> “I don’t even think stasis is compatible with liberty,” he told the Washington audience. - Bezos Suppose one were to attempt to steelman Jeff’s statement. Is there any credible basis for this statement? Or is it just one of those things that powerful people say because it makes them sound profound and they don’t have to follow it up with substantive supporting evidence.
If society is in a state of stasis, that means no one is allowed to do things that go beyond what society is doing in the present. That means you don't have the right to innovate, to try new things, and so on, which seems integral to individual liberty. So his statement is obviously true.
However, if you consider liberty as a social construct that means you're allowed to do things as defined by society, then whether that society is static or not is immaterial. So the statement isn't necessarily true.
And that's what you get when you make arguments about the definition of words.