3 ms·

One of the landmines that I consider inevitable is any form of: > The freedom of one ends where the freedom of the other begins It doesn't matter whether you'

One of the landmines that I consider inevitable is any form of: > The freedom of one ends where the freedom of the other begins It doesn't matter whether you're advocating for hardcore communism, for minimal state, absolute anarchy or anything in between those -- someone is going to bring this crap up and use it as a counterpoint. Usually it doesn't make sense and doesn't convey any concrete meaning, but it's what people heard other people say and it sounds smart and morally superior so people try to use it anywhere they can.

pessimizer 6y ago
I think you just have to come up with strategies to force people to express these clichés in different words. With this one in particular I'd try to work down a tangent about how Libertarians take this as their basic "anti-violence" tenet in the NAP. Then I'd try to locate the boundaries where people end and begin through Buddhist/Hindu arguments (that usually ultimately deny those boundaries.) Penultimately, I'd start joking about all the strange things that Libertarians are forced to refer to as violence to justify their responses. Then I'd circle around to the original subject under discussion, and argue that the boundary that they drew may not be extreme enough in light of some of the things we had just discussed, and ask how they justify drawing the boundary in that particular place. Now we're having the conversation that I wanted to have in the first place, and I've positioned myself to argue from a perspective farther from the position that I actually hold than the person that I'm arguing with is. Their disagreement with the arguments that I am now making will generally push them closer to my actual position, and their agreement with the arguments that I'm making will push them into defending an obviously extreme, outlying position (which is what I chose it to be.) Both create cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by accepting my actual position. edit: There are infinitely many other angles, too. I like talking about desert, as in "the property of deserving", because it's not something most people have thought about as such, and it can be spoken about in pretty ordinary language. Then you're talking about positive liberty rather than the negative liberty of "freedom from restraint." To continue to use the cliché in those terms involves having to change signs (-/+), which is difficult and requires thought (if you never learned DeMorgan's rule or practiced explaining it in plain English.) Now you're having a real conversation. tl;dr: If you can force people to reword their clichés, you can have a real conversation. The best way to do this is to attack them from strange angles.
autoditype 6y ago
> The freedom of one ends where the freedom of the other begins > Usually it doesn't make sense and doesn't convey any concrete meaning This is the first time I have heard this quote, but it makes sense to me. Why do you suggest it doesn't make sense?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > This is the first time I have heard this quote You're one of today's lucky 10 000 then[0]! It's a common quote, a standard and vague answer for the question of limits to individual freedoms. I'm not GP, but I agree that it often doesn't make sense - because it doesn't convey any concrete meaning. It requires your conversation partners to infer what exactly you meant by this, and it invites debating the abstract point under unrelated examples (particularly edge cases), or what is or isn't a freedom. In a context of a particular conversation - say, short-time rentals - you could say it to argue that just because one can run a short-term rental in residential area, doesn't mean they should. But saying "my freedom ends when your begins" doesn't communicate much. You could, instead, say that "your freedom to make money off random strangers ends where my freedom to have a good night's sleep begins". Or, better yet, you could simply say something like "my problem is that, in practice, such rentals tend to be a source of constant loud noise and other bad behavior - which goes against mine and other permanent residents' desire to live in a safe neighborhood and be able to sleep well at night". (And speaking of landmines, don't ever mention "zoning" in such conversations.) -- [0] - https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/

pessimizer 6y ago

I think you just have to come up with strategies to force people to express these clichés in different words. With this one in particular I'd try to work down a tangent about how Libertarians take this as their basic "anti-violence" tenet in the NAP. Then I'd try to locate the boundaries where people end and begin through Buddhist/Hindu arguments (that usually ultimately deny those boundaries.) Penultimately, I'd start joking about all the strange things that Libertarians are forced to refer to as violence to justify their responses. Then I'd circle around to the original subject under discussion, and argue that the boundary that they drew may not be extreme enough in light of some of the things we had just discussed, and ask how they justify drawing the boundary in that particular place. Now we're having the conversation that I wanted to have in the first place, and I've positioned myself to argue from a perspective farther from the position that I actually hold than the person that I'm arguing with is. Their disagreement with the arguments that I am now making will generally push them closer to my actual position, and their agreement with the arguments that I'm making will push them into defending an obviously extreme, outlying position (which is what I chose it to be.) Both create cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by accepting my actual position. edit: There are infinitely many other angles, too. I like talking about desert, as in "the property of deserving", because it's not something most people have thought about as such, and it can be spoken about in pretty ordinary language. Then you're talking about positive liberty rather than the negative liberty of "freedom from restraint." To continue to use the cliché in those terms involves having to change signs (-/+), which is difficult and requires thought (if you never learned DeMorgan's rule or practiced explaining it in plain English.) Now you're having a real conversation. tl;dr: If you can force people to reword their clichés, you can have a real conversation. The best way to do this is to attack them from strange angles.

autoditype 6y ago

> The freedom of one ends where the freedom of the other begins > Usually it doesn't make sense and doesn't convey any concrete meaning This is the first time I have heard this quote, but it makes sense to me. Why do you suggest it doesn't make sense?

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> This is the first time I have heard this quote You're one of today's lucky 10 000 then[0]! It's a common quote, a standard and vague answer for the question of limits to individual freedoms. I'm not GP, but I agree that it often doesn't make sense - because it doesn't convey any concrete meaning. It requires your conversation partners to infer what exactly you meant by this, and it invites debating the abstract point under unrelated examples (particularly edge cases), or what is or isn't a freedom. In a context of a particular conversation - say, short-time rentals - you could say it to argue that just because one can run a short-term rental in residential area, doesn't mean they should. But saying "my freedom ends when your begins" doesn't communicate much. You could, instead, say that "your freedom to make money off random strangers ends where my freedom to have a good night's sleep begins". Or, better yet, you could simply say something like "my problem is that, in practice, such rentals tend to be a source of constant loud noise and other bad behavior - which goes against mine and other permanent residents' desire to live in a safe neighborhood and be able to sleep well at night". (And speaking of landmines, don't ever mention "zoning" in such conversations.) -- [0] - https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/