules and on an individual level, I don't think that's meaningful. At an individual level, I already cannot rea…

I'd have to agree with your debater. By definition, the dictator is given control over you. He exist as a dictator because you are not free. Now that's different say from an elected leader who year over year gets re-elected because everyone approves of what he's doing. You can't say he's a dictator, even though he might rule as one, but he's not, because the people are in control, even if he has the same power to ena…

> By definition, the dictator is given control over you. He exist as a dictator because you are not free. Now that's different say from an elected leader who year over year gets re-elected because everyone approves of what he's doing. You can't say he's a dictator, even though he might rule as one, but he's not, because the people are in control, even if he has the same power to enact the same things then your benevolent dictator and rules for just as long.

> So to rephrase, what would be the difference between someone doing exactly what a dictator does, same laws, same rules, but elected freely by the people, versus the dictator? It would be the freedom to choose who dictates. Thus, you would have one less freedom, making you less free.

I think this is similar to the argument made in the other comment.

There are two different kinds of freedom here: The freedom for society to govern itself and the freedom of the individual.

As an individual, if I disagree with my leader, it ultimately makes very little difference whether the leader is a dictator there by force or an elected representative of a majority which will never share my views. As an individual, I have no influence on society either way.

My belief is that a society can exist where society is unfree (due to say a dictator) but individuals are free (a fair set of laws is in place that causes minimal harm/maximal good). This society is just as free if not more free than a democracy.

Therefore, democracy is not freedom.

> Having said that, you have a good point. I think you're talking about the majority's rule problem. Democracy suffers from that, where you can't individually choose, you need support from others. Now some people have more power to influence, so much so, that they might be indirectly ruling. This practically limits you're freedom to choose who dictates. And given a majority whose singly influenced by a powerful actor, which doesn't listen to you, a benevolent dictator which were to be more considering of your needs and desires, you might actually enjoy your life better and practically have more freedom.

Yes, I made exactly that argument in the other comment.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#100

Post by didibus »

white-flame wrote: post #92
ekanes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate speech is always a problem. "let's kill all the $value" isn't the type of free speech that most people are trying to preserve.

That's where the distinction between "hate" and "violence" comes in. (at least in the USA) "Let's kill all the $X" is a call for violence. "I hate $X" isn't. It's hateful, but observably some values of $X are currently acceptable while others aren't, depending on what direction the popular outrage trends are heading. Should "I hate the rich/politicians/corporations/nazis/capitalists/white males/etc" be illegal speech…

Or you know, we could setup a powerful system of laws and judges, with multiple recourse to overrule and get decisions reevaluated, where details of a particular case could be thoroughly analysed, and debated, with a professional representative on either side, and we could eventually rule what seems to be the most reasonable given the concrete case.

Honestly, this isn't a computer algorithm. We have the capacity to judge different speech in different contexts.

Post reply on HN