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

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#221

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

hairofadog wrote: post #153

dahfizz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 [danger…

> 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.

If I understand your double negative correctly, then I am nobody. A law like that does strictly restrict freedom - it makes it illegal to do something which does does not itself restrict other's freedoms. It trades freedom for safety, instead of balancing the freedoms of different individuals.

Whether such a law is good or bad is besides the point - such a law would strictly reduce freedom.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#222

Post by kashyapc » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #212

pessimizer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Richard Dawkins once used the word "humane-ist" (and humane-ism) to be considerate of other species. Though I like the idea, the word feels a bit "stretched"; I don't know why. (Maybe it's the humanist in me that's speaking :-))

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#223

Post by handrous » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:14 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #215

handrous wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Whether it's broken or not is up to you, but that's what freedom means.

You are not the arbiter of this, however much you insist on it, and all four relevant definitions in Webster's 1913—a great source if you're looking for conservative and time-tested definitions of US English usage—disagree with you, if we're really going to quibble over that. "Liberty" is, as in your quoted translation from the French, much closer, but you are still insisting on a much narrower interpretation than is common. You're also reading your source as an exclusive definition, when it doesn't, per se, claim anything of the sort. You're using it in a jargony sense from a particular political philosophy—the promoters of which find their job much easier when they get to define words in particular, not-quite-normal ways, then use those convenient definitions as a sandy foundation for various shaky logical towers—which does not mean the general definition must conform to yours.

> 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 to our liberty? Is it really worthwhile to enslave the competent and the fortunate in order to maintain the incapable and unfortunate?

It's tough and messy and absolutely ends up being largely arbitrary, because moral and political philosophy aren't math and never will be. We don't "know". We can't. Trying to "know" will quickly send you into "not even wrong" territory.

> (ie. enslave us)

> Is it really worthwhile to enslave the competent and the fortunate in order to maintain the incapable and unfortunate?

LOL, OK. I've glanced at your post history. This ain't going anywhere productive. Hope you find your way out of this some day. Doesn't look like any previous posters have done any good no matter how gentle (or harsh) they've been, so I'll leave off there.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#224

Post by thegrimmest » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

handrous wrote: post #223

thegrimmest wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Whether it's broken or not is up to you, but that's what freedom means. You are not the arbiter of this, however much you insist on it, and all four relevant definitions in Webster's 1913—a great source if you're looking for conservative and time-tested definitions of US English usage—disagree with you, if we're really going to quibble over that. "Liberty" is, as in your quoted translation from the French, much clo…

> It's tough and messy and absolutely ends up being largely arbitrary

This is precisely why no one has the right to force their vision of the good on others. Doing so is indistinguishable from tyranny.

If you can tell my why people are owed the cooperation of others I'm glad to change my mind. But kindly don't patronize me.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#225

Post by sangnoir » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #214

tomerv wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> American people

It's public knowledge that there always was been an asterisk on "people" from the very beginning, and who it encompasses is always shifting. A lot of dismay comes from people learning that the government (any arm) of the day doesn't include them in this group[1].

1. "He's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting."

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#226

Post by thegrimmest » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #144

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…

We could examine this by comparing 'anti-freedom' systems like chattel slavery (Old US South Cotton Plantations) vs. wage slavery (Appalachian Coal Company Towns). In the former, refusal to work for the masters led to beatings, torture, mutilitaion and death. In the later, refusal to work for the bosses led to homelessness and hunger and death. Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the…

> Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the cotton plantation, I suppose.

Yes! Crucially because its residents were free to leave. Doing something unpleasant or dangerous due to economic necessity is vastly different than doing it in chains.

You're assuming the Appalachian coal company residents had no other options when clearly they did, as evidenced by the patterns of migration to and from these towns. Working in a coal mine was just their preferred choice, given the alternatives available. Many of these men took pride in their work.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#227

Post by Barrin92 » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

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…

disagree with this and the language of "riot" of diversity is very telling.

It's a sort of purely individual definition of freedom in which a free society is one of permanent dissent. Dissent not as a tool to come to consensus but as a way of life and it is fundamentally anti-governmental, it sounds nice but does not work. If everyone assumed this position, the end result is permanent dysfunction.

I can't remember who said it might have been Zizek but he proposed that the proper understanding of democratic freedom is something akin to: "Say your opinion, say it freely, come to a consensus, but then shut up and obey.". That is to say, in any group that wants to function, diversity or dissent is not a permanent state of affairs, at some point when one needs to act options need to be closed off. Abstract freedom is always embedded within social order. You can only freely walk the street because you rely on the fact that everyone else conforms to the rules of traffic.

"Do no harm" sounds nice but it's not sufficient, it may even be wrong because harm cannot be entirely avoided. You cannot navigate the world and act in the world as a group without actively making concrete choices, sometimes to the detriment of individuals. People like Snowden or Ai Weiwei celebrate resistance because permanent resistance is their job. Rebelling is their profession. It's very sympathetic on the surface but it does not address how people ought to organize society.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#228

Post by photochemsyn » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

thegrimmest wrote: post #226

photochemsyn wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could examine this by comparing 'anti-freedom' systems like chattel slavery (Old US South Cotton Plantations) vs. wage slavery (Appalachian Coal Company Towns). In the former, refusal to work for the masters led to beatings, torture, mutilitaion and death. In the later, refusal to work for the bosses led to homelessness and hunger and death. Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the…

> Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the cotton plantation, I suppose. Yes! Crucially because its residents were free to leave . Doing something unpleasant or dangerous due to economic necessity is vastly different than doing it in chains. You're assuming the Appalachian coal company residents had no other options when clearly they did, as evidenced by the patterns of migration to an…

I agree, but also that they'd be more free if all the coal workers in a given corporation had the same number of representative voting seats on the corporate board as the shareholders did.

Freedom is a direction, it's a good quote.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#229

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 8:13 PM UTC

marginalia_nu wrote: post #188

jjulius wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have one moral standard to which I hold myself and others: do no harm. How do you define "harm"? What if one's view(s) prompt them to vote in favor of things (or support policies - take your pick) that bring harm to others?

Maybe exercise some humility instead of jumping to the conclusion that you are right and they are wrong? I'd take the opportunity to seek to understand how someone living in the same world as you, with access to the same facts, and the same mental faculties, how such a person has come to a different conclusion about what does harm.

[deleted]

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#230

Post by nybble41 » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 8:19 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #210

Kye wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compl…

> 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 is possible to disagree with your proposed solutions as well as cancel culture. The problem with cancel culture is not in the fact that people are free to (dis)associate with others as they choose, so your suggestions to force association do nothing to fix the core issue. You may be allowed to keep your job, under duress, but you've still been "cancelled". The problem is that some people resort to disassociation rather than practicing tolerance; this is a subtle social problem and requires a more nuanced solution.