3 ms·

If I put a gun to your head and say "Your wallet or your life," are you free? If I lay a trap, and you fall into it, and I offer to release you if you give me

by chc 8y ago

If I put a gun to your head and say "Your wallet or your life," are you free? If I lay a trap, and you fall into it, and I offer to release you if you give me your bank details, are you free? If it's a disaster and I charge $10000 for a bottle of clean water, are you free? If a society requires you to work in order to live but only offers you poor options for work, are you free? We generally talk as though, as long as there is no specific person intentionally coercing you, you're free to choose. But those particular elements don't actually make much difference to your freedom. It seems to me that being set up with only unfavorable options is different from being really free to choose.

throwaway37585 8y ago
If you live in a universe of scarce resources, are you free?
conanbatt 8y ago
Its very important to understand that free is freedom from men. Freedom from nature is not something we know a way out of yet. Who would say that someone using a gun to coerce you is free?
Kalium 8y ago
By the logic you use here, there is no such thing as freedom. There are always limits imposed on people by others, situations, society, nature, and physics. Therefore, there is no actual freedom for anyone. It seems to me that invalidating the notion of freedom might not be what you set out to do. Instead, you're trying to make a point wherein people are only truly free if they have some options that are favorable. Do I interpret you correctly? In that case, what's "favorable"? Who defines and judges such things? What standards are used? I know people who are capable and skilled and thus offered highly remunerative positions that they don't want to take because of who is hiring - is that favorable or unfavorable? Reasonable arguments for both spring readily to mind. Are we to use an individual's personal preferences only?
theamk 8y ago
I always considered "free" as lack of "coersion", where "coersion" has an agent/subject that can be removed to make situation better. Under that definition, the answers are: > If I put a gun to your head and say "Your wallet or your life," are you free? No -- the subject is you and your gun, if you remove them the situation improves. > If I lay a trap, and you fall into it, and I offer to release you if you give me your bank details, are you free? No -- the subject is your trap, if you remove it the situation improves. > If it's a disaster and I charge $10000 for a bottle of clean water, are you free? Yes -- while there is a subject (you), removing it will not make situation any better at all. > If a society requires you to work in order to live but only offers you poor options for work, are you free? Depends? In USSR, with exit visas and "social parasitism" laws, no. Agent is state, and removing will make a situation better -- yes, you would still be hungry, but at least they would not arrest you, and you could try your luck in another country. In USA, mostly yes. There is nothing you can remove to get better options for work, or to allow living without work. There are some exceptions -- like anti-vagrnacy laws and job licensing -- but they do not affect most people.
- dannypgh 8y ago
  > or to allow living without work. I join in the argument that labor is coerced into participating in the free market in the US. The agent/subject that you're missing is the government and their enforcement of laws pertaining to property. I would argue that labor is only as free as the social net for unemployed is strong. The coercion comes from the fact that your landlord can have the sheriff evict you (or your bank can foreclose and do the same) and the place where you help yourself to food without paying can have the police arrest you. Likewise if you try to oppose that physically, or, say, gain employment by selling illicit drugs, there's a system already in place to confine you to a jail or prison.
  - adventured 8y ago
    > I would argue that labor is only as free as the social net for unemployed is strong. You're arguing that labor is only free so long as it can hold a gun to someone else's head (the evil 10%) and force them to support said labor via welfare by taking the fruits of the labor that the 10% produce. As though one has an inherent right to someone else's very life and property (if you did, you wouldn't need a gun to steal that property). Communism, because it has worked out so well over the last century. It's a contradiction. You're actually saying some people get to be 'free' using coercion and overt threats of force, by enslaving other people to fulfill their needs via welfare transfers based on the taxation of other better off persons income. The system of welfare transfers, much less actual Socialism, requires extreme force to be applied at all times to keep the system functioning, as such there can be no freedom at all - there's always a gun pointed at your head.
closeparen 8y ago
Does the existence of the gig economy eliminate good options? If the gig economy were regulated to zero tomorrow, who would find better options, and why aren’t they finding those options now?

by chc 8y ago

throwaway37585 8y ago

If you live in a universe of scarce resources, are you free?

conanbatt 8y ago

Its very important to understand that free is freedom from men. Freedom from nature is not something we know a way out of yet. Who would say that someone using a gun to coerce you is free?

Kalium 8y ago

By the logic you use here, there is no such thing as freedom. There are always limits imposed on people by others, situations, society, nature, and physics. Therefore, there is no actual freedom for anyone. It seems to me that invalidating the notion of freedom might not be what you set out to do. Instead, you're trying to make a point wherein people are only truly free if they have some options that are favorable. Do I interpret you correctly? In that case, what's "favorable"? Who defines and judges such things? What standards are used? I know people who are capable and skilled and thus offered highly remunerative positions that they don't want to take because of who is hiring - is that favorable or unfavorable? Reasonable arguments for both spring readily to mind. Are we to use an individual's personal preferences only?

theamk 8y ago

I always considered "free" as lack of "coersion", where "coersion" has an agent/subject that can be removed to make situation better. Under that definition, the answers are: > If I put a gun to your head and say "Your wallet or your life," are you free? No -- the subject is you and your gun, if you remove them the situation improves. > If I lay a trap, and you fall into it, and I offer to release you if you give me your bank details, are you free? No -- the subject is your trap, if you remove it the situation improves. > If it's a disaster and I charge $10000 for a bottle of clean water, are you free? Yes -- while there is a subject (you), removing it will not make situation any better at all. > If a society requires you to work in order to live but only offers you poor options for work, are you free? Depends? In USSR, with exit visas and "social parasitism" laws, no. Agent is state, and removing will make a situation better -- yes, you would still be hungry, but at least they would not arrest you, and you could try your luck in another country. In USA, mostly yes. There is nothing you can remove to get better options for work, or to allow living without work. There are some exceptions -- like anti-vagrnacy laws and job licensing -- but they do not affect most people.

dannypgh 8y ago
> or to allow living without work. I join in the argument that labor is coerced into participating in the free market in the US. The agent/subject that you're missing is the government and their enforcement of laws pertaining to property. I would argue that labor is only as free as the social net for unemployed is strong. The coercion comes from the fact that your landlord can have the sheriff evict you (or your bank can foreclose and do the same) and the place where you help yourself to food without paying can have the police arrest you. Likewise if you try to oppose that physically, or, say, gain employment by selling illicit drugs, there's a system already in place to confine you to a jail or prison.
- adventured 8y ago
  > I would argue that labor is only as free as the social net for unemployed is strong. You're arguing that labor is only free so long as it can hold a gun to someone else's head (the evil 10%) and force them to support said labor via welfare by taking the fruits of the labor that the 10% produce. As though one has an inherent right to someone else's very life and property (if you did, you wouldn't need a gun to steal that property). Communism, because it has worked out so well over the last century. It's a contradiction. You're actually saying some people get to be 'free' using coercion and overt threats of force, by enslaving other people to fulfill their needs via welfare transfers based on the taxation of other better off persons income. The system of welfare transfers, much less actual Socialism, requires extreme force to be applied at all times to keep the system functioning, as such there can be no freedom at all - there's always a gun pointed at your head.

closeparen 8y ago

Does the existence of the gig economy eliminate good options? If the gig economy were regulated to zero tomorrow, who would find better options, and why aren’t they finding those options now?