The Political Education of Silicon Valley • Hacker News Board

Re: The Political Education of Silicon Valley

#21

Post by erikb » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

ringbugger wrote: post #16

tormeh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complicated: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarianism seems to lack some of the contradictions that liberlism seems to suffer from (freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves) Still, since Liberalism tries to find a balance in its inherent values, Libertarianism seems to be dogmatic without any further depth. Dreamy technocrats or wishful anarchists, who would get angry if labeled as such. The US is indeed different here, but I would stand…

> freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves

depends strongly on the POV I'd argue. I think I know what you mean: If you don't enforce equality by taking away freedoms naturally an inequality will emerge.

One could also argue that this desired freedom doesn't exist, because the moment you have that imbalance you automatically have a large group of people who suffer less freedom due to less wealth/power.

One might even argue that limitations can create freedoms. Because murder is usually a crime that is punishable by law, it is much easier to create non-violent business in modern, western countries. Few people would say that they are less free because murder is taken out of most people's equation.

Re: The Political Education of Silicon Valley

#22

Post by maxxxxx » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 2:47 PM UTC

emteycz wrote: post #20

maxxxxx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"useless or actively harmful, like e.g. most of FDA regulation," You should be careful with such sentences. Maybe it's ok to say "some" but saying "most" is nonsense and dangerous.

I wasn't making a statement, I was describing the Libertarian point of view, regardless of my own.

Sorry for not reading your comment closely.

Re: The Political Education of Silicon Valley

#23

Post by ringbugger » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

Balero wrote: post #18

ringbugger wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarianism seems to lack some of the contradictions that liberlism seems to suffer from (freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves) Still, since Liberalism tries to find a balance in its inherent values, Libertarianism seems to be dogmatic without any further depth. Dreamy technocrats or wishful anarchists, who would get angry if labeled as such. The US is indeed different here, but I would stand…

"(freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves) " I don't think that freedom and equality of opportunity exclude each other any more than freedom excludes itself. Frankly I would go one further and say that equality of opportunity is freedom, and that rules impinging on equality of opportunity is impinging on freedoms as well. It is not a contradiction that freedom can exclude freedom. My freedom to own…

Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in favor of freedom.

> equality of opportunity is freedom

Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you.

> My freedom to own land excludes your freedom [...]

This is an example of freedom colliding with itself, but arguing this case is much easier, since both get exactly the same rights and therefore an equal amount of freedom that cannot be maximized any further. It is a lot harder to to balance freedom and equality.

Granted, there are a lot of cases where increased equality increases freedom. This is why I think that liberals are generally smarter.

Re: The Political Education of Silicon Valley

#24

Post by Balero » Tue, Jul 24, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

ringbugger wrote: post #23

Balero wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves) " I don't think that freedom and equality of opportunity exclude each other any more than freedom excludes itself. Frankly I would go one further and say that equality of opportunity is freedom, and that rules impinging on equality of opportunity is impinging on freedoms as well. It is not a contradiction that freedom can exclude freedom. My freedom to own…

Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in favor of freedom. > equality of opportunity is freedom Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you. > My freedom to own land excludes your freedom [...] This is an example of freedom colliding with itself, but arguing this case is much easier, since both get exactl…

"Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in favor of freedom."

I see the other 'popular' equality, equality of outcome, as, in it's most extreme form, a complete totalitarian nightmare, that doesn't hold freedom back, but completely annihilates it.

"Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you."

Why would this inevitably lead to you having an opportunity taken from you, rather than working to extend this to others. This is much more realistic as to how the world works. I don't have my opportunity to work taken from me because someone is unemployed, instead they are helped to get opportunities to work (help with education or transport etc).

I think the important step is to say, that we can't have unlimited freedom (or opportunities) for everyone in society, but that trying to reach as much as possible is a worthwhile cause. And that, of course, the devil is in the details.