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

Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

edwardsnowden.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 266 posts

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#11

Post by golergka »

mfcl wrote: post #3
arnoooooo wrote: post #2

I can understand how it could be considered that in a very non-free society, but no. Freedom exists only as an equilibrium between your freedom and that of others, between paralyzing order and utter chaos.

I was thinking, I can currently go from NA to Europe today if I wanted to. But that level of technology and orchestration would not be possible in a lawless and barbaric society (at least I don't think so). This possibility offers me a lot of freedom (traveling around the world) and in exchange, I had to follow rules and work. I gave some freedom and got more in exchange. The same thing applies for many other things…

It certainly would be possible in anarcho-capitalist society. In fact, US in the 19th century was much closer to laissez-faire ideals than today and went through a surge of private road and water channel construction (I could also mention railroads here, but if I'm not mistaken, they relied on government intervention to get the land). I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work for air travel just as well.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#12

Post by Cthulhu_ »

samuelizdat wrote: post #4

Freedom is the degree to which you are able to navigate the power process. The power process is the ability to identify and change something within a system. For example, if there is a vending machine with coke and you want pepsi. Is there a process that you can use to make that happen? If there is, then you have freedom. This of course extends to bigger things than soda. "Sovereign is he who makes the exception"

I dunno, you're talking about what you can and cannot draw into your sphere of influence. You have, in your analogy, the option to refuse anyway. Probably cheaper to not use a vending machine anyway.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#13

Post by marginalia_nu »

988747 wrote: post #8
marginalia_nu wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean when you say free?

Ability to make your own choices. The way I understand barbaric societies is that whatever your elders come up with you are obliged to follow their lead, if you object you will be banished or killed.

You can still do that in any society. Even though it's illegal, you can run a red light or cheat on your taxes. The notion that you somehow can't is just mauvaise foi. Of course you can. You're choosing not to.

Seems like you are describing freedom from consequences, not the ability to make choices, because that's available now and to the barbarian. I'm not sure which society has no consequences.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#14

Post by csee »

arnoooooo wrote: post #2

I can understand how it could be considered that in a very non-free society, but no. Freedom exists only as an equilibrium between your freedom and that of others, between paralyzing order and utter chaos.

Some freedoms are trade-offs with other people's freedoms, e.g. freedom of movement vs freedom to not get covid. That's where your perspective fits. But other freedoms are more win-win or win-neutral situations and don't require trade-offs. But I agree that the ratio between the former and the latter tends to increase as society becomes more developed and free.

There's also an important difference between negative and positive rights/freedoms.

I notice that this discussion nests inside moral philosophy. We need to grapple with the tools and constructs in that discipline when thinking about freedom.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#15

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

988747 wrote: post #6
mfcl wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking, I can currently go from NA to Europe today if I wanted to. But that level of technology and orchestration would not be possible in a lawless and barbaric society (at least I don't think so). This possibility offers me a lot of freedom (traveling around the world) and in exchange, I had to follow rules and work. I gave some freedom and got more in exchange. The same thing applies for many other things…

You make a mistake in equating "barbaric society" with freedom. Barbarians weren't free, maybe except their chief and elders. Common tribe members were all subordinated - the tribe would even put some mark on their body (tattoo, circumcision) to remind them that they are tribe's property. Democratic society is much more free than a barbaric one.

Unsettled barbarians, e.g. hunter gatherers, are remarkably free and unhierarchical. It's only when you get to a stage of development where hoarding of wealth is actually possible that freedom is subordinated to rulers.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#16

Post by glitchc »

samuelizdat wrote: post #4

Freedom is the degree to which you are able to navigate the power process. The power process is the ability to identify and change something within a system. For example, if there is a vending machine with coke and you want pepsi. Is there a process that you can use to make that happen? If there is, then you have freedom. This of course extends to bigger things than soda. "Sovereign is he who makes the exception"

This equates power to freedom, where the degree of freedom correlates to the degree of power, and only the truly powerful are free. If that is your thesis, then you are in agreement with Snowden.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#18

Post by csee »

samuelizdat wrote: post #4

Freedom is the degree to which you are able to navigate the power process. The power process is the ability to identify and change something within a system. For example, if there is a vending machine with coke and you want pepsi. Is there a process that you can use to make that happen? If there is, then you have freedom. This of course extends to bigger things than soda. "Sovereign is he who makes the exception"

This covers positive freedoms, but what about negative freedoms? Contrast these two people:

- The first person lives in a prosperous and authoritarian state. They have high positive freedoms (access to resources, healthcare, etc, thanks to the bounties of their society) but low negative freedoms (no freedom of speech/thought, low freedom of movement, surveillance, etc).

- The second person is a survivalist nomad. They have access to very little resources, but otherwise have no external authority that is constraining them in a negative sense.

So I think there's orthogonal variables here, and each of them could rightly be considered to be "freedom" as it's often defined by different people.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#20

Post by anticodon »

samuelizdat wrote: post #4

Freedom is the degree to which you are able to navigate the power process. The power process is the ability to identify and change something within a system. For example, if there is a vending machine with coke and you want pepsi. Is there a process that you can use to make that happen? If there is, then you have freedom. This of course extends to bigger things than soda. "Sovereign is he who makes the exception"

> For example, if there is a vending machine with coke and you want pepsi.

Sometimes, I think that western people are so constrained by some limits in their heads. Like "freedom" is a freedom to choose Pepsi or Cola. I want neither. Or I want tea. Or the drink that is traditional for my culture.

But most of the time I communicate with americans, for example, I becoming convinced that freedom for them is more like: "Everybody drinks Cola and can freely visit Disneyland".

They're so immersed in their heads with the notion that they're in some kind God-chosen people, that they refuse the right of any nation to live by their own rules.

It's hard to convey this thought to me, especially in English. It would be too hard for americans to get it (if someone thinks our american junk food, junk Cola and junk democracy isn't good, they must be madmen and/or China/Russia/Iran spies!).

One tiny example of this. Several years ago while I was still reading reddit, in /r/Cambodia there was a post from american that said something like:

"I came to Cambodia several days ago and I'm impressed that you have neutral attitude to gays. But I don't understand why you don't promote LGBT everywhere. You should have LGBT parades and LGBT signs everywhere!"

I don't remember exact words, nor am I willing to find this exact post on the overloaded site of reddit. It was a shock to me that he arrived just a few days ago and already suggests that people that belong to a culture that is several times older than his, that they should live by his own weird rules.

And it's only one tiny example. Everyone should have McDonalds, even on Mt. Everest. Everyone must drink Coca Cola even in the remote Chinese village. Everyone must have not have their own opinion, but conform to the opinion of the "God-chosen nation".

Post reply on HN