Freedom is not a goal, but a direction • Hacker News Board

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#201

Post by ttfkam » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

the_drunkard wrote: post #173

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…

That's a lot of text, but I fail to see your point. Is there one? In keeping with the spirit of the author; freedom is not a goal, but a direction. And broadly speaking, we're moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, you sound like you've become somewhat of a zealot. A byproduct of being spoon fed rage via the nightly media /twitter cycle. Statistically there's one specific group of peoples that drive a dispropo…

We literally have folks in office that called a violent insurrection during a peaceful transition of power following a democratic election "just tourists".

And that's not counting the elected officials who actively abetted the insurrection.

And most members of their party are pissed at the few who are willing to call it what it was: a violent insurrection attempting to overthrow the democratically-elected government.

I think you overestimate "how far we've come."

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#202

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #177

lodi wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have one moral standard to which I hold myself and others: do no harm. Right, but who determines what's "harmful"? Is it more harmful to punish a child or to not punish him? Is a cartoon of Jesus harmful? Muhammad? Are "micro-agressions" actually traumatic? Furthermore, what does it mean to "do" something? Is "meat-eating" a default state, or are you actively "doing" harm every day you continue to not be a vegan?…

> Right, but who determines what's "harmful"? Well, it's certainly not determined by some objective standard, or a god. Every culture, and even every individual has different moral views. When I say "do no harm" that's a relative statement, relative to the context and parties involved. What's morally apporiate changes depending on the moral contract between parties. I can call my drinking buddy a "fucking idiot" for…

> Our innate sense of morality has evolved to show us what's harmful and what's not.

Who is this "our" and "us" you're referring to if everyone has a different sense of morally? Are you talking about the evolution of a "culture" or of "every individual." If these are all different, why would their "evolutions" have the same goal?

This all seems very empty. What's the difference between what you've said here and "all people have different moral frameworks, and they all follow those" (which I don't think is possible to dispute)?

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#203

Post by mcguire » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #167

evancoop wrote: post #67

Perhaps there is some definition of freedom in mathematical terms in which the total scope of decision-making autonomy is maximized over all citizens? The barbarian example would yield a low tally, as the leaders of a hoard are "free," but their subordinates have little decision-making capacity. In terms of the limitations of personal freedoms, the boundary might lie where the diminishment of others' freedoms exceeds…

It somewhat boils down to violence, doesn't it? 1) Your degree of freedom is strictly a relationship between you and those who are able to legitimately use violence against you. Legitimate here meaning you have no means of recourse besides violence of your own. 2) How free you are is then expressed as a graph of all possible actions you may take which are not prohibited by the threat of legitimate violence (often exp…

This is, to my mind, a very libertarian stance, and I think it demonstrates the fundamental sketchiness of libertarianism.

The three major questions are, what do you mean by "violence" (which you have answered), and what do you mean by "legitimate", and what do you mean by "freedom"?

What if, say, your employer in cooperation with others were to blackball you so that the only employment you could get were as an unskilled laborer? That clearly wouldn't be violence. Would it restrict your freedom? Apparently not?

How about if a group of people arrange to ensure that you can only live in a certain area, purely by economic means? No violence, right? Legitimate? Are you less free? No?

Suppose you live in a society that makes collective decisions by voting. But, you are not allowed to participate in those votes, by virtue of material circumstance, say. Still no violence. Still no less free, right?

What about violence? Can I burn down your house if you don't do what I want? If I make sure no one is injured? Material circumstances are excluded, right?

Now, what makes violence legitimate versus illegitimate? If a group of people kill one of your neighbors for violating some extra-legal rule, that would clearly be a crime, right? But what if the people doing it cannot be identified? Or, if identified, arrested, and prosecuted, they are found to be not guilty. Repeatedly. Clearly, you would feel some pressure to follow said rule although that would not be a restriction on your freedom, right?

Is chattel slavery an imposition on the freedom of the slave, if physical violence is not used?

I suggest that your definition of "freedom" is very far off from the normal, colloquial definition ("the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint" according to the Goog')---there are plenty of restraints on your power to act and speak that do not involve violence. (Thinking? We're working on that.)

You mention insurance schemes, which is always a fun topic because I'm old and can remember when requiring liability insurance for drivers was controversial. Is it legitimate for anyone, especially the state, to force you to be financially responsible for your actions? Would that be a restriction on your freedom? Absolutely! Would it be a legitimate (oooh, there's that word) restriction?

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#204

Post by mcguire » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #192

kag0 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting way to look at it, but I take an issue here > How free you are is then expressed as a graph of all possible actions you may take which are not prohibited by the threat of legitimate violence It's a good point to think in terms of possible actions you may take. But violence isn't the only thing that can prune that graph. Say I come across an orchard surrounded by an [unclimbable] fence. I want to…

That's exactly my point though. The only pruning of the graph which counts against your freedom is that which is done with the threat of legitimate violence. You are still free in spite of the fact that you cannot access said orchard. It's simply beyond your capabilities, much like you are still free despite lacking wings to fly over the barrier. Who erected the barrier is not relevant here. What if the barrier was a…

"The idea of freedom is inspiring. But what does it mean? If you are free in a political sense but have no food, what's that? The freedom to starve?" -- Angela Y. Davis

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#205

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #200

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That sounds like a perfect way to become a closed-minded bigot, using the original definition of the word. What I choose to read or watch is really completely orthogonal with who I choose to spend time with. I enjoy spending a significant amount of time investigating contrary points of view, and find it very valuable. That does not mean I wish to spend the time I spend with others hanging out with people who active…

If you can't even respect someone who sees the world differently, how can you do any real "investigation" of actual contrary views? It's sad to me that you don't even see a problem with this, because this is exactly why things are they way they are today.

I didn't say I could not respect someone who sees the world differently. I said I could not respect someone who doesn't agree to the same terms of discussion.

Let's take a recent article linked on HN, on astral codex by Scott Alexander regarding Ivermectin. If I was to engage in a discussion with someone about Ivermectin, I would more or less insist that we both read this article as a starting point, since it already gathers, critiques and synthesizes almost every study that has been done. If someone wishes to defend the use of Ivermectin in connection with COVID19, then I'd have to insist that they answer the evidence presented in that article that strongly suggests that there is no reason to use it in parts of the world that do not have significant levels of parasitic worm infestation.

Now, perhaps they have some similar "reference" article that they'd insist we also read, and also had some similar basic evidence that they feel I should respond to. That's fine.

But we have to agree that our discussion is going to be evidence based, and that when I bring up evidence that contradicts their stated claims, they need to respond to the evidence by doing more than saying "I don't believe that'. Same in reverse, obviously.

If they can't do that, then sure, I can't respect them. If they can do that, then regardless of where we end up, I'm going to have respect for their position, even if I don't agree with it.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#206

Post by dghughes » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

I think many people use the word freedom when they mean safety.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#207

Post by handrous » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #167

evancoop wrote: post #67

Perhaps there is some definition of freedom in mathematical terms in which the total scope of decision-making autonomy is maximized over all citizens? The barbarian example would yield a low tally, as the leaders of a hoard are "free," but their subordinates have little decision-making capacity. In terms of the limitations of personal freedoms, the boundary might lie where the diminishment of others' freedoms exceeds…

It somewhat boils down to violence, doesn't it? 1) Your degree of freedom is strictly a relationship between you and those who are able to legitimately use violence against you. Legitimate here meaning you have no means of recourse besides violence of your own. 2) How free you are is then expressed as a graph of all possible actions you may take which are not prohibited by the threat of legitimate violence (often exp…

> 1) Your degree of freedom is strictly a relationship between you and those who are able to legitimately use violence against you. Legitimate here meaning you have no means of recourse besides violence of your own.

I strongly disagree with this. "Strictly?" Oh my, no. There's so much more that goes into one's practical ability to exercise freedom. It's why a rich person—even if they were treated identically by the state—is far freer than a poor person. It's why removing hypothetical but mostly useless freedoms (say, the "freedom" to choose my health insurer) can in some cases truly increase how free I actually am (no longer have to spend all that time screwing around with health insurers; no longer as dependent on employment for healthcare, et c).

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#208

Post by thegrimmest » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

handrous wrote: post #207

thegrimmest wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It somewhat boils down to violence, doesn't it? 1) Your degree of freedom is strictly a relationship between you and those who are able to legitimately use violence against you. Legitimate here meaning you have no means of recourse besides violence of your own. 2) How free you are is then expressed as a graph of all possible actions you may take which are not prohibited by the threat of legitimate violence (often exp…

> 1) Your degree of freedom is strictly a relationship between you and those who are able to legitimately use violence against you. Legitimate here meaning you have no means of recourse besides violence of your own. I strongly disagree with this. "Strictly?" Oh my, no. There's so much more that goes into one's practical ability to exercise freedom. It's why a rich person—even if they were treated identically by the s…

Well, then we clearly just disagree on what the definition of "freedom" is. Mine is aligned basically with the idea as it was first laid down during the French revolution. From the Declaration of the Rights of Man:

> Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights

One of us should in good faith acquiesce from the term, to avoid overloading it, no? I propose that the existing definition remain, and the practical ability to do stuff be given a new one, say "capability". In other words, the incapable are just as free as the capable.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#209

Post by handrous » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #208

handrous wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) Your degree of freedom is strictly a relationship between you and those who are able to legitimately use violence against you. Legitimate here meaning you have no means of recourse besides violence of your own. I strongly disagree with this. "Strictly?" Oh my, no. There's so much more that goes into one's practical ability to exercise freedom. It's why a rich person—even if they were treated identically by the s…

Well, then we clearly just disagree on what the definition of "freedom" is. Mine is aligned basically with the idea as it was first laid down during the French revolution. From the Declaration of the Rights of Man: > Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the societ…

If your definition calls the pauper in a society with no rules whatsoever freer than the billionaire in a society with exactly one government-enforced rule, which prohibits unsolicited sales calls after 6:00 PM on Sundays, then it's a broken definition.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#210

Post by dfxm12 » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

Kye wrote: post #194

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I've been "cancelled" by various groups of aquaintences over having opinions or failing to have opinions that the group demanded. Lost a job? Lost housing? Lost income? Were you "cancelled" or did various groups of acquaintances simply decide they didn't enjoy your company and that feeling led to a gradual (or maybe not so gradual) falling away of contact and interaction? I'm not for one moment suggesting that…

Some people's idea of free speech is really about their freedom to punch down, and they suddenly become very anti-free speech when criticized. Then they double down, and people set boundaries, and they complain about those boundaries... Much of the noise about cancel culture looks a lot like DARVO.

There was a great line in last Sunday's Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David (half) jokes about free speech, saying something like "I don't know about free speech. Well, I should have it. The constitution should have said free speech for Larry David, everyone else, check with him first."

Larry is effectively holding up a mirror to the type of people you describe, and yeah what you say is true about people who complain about cancel culture, too. I try to engage anyone worried about losing a job due to something like that. I'll ask, why don't you organize with your co-workers and collectively bargain for labor protections, or consider voting in politicians who are for stronger labor laws, and all of a sudden they remember that their corporatist leanings are stronger than any feelings they may have about the "cancel culture" boogeyman.

It's plain to see that too much of the discourse about free speech or cancel culture doesn't come from a place of good faith...