3 ms·
What’s your point? He’s not arguing for anarchism. He’s arguing there are some areas of life that are best left ungovernable and up to individuals to decide. It
by drdaeman 3mo ago
What’s your point? He’s not arguing for anarchism. He’s arguing there are some areas of life that are best left ungovernable and up to individuals to decide. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation. Every constitution out there carves out such areas.
- teach 3mo agoAlthough I generally agree with you, it's really hard to make the case that it's not all-or-nothing for him when he literally says > we either live in a world with freedom or we don’t
- drdaeman 3mo agoI see that as a poor phrasing, where a slogan made it through. I don’t see a maximalist/anarchist intent overall, my understanding is that that slogan about freedoms should be interpreted within a fairly narrow scope. Just strike that weird nugget out, I guess?
- 5701652400 3mo agomy point is: any talk of "freedom" when you are a corporate slave or living on government handouts is nonsense it is all wannabe lemon-stand freedom.
- drdaeman 3mo agoIMHO, freedom is not one thing or even a value. It's a concept that applies to a lot of stuff, speech, thought, association, and tool use included. In practice, one has some freedoms but not some others. I fail to see any need to have them all to be able to discuss about one in particular.
- 5701652400 3mo agoblurring lines of definitions, I see. you can call a potato a freedom, if you wish. this is just counter-productive. arguing about definitions is dangeours slippery slope.