5 ms·

Perhaps there is some definition of freedom in mathematical terms in which the total scope of decision-making autonomy is maximized over all citizens? The barb

Perhaps there is some definition of freedom in mathematical terms in which the total scope of decision-making autonomy is maximized over all citizens? The barbarian example would yield a low tally, as the leaders of a hoard are "free," but their subordinates have little decision-making capacity. In terms of the limitations of personal freedoms, the boundary might lie where the diminishment of others' freedoms exceeds the diminishment of one's own if restrained. (E.g. killing someone eliminates all of their future decisions, but preventing a murder eliminates only one decision for the potential murderer?)

beaconstudios 5y ago
there is sort-of, it's called utilitarianism. However, maths isn't a magical cure-all - the ethical dilemma is just shifted onto how you quantise your ethical problems.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ComodoHacker 5y ago
Looking from a dialectic perspective, the higher in the social hierarchy you are, the more freedom you have in some of your decisions and less in others. Decisions like where to live, what to wear, who to befriend etc., become more free and at the same time less yours. Taking it to the extreme, is a leader of an authoritarian state free to stop oppressing their people and install democracy? Is a leader of a democratic state free to start oppressing their people and install authoritarianism? Perhaps the grand theorem of freedom would state that freedom in the Universe is constant.
photochemsyn 5y ago
We could examine this by comparing 'anti-freedom' systems like chattel slavery (Old US South Cotton Plantations) vs. wage slavery (Appalachian Coal Company Towns). In the former, refusal to work for the masters led to beatings, torture, mutilitaion and death. In the later, refusal to work for the bosses led to homelessness and hunger and death. Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the cotton plantation, I suppose. Ultimately freedom requires the dismantling and weakening of hierarchical social power structures. Let's say the people in that coal company town were the ones who elected their bosses, rather than some remote collection of wealthy shareholders. Wouldn't that be even more free? Democratization of corporations seems like going in the direction of freedom. Germany is ahead in this, as corporate boards in Germany include employee representatives, not just shareholder representatives.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  > Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the cotton plantation, I suppose. Yes! Crucially because its residents were free to leave. Doing something unpleasant or dangerous due to economic necessity is vastly different than doing it in chains. You're assuming the Appalachian coal company residents had no other options when clearly they did, as evidenced by the patterns of migration to and from these towns. Working in a coal mine was just their preferred choice, given the alternatives available. Many of these men took pride in their work.
  - photochemsyn 5y ago
    I agree, but also that they'd be more free if all the coal workers in a given corporation had the same number of representative voting seats on the corporate board as the shareholders did. Freedom is a direction, it's a good quote.
thegrimmest 5y ago
It somewhat boils down to violence, doesn't it? 1) Your degree of freedom is strictly a relationship between you and those who are able to legitimately use violence against you. Legitimate here meaning you have no means of recourse besides violence of your own. 2) How free you are is then expressed as a graph of all possible actions you may take which are not prohibited by the threat of legitimate violence (often expressed as "law"). 3) Then a "free and equal society" is one the total size of the graph is optimized for. This mandates laws which delegitimize violence except where strictly necessary to enforce said delegitimization. 4) The only addition that is typically made in large, agrarian societies is the legitimization of the private ownership and transfer of property. Thus we have "free, equal and orderly" societies. These lead us to the usual functions of the military (to protect from external violence), the police (to protect from domestic violence), and the courts (to resolve disputes, usually over property, which would otherwise turn violent). From there, any encroachment of the state (such as mandating participation in various insurance schemes) into the graph of its citizens would be strictly perceived as a curtailing of freedom. It's important to note that these terms necessarily exclude material circumstance from their definition. They also define violence in the strict sense of physical force. You are not less free because you may be sick or poor, since these are not interactions with people who may use legitimate violence.
- kag0 5y ago
  That's an interesting way to look at it, but I take an issue here > How free you are is then expressed as a graph of all possible actions you may take which are not prohibited by the threat of legitimate violence It's a good point to think in terms of possible actions you may take. But violence isn't the only thing that can prune that graph. Say I come across an orchard surrounded by an [unclimbable] fence. I want to eat some fruit in the orchard, but cannot because of the fence. There is no violence I face that prevents my action, and no violence I can level to take the action. Yet my action is prohibited by another, and thus my freedom limited.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    That's exactly my point though. The only pruning of the graph which counts against your freedom is that which is done with the threat of legitimate violence. You are still free in spite of the fact that you cannot access said orchard. It's simply beyond your capabilities, much like you are still free despite lacking wings to fly over the barrier. Who erected the barrier is not relevant here. What if the barrier was a circumstance of nature? An orchard on a plateau surrounded by unclimbable cliffs?

beaconstudios 5y ago

there is sort-of, it's called utilitarianism. However, maths isn't a magical cure-all - the ethical dilemma is just shifted onto how you quantise your ethical problems.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ComodoHacker 5y ago

Looking from a dialectic perspective, the higher in the social hierarchy you are, the more freedom you have in some of your decisions and less in others. Decisions like where to live, what to wear, who to befriend etc., become more free and at the same time less yours. Taking it to the extreme, is a leader of an authoritarian state free to stop oppressing their people and install democracy? Is a leader of a democratic state free to start oppressing their people and install authoritarianism? Perhaps the grand theorem of freedom would state that freedom in the Universe is constant.

photochemsyn 5y ago

We could examine this by comparing 'anti-freedom' systems like chattel slavery (Old US South Cotton Plantations) vs. wage slavery (Appalachian Coal Company Towns). In the former, refusal to work for the masters led to beatings, torture, mutilitaion and death. In the later, refusal to work for the bosses led to homelessness and hunger and death. Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the cotton plantation, I suppose. Ultimately freedom requires the dismantling and weakening of hierarchical social power structures. Let's say the people in that coal company town were the ones who elected their bosses, rather than some remote collection of wealthy shareholders. Wouldn't that be even more free? Democratization of corporations seems like going in the direction of freedom. Germany is ahead in this, as corporate boards in Germany include employee representatives, not just shareholder representatives.

thegrimmest 5y ago
> Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the cotton plantation, I suppose. Yes! Crucially because its residents were free to leave. Doing something unpleasant or dangerous due to economic necessity is vastly different than doing it in chains. You're assuming the Appalachian coal company residents had no other options when clearly they did, as evidenced by the patterns of migration to and from these towns. Working in a coal mine was just their preferred choice, given the alternatives available. Many of these men took pride in their work.
- photochemsyn 5y ago
  I agree, but also that they'd be more free if all the coal workers in a given corporation had the same number of representative voting seats on the corporate board as the shareholders did. Freedom is a direction, it's a good quote.

thegrimmest 5y ago

It somewhat boils down to violence, doesn't it? 1) Your degree of freedom is strictly a relationship between you and those who are able to legitimately use violence against you. Legitimate here meaning you have no means of recourse besides violence of your own. 2) How free you are is then expressed as a graph of all possible actions you may take which are not prohibited by the threat of legitimate violence (often expressed as "law"). 3) Then a "free and equal society" is one the total size of the graph is optimized for. This mandates laws which delegitimize violence except where strictly necessary to enforce said delegitimization. 4) The only addition that is typically made in large, agrarian societies is the legitimization of the private ownership and transfer of property. Thus we have "free, equal and orderly" societies. These lead us to the usual functions of the military (to protect from external violence), the police (to protect from domestic violence), and the courts (to resolve disputes, usually over property, which would otherwise turn violent). From there, any encroachment of the state (such as mandating participation in various insurance schemes) into the graph of its citizens would be strictly perceived as a curtailing of freedom. It's important to note that these terms necessarily exclude material circumstance from their definition. They also define violence in the strict sense of physical force. You are not less free because you may be sick or poor, since these are not interactions with people who may use legitimate violence.

kag0 5y ago
That's an interesting way to look at it, but I take an issue here > How free you are is then expressed as a graph of all possible actions you may take which are not prohibited by the threat of legitimate violence It's a good point to think in terms of possible actions you may take. But violence isn't the only thing that can prune that graph. Say I come across an orchard surrounded by an [unclimbable] fence. I want to eat some fruit in the orchard, but cannot because of the fence. There is no violence I face that prevents my action, and no violence I can level to take the action. Yet my action is prohibited by another, and thus my freedom limited.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  That's exactly my point though. The only pruning of the graph which counts against your freedom is that which is done with the threat of legitimate violence. You are still free in spite of the fact that you cannot access said orchard. It's simply beyond your capabilities, much like you are still free despite lacking wings to fly over the barrier. Who erected the barrier is not relevant here. What if the barrier was a circumstance of nature? An orchard on a plateau surrounded by unclimbable cliffs?