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

151–160 of 266 posts

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#151

Post by Chris2048 »

csee wrote: post #18
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. The…

To what extent are those positive freedoms associated with the government vs the free market?

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#152

Post by ttfkam »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #69
ttfkam wrote: post #41

You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity. Want to know how to fight back against authoritarianism? Look to the folks who've been fighting against racism for (literally) hundreds of years. Racism in the US is just fascism that hasn't hit white people yet.

"You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity." And this is how fascism starts

Would Jim Crow have been avoided by Black folks tolerating white folks more?

Was the Trail of Tears due to insufficient tolerance by the Cherokee and Seminole?

Or should the intolerance of those who denied their humanity have been resisted and not tolerated?

There is no "both sides" here. At no time have white folks in the US been into camps or slaughtered with sanction of the state by people of color.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#153

Post by hairofadog »

dahfizz wrote: post #116
pron wrote: post #79

> Under the influence of politically correct extremism, individual thought and expression are too often curbed Uh-huh. I can only assume this refers to the so-called "cancel-culture" which probably doesn't exist (I am not claiming that there aren't "cancellation" incidents, but for this to exist as a "culture" or a trend, it needs to be shown that fewer people today can express and publicly disseminate fewer opinions…

> So whenever people speak of more freedom, the question is, more freedom for whom and at the expense of whom. This only applies at the very boundary of freedom. I would argue we are not frequently at that boundary - often freedom is curtailed for reasons other than preserving the freedom of others. A silly example: Suppose the government outlawed wearing red shirts. Regaining that freedom would not impede the freedo…

To nitpick your framing a little bit, while it may illegal to sell raw milk, I doubt it's illegal to buy it, which is a distinction that has to do with scale (one could sell raw milk at scale, but not consume it at scale).

I haven't researched raw milk and I have no idea how dangerous or safe it may be, but the motivation is to prevent sale of [dangerous thing] to people who may not be aware of the dangers of [dangerous thing]. To use another silly example, let's say there's an entrepreneur who sells a toxic mixture of chemicals as a "health drink"; you could argue about whether that should be legal or illegal, but I don't think anyone would say it's a no-brainer that a law prohibiting the sale of that health drink exists on the right, strictly-exists-to-curtail-individual-freedom side of of your spectrum.

To your point, I can think of a few laws that do belong on the right, "I just don't like it so it should be banned" side of that spectrum, and things that come primarily to mind are puritanical laws banning transactional sex, consumption of certain media, prohibition of selling alcohol on Sundays (which is a religious, not health, concern), decency laws; things like that. I don't think FDA regulations belong in this category.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#154

Post by RobertRoberts »

secondaryacct wrote: post #46
RobertRoberts wrote: post #35

Freedom is the default for existence. The only way to not have freedom is for others to remove it from you by force or threat of it. The threat of it is what causes us to self limit our own freedoms. (sometimes for a greater good, sometimes not)

That means nothing: I want to be free to copulate with any mate - what should you do when I approach yours? Well, this is this balance and how to reach it that is the difficulty: what you say has no substance and everyone agrees.

So you choose not to under threat of consequences. Or take the risk.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#155

Post by RobertRoberts »

elliekelly wrote: post #42
RobertRoberts wrote: post #35

Freedom is the default for existence. The only way to not have freedom is for others to remove it from you by force or threat of it. The threat of it is what causes us to self limit our own freedoms. (sometimes for a greater good, sometimes not)

“Freedom” can be given up by choice, too. Often because the trade-off is better for both. Marriage, for example.

Yep, I said the same thing with "limit our own freedom".

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#156

Post by hunterb123 »

yosito wrote: post #149

The phrase that stands out to me in this is "the riot of human diversity". It's a great phrase. Probably worthy of a book or even a manifesto. I'm a multicultural person. Dual US/EU citizen. I've spent years living in each of the US, South America, the Caribbean and Europe. Since the mid-2010s, I've been acutely aware of different societal pressures to conform, and I've been "cancelled" by various groups of aquainten…

Never change! Diverse thought is much more important than "diversity" itself. These days it seems there is tolerance for the superficial diversity, but no tolerance for diverse thought. If you have a controversial thought you will be persecuted by the group until you conform. Also it seems if you are part of a certain diversity sometimes you are pressured to have a certain thought even harder than another person.

Try to have a debate with them first, if you are met with hostility they aren't your friends, they don't know how to convey their supposed thoughts or even control their emotions. Politely tell them to fuck off and find a better group of more accepting people.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#157

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

cochne wrote: post #147
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #142

> A close review of Snowden's official employment records and submissions reveals a pattern of intentional lying. He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree equivalent when in fact he never did. He claimed to have worked for the CIA as a "senior advisor," which was a gross exaggeration of his e…

What does any of that matter?

Why should I care what a serial exaggerator and liar computer technician thinks?

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#158

Post by zepto »

photochemsyn wrote: post #139

Excellent article. For years I've suspected that when American 'leaders' look at the kind of power the Chinese government (or the Saudi government) has over its people, their main emotion is not revulsion but rather envy, and this seems rather bipartisan in nature, and is a sentiment found not just in the political sphere but also the corporate sphere. It's the complete intertwinement of the corporate and political s…

It’s not really ‘the American model’ - it’s the model America was founded to try to avoid. The trend you identify seems to be in all political systems.

The fact that america as a political ideal is not immune to the trend does seem to be a failure.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#159

Post by ttfkam »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #138
ttfkam wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you were a Black woman born in late 1865. You were among the first never to have known slavery. You witnessed the first Black folks elected to Congress and even considered it normal. Then Reconstruction ends with a whimper. Burning crosses are showing up everywhere. Thousands flee north as a reign of terror grows. Your voting rights are curtailed then eliminated. When Black folks are elected, they are driven…

> I'll restate: racism and sexism and homophobia are all examples of fascism that haven't hit wealthy white men yet. lolwut You can't call something you think is bad, and just make the conclusion its the same thing as something else you think is bad. And just make it self evident.

I guess we've found the person who considers it debatable whether people of color or homosexuals should be treated as human beings.

Please note I never said that wealthy white men should be considered lesser. Simply that policies put in place by wealthy white men have clearly caused harm throughout US history.

People of color never signed off on redlining.

There has not been legislation giving non-white male folks more rights than anyone else, but there have been many many laws seeking to limit their rights relative to others.

Loss of privileges other do not have is not the same as oppression. (Though it often feels that way to the privileged.)

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#160

Post by ewzimm »

tremon wrote: post #124
ewzimm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you would enjoy the recently published book, "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber and David Wengrow. A point made early in the book is that Native American criticisms of European society, particularly its lack of freedom and mutual aid, led to the development of defensive European theories of civilizational development that proposed that the loss of freedom was the inevitable result of the movement from…

What does "Native American" mean in your post? Are you referring to early interactions between the colonizers and the inhabitants of North America, or present-day Native Americans that have lived in Europe?

I'm referring to a series of cultural criticisms that began around the 16th century and have continued into the present day. Some were by people who only encountered Europeans in America. Others traveled to Europe to debate and discuss policy and culture with people there as well. One individual that the book focuses on is Kandiaronk, a 17th century Wendat intellectual who debated the French governor in Montreal and whose arguments were popularized by the French soldier Lahonton.
Post reply on HN