3 ms·

I know it's an unpopular thing to hear....but freedom is a relative concept. You are only as free as compared to someone/something else. The world is a rough p

I know it's an unpopular thing to hear....but freedom is a relative concept. You are only as free as compared to someone/something else. The world is a rough place, and is not a utopia. The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. Ignoring it, doesn't make those dangers go away. I am not defending everything the gov't does in the name of security, but the fact is that these challenges are not easy. They are doing the best they can. If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation now. The reason these things are so tricky is because many of these attacks happen by 'lone wolves' which are almost impossible to stop. So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence.

mindcrime 13y ago
I know it's an unpopular thing to hear....but freedom is a relative concept. You are only as free as compared to someone/something else. That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free" any more than you be "sort of pregnant". The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. Aaah, the "they hate us because we're free" bit. I hear that a lot, but haven't heard a plausible justification for it yet. From what I've seen, most of the non-westerners who are out to attack the West are mostly pissed off because we occupy lands they consider holy, invade their countries, depose their elected leaders, stage coups, supply weapons and training to "Group A" this week, then switch to considering "Group A" our enemy when it suits us, and generally meddle in their affairs. So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence. No, exactly because I am fully aware of how difficult it is to prevent a single "lone wolf" actor from doing Bad Things. And as regrettable as that is, living in a free society has certain dangers that come along with it. Maybe in some hypothetical Unobtanialand you could impose a draconian dictatorship / totalitarian government sufficient to prevent all violent crime... but would anybody actually prefer to live there? I'm guessing "no". I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it means dying in the process?
- reinhardt 13y ago
  > That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free" any more than you be "sort of pregnant". Now this is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Any human population with size > 1 has to compromise on this inane idealistic notion of "absolute freedom" for individuals, for the simple reason that your freedom to blast the music at 3am conflicts with my freedom to get some sleep. "Sort of free" is the best we can hope for.
  - marcamillion 13y ago
    Exactly...plus....what you consider 'freedom' someone else may consider tyranny, etc. So it is always relative. For instance, some people think living with their parents is freedom. Others think it is akin to jail. It's all relative.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    for the simple reason that your freedom to blast the music at 3am conflicts with my freedom to get some sleep. "Sort of free" is the best we can hope for. To be fair, there are semantic arguments about the nature of "freedom" to be had. But I, for one, don't find your example to contradict the notion of freedom as a binary proposition in the slightest. But I wouldn't contend to have a "freedom to blast music at 3am" in the first place, if you take "blast" to mean "play at such a volume that it interferes with the ability of my neighbor to sleep". shrug
- marcamillion 13y ago
  Aaah, the "they hate us because we're free" bit. I hear that a lot, but haven't heard a plausible justification for it yet. From what I've seen, most of the non-westerners who are out to attack the West are mostly pissed off because we occupy lands they consider holy, invade their countries, depose their elected leaders, stage coups, supply weapons and training to "Group A" this week, then switch to considering "Group A" our enemy when it suits us, and generally meddle in their affairs. I never said "they hate us because we're free". I said that people want to hurt the Western freedoms. Big difference. I am not justifying the actions by any gov't, but ignoring the reality on the ground is equivalent to burying your head in the sand and hoping the bad guys go away. I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it means dying in the process? I hear you, and while I agree with you principle....I suspect that if you were President, you would probably be doing similar things. The mere fact that Obama, who bashed Bush for doing these same things, has gone further than Bush to "protect the motherland" is testament to the enormous pressures on the office of POTUS to prevent major attacks on the homeland. Also...."give me Liberty or give me Death" is a nice trope to roll off your tongue when you aren't a victim of terrorism. I am not saying you are (or aren't). But...quite frequently, many people like to cling to theoretical ideals until they are tested (either experiencing some tragic terrorist event, in this case, that could have been "easily" stopped - or being the 1 person responsible for the safety of everybody else). Either way, these issues are not easy and sticking dogmatically to tropes - despite a changing environment - is not likely a prudent strategy. I don't like the ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties as the next guy, but at the same time....there must be a line on what people are allowed to do and say.
revelation 13y ago
Where does this idea come from that the government is a "normally sane" actor, usually acting in the best interest of the people? If history tells us anything, it is that time and time again, governments are the principal actors in massacres and globe-spanning wars. They are the time-tested source of evil, no doubt about it. I realize you didn't have a holocaust of your own in the USA, but surely you can learn from history.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > I realize you didn't have a holocaust of your own in the USA A frightfully common misconception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_States_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_Sta... We have also had a slavery based economy with unspeakable cruelty and concentration camps (though not death camps, to America's credit...) for Japanese Americans during WWII. In more modern times we have additional examples of atrocities, many of them ongoing. If you look outside of the boarders the picture becomes even worse. Nevertheless, the myth of the benevolent American government persists. Somehow historical atrocities, (relatively) small scale modern domestic atrocities, and atrocities that do not take place within the borders do not count. Current American government being good seems to be axiomatic to a disturbing portion of American citizens. It is assumed that our government is good and from that assumption explanations for everything are developed.
markdown 13y ago
> The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. You really swallowed 'they hate us for our freedom' hook, line and sinker, didn't you? > If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation now. You're arguing that we should prosecute thought-crime, because it might result in a real-world crime? Wow. > So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence. A classic: making an assumption about how others would feel based on your own feelings.
duaneb 13y ago
> people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. This is common propoganda, but is it true? I have no doubt people dislike our country, but do doubt that it is because of our democratic ideals....

mindcrime 13y ago

I know it's an unpopular thing to hear....but freedom is a relative concept. You are only as free as compared to someone/something else. That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free" any more than you be "sort of pregnant". The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. Aaah, the "they hate us because we're free" bit. I hear that a lot, but haven't heard a plausible justification for it yet. From what I've seen, most of the non-westerners who are out to attack the West are mostly pissed off because we occupy lands they consider holy, invade their countries, depose their elected leaders, stage coups, supply weapons and training to "Group A" this week, then switch to considering "Group A" our enemy when it suits us, and generally meddle in their affairs. So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence. No, exactly because I am fully aware of how difficult it is to prevent a single "lone wolf" actor from doing Bad Things. And as regrettable as that is, living in a free society has certain dangers that come along with it. Maybe in some hypothetical Unobtanialand you could impose a draconian dictatorship / totalitarian government sufficient to prevent all violent crime... but would anybody actually prefer to live there? I'm guessing "no". I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it means dying in the process?

reinhardt 13y ago
> That is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Freedom is binary, you are either subject to coercive force being applied to deny you your freedom of choice, or you're not. You can't be "sort of free" any more than you be "sort of pregnant". Now this is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard uttered on HN. Any human population with size > 1 has to compromise on this inane idealistic notion of "absolute freedom" for individuals, for the simple reason that your freedom to blast the music at 3am conflicts with my freedom to get some sleep. "Sort of free" is the best we can hope for.
- marcamillion 13y ago
  Exactly...plus....what you consider 'freedom' someone else may consider tyranny, etc. So it is always relative. For instance, some people think living with their parents is freedom. Others think it is akin to jail. It's all relative.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  for the simple reason that your freedom to blast the music at 3am conflicts with my freedom to get some sleep. "Sort of free" is the best we can hope for. To be fair, there are semantic arguments about the nature of "freedom" to be had. But I, for one, don't find your example to contradict the notion of freedom as a binary proposition in the slightest. But I wouldn't contend to have a "freedom to blast music at 3am" in the first place, if you take "blast" to mean "play at such a volume that it interferes with the ability of my neighbor to sleep". shrug
marcamillion 13y ago
Aaah, the "they hate us because we're free" bit. I hear that a lot, but haven't heard a plausible justification for it yet. From what I've seen, most of the non-westerners who are out to attack the West are mostly pissed off because we occupy lands they consider holy, invade their countries, depose their elected leaders, stage coups, supply weapons and training to "Group A" this week, then switch to considering "Group A" our enemy when it suits us, and generally meddle in their affairs. I never said "they hate us because we're free". I said that people want to hurt the Western freedoms. Big difference. I am not justifying the actions by any gov't, but ignoring the reality on the ground is equivalent to burying your head in the sand and hoping the bad guys go away. I don't know what it is with people today... as far as I'm concerned, "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just some archaic catch-phrase to study in the history books... it is the very definition of what it means to live. If we aren't free, what else could matter more than trying to become so - even if it means dying in the process? I hear you, and while I agree with you principle....I suspect that if you were President, you would probably be doing similar things. The mere fact that Obama, who bashed Bush for doing these same things, has gone further than Bush to "protect the motherland" is testament to the enormous pressures on the office of POTUS to prevent major attacks on the homeland. Also...."give me Liberty or give me Death" is a nice trope to roll off your tongue when you aren't a victim of terrorism. I am not saying you are (or aren't). But...quite frequently, many people like to cling to theoretical ideals until they are tested (either experiencing some tragic terrorist event, in this case, that could have been "easily" stopped - or being the 1 person responsible for the safety of everybody else). Either way, these issues are not easy and sticking dogmatically to tropes - despite a changing environment - is not likely a prudent strategy. I don't like the ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties as the next guy, but at the same time....there must be a line on what people are allowed to do and say.

revelation 13y ago

Where does this idea come from that the government is a "normally sane" actor, usually acting in the best interest of the people? If history tells us anything, it is that time and time again, governments are the principal actors in massacres and globe-spanning wars. They are the time-tested source of evil, no doubt about it. I realize you didn't have a holocaust of your own in the USA, but surely you can learn from history.

jlgreco 13y ago
> I realize you didn't have a holocaust of your own in the USA A frightfully common misconception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_States_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#United_Sta... We have also had a slavery based economy with unspeakable cruelty and concentration camps (though not death camps, to America's credit...) for Japanese Americans during WWII. In more modern times we have additional examples of atrocities, many of them ongoing. If you look outside of the boarders the picture becomes even worse. Nevertheless, the myth of the benevolent American government persists. Somehow historical atrocities, (relatively) small scale modern domestic atrocities, and atrocities that do not take place within the borders do not count. Current American government being good seems to be axiomatic to a disturbing portion of American citizens. It is assumed that our government is good and from that assumption explanations for everything are developed.

markdown 13y ago

> The fact is, people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. You really swallowed 'they hate us for our freedom' hook, line and sinker, didn't you? > If they didn't act on it, and this kid did in fact do something, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation now. You're arguing that we should prosecute thought-crime, because it might result in a real-world crime? Wow. > So as I said, this could have gone the other way - at which point I am sure you would be cursing the FBI for incompetence. A classic: making an assumption about how others would feel based on your own feelings.

duaneb 13y ago

> people want to hurt the Western freedoms that many take for granted. This is common propoganda, but is it true? I have no doubt people dislike our country, but do doubt that it is because of our democratic ideals....