[deleted]
Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
211–220 of 266 posts
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Our/us refers to humanity. I'm a humanist. Though I suppose other species also have evolved a moral sense.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#213Earlier 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…
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 unski…
Many of your examples are variants on the same point: the cooperation of others. I contend that no you are not owed the cooperation of your employer, or other members of society, for absolutely anything. Interactions between free people should be strictly voluntary and consensual. This means if your employer wishes to cease employing you, he should be able to do so at his leisure. If he's breached a contract, you can sue for damages.
So yes, if your entire town decides to blackball you, that is an exercise of their freedom. If people decide not to sell you their property, that is likewise their choice. You are just as free as you have always been, no one is using force against you. They are simply refusing to cooperate with you.
In what world does forcing a person to employ another not an impingement of their freedom? Anyone who can use the threat of violence to compel participation is a master, and free people have no masters.
> Suppose you live in a society that makes collective decisions by voting
As long as these decisions cannot be enforced with physical violence then you are no less free by being excluded. Say I run a supper club which votes on where to eat next, are you less free by not being invited?
> If a group of people kill one of your neighbors for violating some extra-legal rule...
This entire paragraph describes corruption, which is inevitable, and does impact your freedom. No human process is immune.
> Is chattel slavery an imposition on the freedom of the slave, if physical violence is not used?
Chattel slavery is defined by the use of violence to confine the slave literally in chains. If the slave can just leave he's not very enslaved is he?
> there are plenty of restraints on your power to act and speak that do not involve violence
Most of these take the form of the threat of withholding cooperation. This is a perfectly legitimate threat to make in a free society, and one I contend has no bearing on your liberty. Living in a free society is merely agreeing to coexist peacefully, not that everyone must cooperate, or be the same team, or be immune from the consequences of failure. In fact, my reading of the article is that it means exactly the opposite - that people are free to cooperate or not as they see fit.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In what way is this "the model America was founded to try to avoid"?
It can be argued that the separation of powers and systems of checks and balances defined in the US Constitution help to ensure that no single person or group holds too much power over the American people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the...
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Whether it's broken or not is up to you, but that's what freedom means. All I'm suggesting is that people acknowledge that they are indeed attempting curtail our freedoms (ie. enslave us) even to a minutely limited degree, in order to accomplish their vision of good.
This moves the conversation forward, because the next question is how do we know your vision of good is the right one, worthy of the requisite sacrifice of our liberty? Is it really worthwhile to enslave the competent and the fortunate in order to maintain the incapable and unfortunate?
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#216Excellent 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…
> The Chinese model seems to be 'we will ensure you have access to food and water and energy and in exchange your total loyalty to the state is required' Judging based on the most recent incidence of mass starvation, which model do you think worked better? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
I'm not sure if that is relevant to this particular issue, but the history is fascinating. Not everyone gets excited about fertilizer chemistry but when Nixon went to China and opened up trade, the very first major industrial projects were the construction of massive ammonia fertilizer plants across China, built with American technology (*well German technology from the 1900's more accurately, just updated). This ended the famine cycle in China [1]:
> The removal of the limits to agricultural growth and China’s industrialization came in the immediate aftermath of US President Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to China. The first commercial deal signed immediately after the visit was China’s order for thirteen of the world’s largest synthetic ammonia complexes for producing nitrogen-based chemical fertilizer. China purchased additional plants in the 1970s, developed its own capacity to build chemical fertilizer plants in the 1980s, became more or less self-sufficient in the 1990s, and began exporting chemical fertilizer by the turn of the new millennium.
[1] https://chinadialogue.net/en/food/9279-modern-china-s-agricu...
Now is a rigidly authoritarian state necessary for this kind of technological development? Err... no.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
"We, too, born to freedom, and believing in freedom, are willing to fight to maintain freedom. We, and all others who believe as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#218Earlier 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…
I would say that the only pruning of the graph which matters is that which is done by your fellows.
An orchard atop a cliff presents an equal challenge to all. Some might have the ability and desire to scale it, some not.
What is the difference between a fence around an orchard and a threat of insurmountable violence if you enter the orchard? Either way it is someone else restricting your freedom, while they retain that same freedom for themselves.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Racism in the US is just fascism that hasn't hit white people yet. It's rooted in classism and in a special breed of expressively-aggressive individualism. Self-identification and self-expression is paramount. You are forced to identify as a member of many different groups and outwardly express your thoughts and opinions.
There are Democrats elected to office that are publicly anti-abortion, pro-coal, etc. Can you name any GOP who are pro-choice, anti-coal, etc. I mean, they're getting called out for saying the election was fair and that 1/6 was an insurrection rather than tourists. There is definitely tribalism on all sides, but there is a marked cultish aspect to one faction, cult of personality batteries included.
Not too long ago there were hardly any Democrats that were pro-abortion either, or even pro gay marriage.
Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are pro-abortion Republicans.
There's a lot to unpack in the rest of your comment I'm not going to get into as it's ironically pretty tribalistic.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty interesting and thought provoking point. Well said!
Lol! "Flagged" Not because it was off topic since I was responding to a point Snowden made. Not because it was threatening anyone or even name-calling. Not because it was inciting violence. On a site that touts championing free speech as a paramount ideal, a topic about freedom of thought, and an open disdain for "groupthink", my comment was flagged. I swear, this orange site has absolutely no sense of irony.
[deleted]