3 ms·

Seems like a really oversimplified idea of what freedom is. It's not a binary where you're free or you aren't. You're never _completely_ free, or you wouldn't b

by ajkjk 6y ago

Seems like a really oversimplified idea of what freedom is. It's not a binary where you're free or you aren't. You're never _completely_ free, or you wouldn't be able to pulled over by cops, forced to file taxes, or whatever, anyway. Like, yeah, you could stick to the "absolute freedom all the time" principle and do nothing to make people healthier, but if you had just done it anyway life would be better for everyone involved. And you're stuck with your rigid adherence to principles saying "well at least we were free" while the world is crappy compared to what it could be. Give me the slightly paternalistic government that makes its people healthier and happier every time.

int_19h 6y ago
The problem is that your definition of "slightly" might not agree with that of the majority - and then you end up being targeted for your lifestyle choices. As far as freedom not being a binary... true, but insofar as it's a function of social arrangements, it's possible to find (or at least strive to find) a global maximum where everybody is as free as possible.
- ajkjk 6y ago
  That response comes up a lot: that a particular choice of what the government does won't be agreeable to everyone. But like, so what? That's abstractly the point of democracy. It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. There are correction mechanisms also but it's just approximate, it's not supposed to appease everyone completely.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    > It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. Quite a few people would disagree. There's that whole consent of the governed thing, for example - and 50%+1 is certainly not it.
    - ajkjk 6y ago
      High-level you would like the government to mostly do things that the citizens mostly like. Then the citizens will mostly consent to have a government that mostly leaves them free. But it's all approximate. It doesn't extrapolate to always doing things that all citizens like. That doesn't work at all, for obvious reasons like the government being licensed to tax or imprison people.
      - int_19h 6y ago
        But, again, you can, at least, try to minimize the number of people who do not like what the government is doing. Which is very different from declaring that a simple (or even qualified) majority gets to decide for everybody simply by virtue of being a majority.

by ajkjk 6y ago

int_19h 6y ago

The problem is that your definition of "slightly" might not agree with that of the majority - and then you end up being targeted for your lifestyle choices. As far as freedom not being a binary... true, but insofar as it's a function of social arrangements, it's possible to find (or at least strive to find) a global maximum where everybody is as free as possible.

ajkjk 6y ago
That response comes up a lot: that a particular choice of what the government does won't be agreeable to everyone. But like, so what? That's abstractly the point of democracy. It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. There are correction mechanisms also but it's just approximate, it's not supposed to appease everyone completely.
- int_19h 6y ago
  > It is kind of fine if governments do things their citizens don't like. Quite a few people would disagree. There's that whole consent of the governed thing, for example - and 50%+1 is certainly not it.
  - ajkjk 6y ago
    High-level you would like the government to mostly do things that the citizens mostly like. Then the citizens will mostly consent to have a government that mostly leaves them free. But it's all approximate. It doesn't extrapolate to always doing things that all citizens like. That doesn't work at all, for obvious reasons like the government being licensed to tax or imprison people.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      But, again, you can, at least, try to minimize the number of people who do not like what the government is doing. Which is very different from declaring that a simple (or even qualified) majority gets to decide for everybody simply by virtue of being a majority.