Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
edwardsnowden.substack.com
Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
1–10 of 266 posts
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#2I 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.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#3I 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 like communication, food, entertainment, etc.
But in the end we all win, for each unit of freedom we give away (or invest), we get more back (ideally).
So is equilibrium the right word? Or maybe we are talking about different things. I don't know, I'm not making a statement or counter-argument here, just thinking out loud.
There are definitely attempts in the world to restrict freedom not in the word of efficiency, but control and power. The line between the two can be blurry.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#4Freedom 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"
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#5I 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…
These are all very interesting thoughts, including the comment you are responding too. I just want to make the situation even more tricky and point out that freedom is not only about the amount of choices you have available, so giving something away to get more choices is not always positive. There's a bound on complexity, and it turns out that freedom requires "space" to decide, not only "availability" of choices. Rules and restrictions, even if implicit (unspoken rules, cultural expectations, etc.), do reduce our freedom by reducing our space to decide, pressuring us in some ways.
EDIT: in any case, beyond a fairly low minimum, freedom is usually not so much about raw number of choices as it is about relative number of choices, comparing what options others have access to and what options do we have access to. So I think we should focus and work more towards "healthy freedom ranges" and freedom equality and coverage (not leaving some people out) than pretending that any single change increases or reduces our freedom in a dramatic fixed amount. To me, the freedom scale is clearly not linear. (Now I'm not even so sure "freedom" is the right word to focus on. It's more about "unobstructed human potential" than about "possibilities" to me.)
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#6I 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…
You make a mistake in equating "barbaric society" with freedom. Barbarians weren't free, maybe except their chief and elders. Common tribe members were all subordinated - the tribe would even put some mark on their body (tattoo, circumcision) to remind them that they are tribe's property. Democratic society is much more free than a barbaric one.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You make a mistake in equating "barbaric society" with freedom. Barbarians weren't free, maybe except their chief and elders. Common tribe members were all subordinated - the tribe would even put some mark on their body (tattoo, circumcision) to remind them that they are tribe's property. Democratic society is much more free than a barbaric one.
What do you mean when you say free?
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make a mistake in equating "barbaric society" with freedom. Barbarians weren't free, maybe except their chief and elders. Common tribe members were all subordinated - the tribe would even put some mark on their body (tattoo, circumcision) to remind them that they are tribe's property. Democratic society is much more free than a barbaric one.
What do you mean when you say free?
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.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#9Freedom 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"
Interesting, but it should probaby be divided by the desire / expectations to navigate the power process too. Otherwise, it gets too far away from the common usage of the word.
Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction
#10Freedom 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"
I think that's a reasonable definition of freedom ... and not at all what Snowden is talking about. That underscores why it's so hard to discuss. The word itself is a Rorschach test.