3 ms·

I think your notion of freedom is overly simplistic. A freedom is the ability to choose to do something. But choosing to do some things will limit the choices

I think your notion of freedom is overly simplistic. A freedom is the ability to choose to do something. But choosing to do some things will limit the choices of others. Therefore we must inevitably trade some freedoms against others. Generally we agree on certain trade-offs. We agree that freedom from murder is more important than freedom to kill. We agree that freedom from slavery is more important than freedom to enslave. But there are many cases where people do not agree on the trade-offs. If you respond to these cases by insisting that your preferred trade-offs are somehow correct by definition, you're avoiding the argument. Why are those freedoms preferable? And freedom to control property is one of case where people disagree. In order to own property, you must deny others the ability to use that property, and in extreme cases that means denying the starving the ability to eat. Many people believe that in such cases, the freedom to survive is more important than the freedom to control property.

narag 10y ago
This is not my notion of freedom. This is what political thought looks like since the liberal revolutions and for good reasons. At the time there were very real obstacles to freedom in european countries: absolutist regimes with a strong intellectual support. The liberals realized that the tyranny had many tentacles and that the fight for freedom should address every one of them. And make no mistake: that's also true for modern tyrannies, communism, right wing dictatorships or theocratic regimens. My point is very simple and I'm sad to see people answering to my comments are not properly addressing it. My point is that there is not a single country that can be considered free where you cannot safely own wealth. This is not just an idea: it's a fact that you can easily check. If you come to think about it, it's a very similar reasoning to the one that originated socialism. You can't be free if you're starving or if you're so poor that you can't get out of poverty, or you can't afford proper healthcare, or you can't give your children an education. In the same way, you can't be free if the State has arbitrary power to ruin your life. There must be some safety, a rule of law that assures that reasonable expectatives are met.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  > This is what political thought looks like since the liberal revolutions and for good reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom really? Notice that almost this entire article is discussing the various differing opinions on what constitutes freedom, and in particular the trade-offs between positive and negative freedoms. Yes they share some broad similarities, and everyone agrees that obvious historical tyrants are bad, but there's a lot of nuance once you get into the details. >My point is that there is not a single country that can be considered free where you cannot safely own wealth. That depends what you mean by "safely". Plenty of countries charge property taxes, and many have eminent domain laws which can force you to surrender land. Property is not absolute, nor do I think it should be. Which is why I don't think these kind of economic decisions should be considered Human Rights.
- narag 10y ago
  Since I cannot answer you, I will answer me. That depends what you mean by "safely". Plenty of countries charge property taxes, and many have eminent domain laws which can force you to surrender land. Property is not absolute, nor do I think it should be. Of course property is not absolute, it's you who said it, not me. Which is why I don't think these kind of economic decisions should be considered Human Rights. That's not a good point. Free speech is a human right and it's not absolute, is it? Anyway, you're missing the point. What we are talking about (if for no other reason, because that was TFA's point) is safety for personal wealth that was acquired legally and after due taxes are paid. We're talking about arbitrary seizure, not about taxes. Actually I have learned today that for some reason, there is people that conflates them. So it's either communism or wild capitalism. Honestly I didn't expect that.

narag 10y ago

This is not my notion of freedom. This is what political thought looks like since the liberal revolutions and for good reasons. At the time there were very real obstacles to freedom in european countries: absolutist regimes with a strong intellectual support. The liberals realized that the tyranny had many tentacles and that the fight for freedom should address every one of them. And make no mistake: that's also true for modern tyrannies, communism, right wing dictatorships or theocratic regimens. My point is very simple and I'm sad to see people answering to my comments are not properly addressing it. My point is that there is not a single country that can be considered free where you cannot safely own wealth. This is not just an idea: it's a fact that you can easily check. If you come to think about it, it's a very similar reasoning to the one that originated socialism. You can't be free if you're starving or if you're so poor that you can't get out of poverty, or you can't afford proper healthcare, or you can't give your children an education. In the same way, you can't be free if the State has arbitrary power to ruin your life. There must be some safety, a rule of law that assures that reasonable expectatives are met.

aninhumer 10y ago
> This is what political thought looks like since the liberal revolutions and for good reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom really? Notice that almost this entire article is discussing the various differing opinions on what constitutes freedom, and in particular the trade-offs between positive and negative freedoms. Yes they share some broad similarities, and everyone agrees that obvious historical tyrants are bad, but there's a lot of nuance once you get into the details. >My point is that there is not a single country that can be considered free where you cannot safely own wealth. That depends what you mean by "safely". Plenty of countries charge property taxes, and many have eminent domain laws which can force you to surrender land. Property is not absolute, nor do I think it should be. Which is why I don't think these kind of economic decisions should be considered Human Rights.
narag 10y ago
Since I cannot answer you, I will answer me. That depends what you mean by "safely". Plenty of countries charge property taxes, and many have eminent domain laws which can force you to surrender land. Property is not absolute, nor do I think it should be. Of course property is not absolute, it's you who said it, not me. Which is why I don't think these kind of economic decisions should be considered Human Rights. That's not a good point. Free speech is a human right and it's not absolute, is it? Anyway, you're missing the point. What we are talking about (if for no other reason, because that was TFA's point) is safety for personal wealth that was acquired legally and after due taxes are paid. We're talking about arbitrary seizure, not about taxes. Actually I have learned today that for some reason, there is people that conflates them. So it's either communism or wild capitalism. Honestly I didn't expect that.