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

231–240 of 266 posts

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#231

Post by nybble41 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #169
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…

Great comment, and tolerance and disagreement is to be encouraged. Where I find a lot of serious conflict and resentment is when it comes to expanding on 'do no harm'. For example, I'm in favor of democratizing corporations, on the German model perhaps, and I view investment capitalism as a decrepit dead-end system, and the financialization of the economy as an unmitigated disaster. Now, a lot of people I've talked t…

> For example, I'm in favor of democratizing corporations, on the German model perhaps, and I view investment capitalism as a decrepit dead-end system, and the financialization of the economy as an unmitigated disaster.

I disagree with you on every single point, but I would still support your right to believe these things and not consider it "harm".

Where we might run into problems lies in how you decide to go about implementing your proposed solution. To me the standard political approach of imposing rules backed up by fines, prison sentences, and capital punishment (beyond the usual proportional, reciprocal responses to others' actions) is harm in and of itself regardless of the intended outcome or "democratic process" and this point is non-negotiable. But if you want to collect together a group of like-minded individuals and create a society to your liking through entirely voluntary arrangements, be my guest.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#232

Post by not1ofU »

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…

One thing that struck me after reading Nikola Tesla's Biography, was how much that guy traveled. He lived between 1865 - 1943.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#234

Post by tomerv »

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...

Isn't that only about separating government powers? As in separating Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. I just don't see the connection to non-government economical powers. Seems like a stretch.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#235

Post by nybble41 »

freeflight wrote: post #120
988747 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 are obliged to follow their lead, if you object you will be banished or killed Not really that different to today, except that it's a circle of elders and their lead is codified in laws. But breaking these laws will still get you "banished" aka deported if you are not a citizen, and if you are citizen you will face consequences for your noncompliance, which in some places can still reach all the way up to the d…

> So in a way it's still all just barbaric societies, but with extra steps.

You've got it. Proper civilization and a free society are still a long way off. Laws and democracy limit the variance (good and bad) but don't automatically create a better outcome. We still need people to make the right decisions. And these systems of law and democracy which serve mainly to promote stability introduce their own problems by encouraging people to confuse "legal" or "popular" with "right", and "illegal" or "unpopular" with "wrong".

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#236

Post by mcguire »

thegrimmest wrote: post #213
mcguire wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ca…

Actually, all of my examples are (variants in some cases) of the means used to restrict the freedom of groups of people in the recent history of the United States. Not to "cooperate, or be the same team, or be immune from the consequences of failure" but to actually restrict that group's ability to act or speak.

I notice that you ignored the common definition of freedom I quoted. I find your definition of freedom...less than useful. It ignores any other sources of power than "the state" (I wonder how you would deal with the absence of a state.) It leads to irrational consequences; an individual can be perfectly free and yet unable to do anything except starve.

I do have a couple of questions about your response, though.

"> 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."

Corruption, in this case, does not imply any violence at all---a jury is free to return a verdict of not guilty for any reason, no? How can that possibly impact your freedom?

"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?"

(It's not really defined by violence, but I'll leave that up to you.) My plantation is located in the middle of the desert. You are free to leave at any time. You won't, because you would die, but you are free to do so. So you're really free, right?

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#237

Post by [deleted] »

nybble41 wrote: post #230
dfxm12 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#238

Post by zepto »

sangnoir wrote: post #225
thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

This has been true of all governments of all kinds thoughout all of time.

Once again, it’s something America can only be criticized for because the goal is for it to be something different.

It’s fair to criticize America for not living up to its ideals.

It’s intellectually dishonest to imply that the ideals don’t exist.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#239

Post by nybble41 »

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 a good definition. It is very close to my own, though I would quibble about endorsing the propaganda term "legitimate". Certainly those who practice such violence want it treated as legitimate, and your phrase "no means of recourse besides violence of your own" gets to the core of the issue: that others allow them to get away with calling it legitimate, without offering resistance. However, these factors are not sufficient to justify violence when it is neither defensive nor proportional and reciprocal.

Also, you relegate "private ownership and transfer of property" to a minor and seemingly optional footnote while this is a necessary aspect of the definition of "violence". (Is theft not violence? If your answer is "no", how about starving someone by stealing all their food, or the land and capital equipment they need to grow it? Or the barter goods or money they needed to purchase it? Etc., etc.)

The problems with "the usual functions" (and the key difference between minarchists and anarchists such as myself) are: (a) These things can be, and have been at various times, provided privately without initiating violence, so it is not necessary to curtail freedom for them. (b) It's not enough to say "a military is necessary to reduce violence, and this falls under the heading of 'military', and thus is allowed". To justify it on the basis of minimizing overall violence this military must never employ more violence than necessary, or more than it demonstrably curtails elsewhere, including in its funding process or in enforcing any rules it imposes. The same goes for the police and the courts. The courts have the easiest path; they're not that far removed from private arbitration. The military is the hardest to justify, particularly a standing army in a country like the U.S. with only two neighbors sharing land borders or even on the same continent—both of whom are considered allies.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#240

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

nybble41 wrote: post #230
dfxm12 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have to confess that I don't understand your comment in any way.

If labor laws or a labor contract prevent you from losing your job for tweeting "COVID19 is no worse than having your left foot amputated", then when you do in fact tweet this, and do not lose your job, surely you have neither lost your job, nor been "cancelled".

Maybe I just don't understand what you mean.

Post reply on HN