4 ms·

When you talk about a "free" society you fail to acknowledge that some groups in a rule-less landscape are conferred natural advantages over others. For example

When you talk about a "free" society you fail to acknowledge that some groups in a rule-less landscape are conferred natural advantages over others. For example, without societal shifts and rules protecting people who are LGBTQ, an entire group of people would be harassed and discriminated against, and be strictly less "free" than others in the society. The idea that "safety and freedom are inversely related" is not true. You're saying we move along a curve. Why not push the curve instead? Here's a way: freedom strictly increases when you give it more equally to all people. Security doesn't decrease from that in actuality; people who were taking unfair advantage of their relative privilege are the only ones who feel "unsafe." For example: in the current state of things women face disproportionate amounts of mental load when interacting at work. "Am I coming across as sexually interested via the way I dress or talk?" << This is something that actually has to cross womens' minds from forever ago to now. Given today's societal landscape, many men claim "I feel unsafe" because now that same thought has to cross their mind -- society is shifting toward less tolerant toward bad male behavior so you have to be careful not to make mistakes. But when men consider/improve how they communicate and how their words may make others feel, they really increase freedom and safety for all women. And in net we are all both more free and more safe. If you argue that the man is now less safe than he was before, you have to ask yourself, is it fair that he was more safe than a corresponding woman to begin with? And is he really being deprived of anything at all, other than a gross privilege he had (to not be accountable for his actions toward others)? It's all well and good to talk about maximizing freedom, but if that freedom is not equally distributed it becomes significantly less noble.

aestetix 9y ago
I disagree with pretty much everything in this post. I think what is reasonable to say is that while we are all created equal in the sense that we are human, that's far as as natural equality extends. Some of us are taller, shorter, we have different interests, etc. So this begs the question, what is the role of government. Should government treat us all equally, in the sense that we are humans and thus rational beings? Or should government (a set of formalized rules and people who enforce them) attempt to equalize the playing field, and thus treat us all unequally? In your own example, by ensuring in your model safety for women, we must treat men differently from women, and therefore ensure that for women to be safer, men must be less free. IMHO government should treat us equal in the human sense, and no other. On the obvious response that government and society are different, I would reply that government is at least in theory a set of formalized rules intended to reflect what the informal rules of society are. Therefore, while the match might not be 1:1, it's still quite relevant. Here's a link to a discussion with FA Hayek, who describes this far more eloquently that I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMd40dqBlQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMd40dqBlQ
- kajecounterhack 9y ago
  > I think what is reasonable to say is that while we are all created equal in the sense that we are human, that's far as as natural equality extends. Some of us are taller, shorter, we have different interests, etc. Your observation that "humans aren't all the same" is orthogonal to the ideal that humans should be treated equally despite their physical characteristics which are outside of their control. I cannot control what gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity I'm born as, and you should not assume anything about my abilities based on those characteristics. Good and bad are things we decide together because we're stuck living together; that's what society is. Equality is something a lot of us decide is good. It's not "natural" but that doesn't make it bad. I think it's good to aspire for a more equitable society. Racism is bad exactly because it assumes things about people based on a physical characteristic outside of their control (skin color). That concept is general. > > Or should government (a set of formalized rules and people who enforce them) attempt to equalize the playing field, and thus treat us all unequally? Equalizing the playing field does not "treat us all unequally." That's the point of equalizing. A government trying to equalize the playing field is a government that acknowledges the playing field is already unfair. If you're born rich you are already advantaged. If you're born white you're already advantaged. Government is within its rights to say "oh shit 1% of the citizens who participate in this system have disproportionate power compared to the vast majority; we should equalize it so everyone can have a better life." << This is what a progressive income tax is for. > In your own example, by ensuring in your model safety for women, we must treat men differently from women, and therefore ensure that for women to be safer, men must be less free. Wrong. By ensuring model safety for women, we must hold them to the same standards that we hold women to. Both women and men who harass people should be ostracized. Historically only women had to bear the burden of "how do I come across" because of men. Today men should equally bear the same burden and be responsible for how their words and actions make others feel. Men aren't "less free" in this model, they just have to be "more responsible." A level of responsibility women have already been forced to have. E.g why is it that women have to watch what they wear? Feminists aspire to a world where men should not assault or harass women, regardless of what they wear. We should all be equally responsible for our own behavior. > government is at least in theory a set of formalized rules intended to reflect what the informal rules of society are Agreed, this is a fact. Which is exactly why people who seek equality lobby government to update laws, to reflect our evolved societal norms. Laws should protect LGBTQ from discimination in the workplace for example, and help bridge the pay gap for women in the workplace. Laws were responsible for first freeing slaves in the US and then ensuring equal rights.

aestetix 9y ago

I disagree with pretty much everything in this post. I think what is reasonable to say is that while we are all created equal in the sense that we are human, that's far as as natural equality extends. Some of us are taller, shorter, we have different interests, etc. So this begs the question, what is the role of government. Should government treat us all equally, in the sense that we are humans and thus rational beings? Or should government (a set of formalized rules and people who enforce them) attempt to equalize the playing field, and thus treat us all unequally? In your own example, by ensuring in your model safety for women, we must treat men differently from women, and therefore ensure that for women to be safer, men must be less free. IMHO government should treat us equal in the human sense, and no other. On the obvious response that government and society are different, I would reply that government is at least in theory a set of formalized rules intended to reflect what the informal rules of society are. Therefore, while the match might not be 1:1, it's still quite relevant. Here's a link to a discussion with FA Hayek, who describes this far more eloquently that I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMd40dqBlQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMd40dqBlQ

kajecounterhack 9y ago
> I think what is reasonable to say is that while we are all created equal in the sense that we are human, that's far as as natural equality extends. Some of us are taller, shorter, we have different interests, etc. Your observation that "humans aren't all the same" is orthogonal to the ideal that humans should be treated equally despite their physical characteristics which are outside of their control. I cannot control what gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity I'm born as, and you should not assume anything about my abilities based on those characteristics. Good and bad are things we decide together because we're stuck living together; that's what society is. Equality is something a lot of us decide is good. It's not "natural" but that doesn't make it bad. I think it's good to aspire for a more equitable society. Racism is bad exactly because it assumes things about people based on a physical characteristic outside of their control (skin color). That concept is general. > > Or should government (a set of formalized rules and people who enforce them) attempt to equalize the playing field, and thus treat us all unequally? Equalizing the playing field does not "treat us all unequally." That's the point of equalizing. A government trying to equalize the playing field is a government that acknowledges the playing field is already unfair. If you're born rich you are already advantaged. If you're born white you're already advantaged. Government is within its rights to say "oh shit 1% of the citizens who participate in this system have disproportionate power compared to the vast majority; we should equalize it so everyone can have a better life." << This is what a progressive income tax is for. > In your own example, by ensuring in your model safety for women, we must treat men differently from women, and therefore ensure that for women to be safer, men must be less free. Wrong. By ensuring model safety for women, we must hold them to the same standards that we hold women to. Both women and men who harass people should be ostracized. Historically only women had to bear the burden of "how do I come across" because of men. Today men should equally bear the same burden and be responsible for how their words and actions make others feel. Men aren't "less free" in this model, they just have to be "more responsible." A level of responsibility women have already been forced to have. E.g why is it that women have to watch what they wear? Feminists aspire to a world where men should not assault or harass women, regardless of what they wear. We should all be equally responsible for our own behavior. > government is at least in theory a set of formalized rules intended to reflect what the informal rules of society are Agreed, this is a fact. Which is exactly why people who seek equality lobby government to update laws, to reflect our evolved societal norms. Laws should protect LGBTQ from discimination in the workplace for example, and help bridge the pay gap for women in the workplace. Laws were responsible for first freeing slaves in the US and then ensuring equal rights.