4 ms·
Um... a few folks in the comments dont get what "freedom" means. It's not about getting stuff for free, not matter how essential both of us might agree whatever
by NoOneNew 6y ago
Um... a few folks in the comments dont get what "freedom" means. It's not about getting stuff for free, not matter how essential both of us might agree whatever it is. It's more the restrictions the gov and society have in influencing and punishing an individual. A freedom is a legal principle, not a "thing".
You are free to practice whatever religion, or no religion, without being burned at the stake, locked up or put through a re-education camp.
You are free to express an opinion without being stoned to death, imprisoned or disappear.
You're free from entities taking your stuff because they have a lineage name or are part of the correct political party of the time. This is what possession is nine-tenths of the law generally refers to. Protects your ownership of stuff. And yes, this is also very contested.
You're free to associate with people without being guilty of something they did.
Freedom to gather and/or converse with whom you choose even if the gov or society doesn't like them.
You have the freedom of legal recourse against someone of a higher class. We take this for granted. This isnt a thing in quite a few societies, especially in history, and western countries are still plagued with the in reality practice, but it is in the legal letter at least.
There's obviously lots more. Obviously a lot of these are infringed often. But that's the thing, they are "infringed" and that's not considered okay, normally. Life is messier than debate and rhetoric circles. The recent freedom of expression issues is a good example of not knowing the slippery slope implications (I'm a Polish-Jew. censoring anyone, including Nazis solves nothing. Only makes it worse. Open debate is the only real cure for stupid. Getting your book or album banned is the fastest way to top the sales charts. History is on my side regarding this one.)
While healthcare is important, free healthcare isn't a "freedom" nor should it be considered as one. We are free to discuss the value, want and vote to implement, as we should. But you dont call a vaccine a fruit just because they're both important. Dont confuse legal principles with necessities. Doing so dilutes the meaning and can cause further harm in the protection of freedoms from corrupt forms of gov and social authorities.
- xbar 6y agoWell said.
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago>Um... a few folks in the comments dont get what "freedom" means. It's not about getting stuff for free, not matter how essential both of us might agree whatever it is. Well said. But what to do you? Cannot convincing those simians either. It's tragedy of the masses ... ( quote out of context but I guess it expresses how I feel) 9 Wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner...
- NoOneNew 6y agoTotally understand what you're saying. But I think it's more true that there's 1 wolf, 1 sheepdog and 8 sheep. Probably more my philosophical outlook on society coming through. I think 80% of people are perfectly rational. It's 10% on one extreme and 10% on the other extreme, of the population that are "at battle". They just convince the other 80% that, "It's your problem too". But circling back to what you said, what can you do? Sheep follow. Someone is going to convince you of the best way to "security".
- dennis_jeeves 6y agoI agree on the more nuanced split which includes the sheepdog :) The patriotic people who enforce rules of the tyrant...
- NoOneNew 6y agoPeople who are on the "correct side of history" are extremists too. We just all end up agreeing with them collectively at some point. Freedom of religion was an extremely extremists, fanatical viewpoint at one point. Same goes with abolitionism, equal rights and worker's rights. Plenty of people died for those.
- dennis_jeeves 6y agoAgree, that is indeed a nuanced observation.
- 6y ago
- freed5666 6y agoBut at least the case of healthcare in the US is a very special case. They are literally looting the people. Even an ambulance ride costs huge amounts.
- NoOneNew 6y agoNo, again, you're confusing services (and desperate desire) with legalities. This idea that words shouldn't have definite and finite meaning is the biggest problem. Freedoms are legal concepts, not services. I am for universal healthcare. But, universal healthcare is not a "freedom" anymore than electricity or running water is. Getting a service for free is not a freedom. It's a benefit. A vital, important, necessary benefit. Absolutely. But, the same goes for water and electricity. How many people recently IMMEDIATELY died due to lack of water and power from those winter storms? I would argue free water and electricity should come before healthcare. You cut off 3rd party provided water and 3rd party provided electricity to the country, more people would die faster in 1 year than cutting off 3rd party provided healthcare. Of course it's a compounding problem at that, but you get the point. But just like taking your freedoms for granted, you take your standard of living for granted. Why not start making more services for free? It's not a bad idea at first, but where do you actually draw the line? Healthcare is important for life expectancy and general living for a population, but the exact same can be said about running water or electricity... or natural gas if used for heating. I'm not going to argue for natural gas services to be paid for 100% by the gov for obvious reasons. But you know what, if I argue that electricity is vital for heating/cooling and basic living standards to keep people alive, thus must be paid for 100% by the gov... well... why can't natural gas say the same? Arguing for free running water is even easier than electricity.