3 ms·

Classic case of using a negative liberty- freedom from hearing complaints- to try to deny a positive liberty- freedom to speak one's mind. There are legit uses

Classic case of using a negative liberty- freedom from hearing complaints- to try to deny a positive liberty- freedom to speak one's mind. There are legit uses here. Margeret Hamilton being unable to use the computer[1] after the Midnight Computer Wiring Society came in & took the right to rewire the mainframe themselves, denying her her own positive right to compute/freedom from unexpectedly changing systems (itcs kind of both? im undecided!) is an example I think of a lot, an important respin on a classic bit of positive-liberties denying others, an important omitted crucial conflict in a bit of cyberlore immortalized by Steven Levy's book Hackers. Rights do conflict. Whether we head towards a society where things are permitting or denied is a balance I prefer being able to see open, but often this ends up depending on civil cooperation to function, rather than rights proportioned perfectly so. [1] http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/ http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting...

jfengel 5y ago
Everything in society is about resolving those conflicts of freedom peaceably. Democracy is intended to ensure that in the worst case you've got at least 51% of people willing to sign on to the compromise, but if you wield that as a cudgel you'll just make everybody angry all the time. It cannot substitute for sincere discussion. I've got my own fingers to point at who I believe is most responsible, and I don't believe that we'll make much progress until certain people choose to discuss things rather than treating their compatriots as enemies. But it's clear that doing so is an effective tactic for winning elections, especially if you can use the rules to your advantage. So I'm afraid I don't know how to fix that. No system will be effective among people who consider themselves enemies.

jfengel 5y ago

Everything in society is about resolving those conflicts of freedom peaceably. Democracy is intended to ensure that in the worst case you've got at least 51% of people willing to sign on to the compromise, but if you wield that as a cudgel you'll just make everybody angry all the time. It cannot substitute for sincere discussion. I've got my own fingers to point at who I believe is most responsible, and I don't believe that we'll make much progress until certain people choose to discuss things rather than treating their compatriots as enemies. But it's clear that doing so is an effective tactic for winning elections, especially if you can use the rules to your advantage. So I'm afraid I don't know how to fix that. No system will be effective among people who consider themselves enemies.