3 ms·
What freedom? Freedom implies the ability to do things. You can't do that if you can't afford to live. Keep in mind MIT's living wage calculation doesn't inc
by actually_a_dog 4y ago
What freedom? Freedom implies the ability to do things. You can't do that if you can't afford to live. Keep in mind MIT's living wage calculation doesn't include things like savings and any sort of entertainment. What kind of life is that?
- olalonde 4y agoI meant it as in "negative liberty" or the "freedom from interference by other people". This is how it's usually defined when people say "free society", the opposite being an "authoritarian society".
- paul_x_miller 4y ago
- sudosysgen 4y agoWell, not quite. Negative liberty is an ill defined concept that descends from the need to santize the religious concept of god-given right. In reality, anyone exercising their right to property, for example, interferes with anyone else who might want to use it. It is only justifiable insofar as such an interference allows for more positive liberty in general, which is why positive rights are the only ones that actually matter (indeed, the only pure negative rights that don't imply interference in the actions are other are in factr the positive freedom to do what one wants with oneself's body). While your interpration is the classical liberal (and religious) dogma, generally when people hear free society they understand it as a society where you can reasonably do what you want, not a society where property rights are absolute. And indeed such an interpretation is much more coherent.
- olalonde 4y agoI'm surprised this is causing so much confusion. > when people hear free society they understand it as a society where you can reasonably do what you want This is indeed what I meant. Hope this clears it up!
- actually_a_dog 4y agoThen you must agree that a substantial portion of Americans are not "free" in this sense. So, how is it a "free" society again?