4 ms·
The Western concept of “freedom” - more precisely, of rights unalienably reserved to individuals, families, and private societies, even at the expense of optima
by w0de0 5y ago
The Western concept of “freedom” - more precisely, of rights unalienably reserved to individuals, families, and private societies, even at the expense of optimal outcomes for society at large - does not assume or require the sensible judgement of its beneficiaries. As another poster alluded, this is a misconception of freedom’s purpose: it does not exist so that society may be optimally ordered, but because it is the necessary dignity (put otherwise, religiously: endowed by our creator) of a sentient human. To subordinate the individual to the needs of society for such crass goals as slightly increased economic productivity or a smarter generation of children is to deny that there may be a purpose to our existence beyond its own mindless perpetuation.
Moreover, there may be emergent boons in favoring the individual over society and the state. My ability to lead an idiosyncratic life, to make choices which may harm both me and the optimal operation of our society, allows for: subcultures flourishing unimpeded and providing joy to those who would otherwise be ostracized; clever eccentrics pursing new technology or new ways of living and thinking; the resiliency to change inherent in diversity, analogous to evolution.
Finally, I think your critique is less about the freedom of the individual and more the danger of unimpeded free enterprise acting on that freedom with ever improving and ever more terrible Skinner boxes of consumerism. It seems to me the best way to address this plight is not more restrictions on the choices of individuals - eg, spying on children to homogenize their behavior - but more restrictions on businesses. If one argues from the dignity of the individual, there is more room to restrict the freedom of capitalist enterprises than that of an individual human’s choices.
- trasz 5y agoWestern concept of freedom, on philosophical and moral grounds, makes perfect sense - for humans. It doesn’t make much sense when applied to corporations.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThe Western concept of freedom in many western tradition definitely assumes that the person exercising the freedom knows what is best for them. Actually, this is how we in the West operatively define utility, not as what you actively need but as what you think you need. Which as the OP underlined is exactly why advertising for example in the Western economic tradition brings positive utility, because we assume that people know what is useful to them. Beyond that, it's simply incorrect that our "freedom" means we aren't subordinate to the wills of society - we are, because we require resources to survive which the state has ordained are controlled by other people, which requires ourselves to subordinate to the will of others. No matter how you get around it, as long as you have property you are doomed to live a subordinate life unless you're very lucky. This is a false dichotomy written by people who didn't rid themselves of religious doctrine enough to understand that negative rights cannot exist without a violent state instead of being simply inherent. Beyond that, limiting restrictions on businesses is philosophically the same as restricting individuals, businesses are simply collections of individuals. Crucially though businesses are already functionally almost completely restricted to the profit motive, but that's an effect of the property system and of the role of the state more than anything else.
- w0de0 5y ago> No matter how you get around it, as long as you have property you are doomed to live a subordinate life unless you're very lucky. I would be curious to hear an elaboration this point.
- sudosysgen 5y ago1. Humans require natural resources to survive 2. All private property that can be claimed will be claimed before you are born 3. You are now reliant on someone else's private property to survive, creating a relation of subordination. So, unless you own enough wealth to live passively from, you will have to subordinate to someone else to survive. And empirically, this is true, the vast majority of people need a job, and where I live employment relationships are legally relationships of subordination (French civil law), in the rest of the world it's not de jure but still de facto.