On liberty: losses and gains

[MarcusA]

The loss of liberty is a far greater evil than the loss of life. The religious speak of the freedom to worship as they wish but only think of themselves. Will we ever achieve "absolute freedom" from them, or is it an impossible  dream?

[Asmodean]

Now this one right here is something I can, and have half a mind to, talk about at considerable length.

There is such a thing as absolute freedom. It exists in any world of one. It is a lonely place, if implemented.

Liberty, liberty and death or liberty in death - it's all a matter of compromises. When two individuals have an area of interaction, they will eventually have to establish ways and practices for their interactions. It may be that the strong will dictate to the weak, or that they will achieve a give-and-take barter system or something else entirely. Whatever it is, it will limit their individual freedoms in so far as those specific interactions are concerned. Now, expand the universe of two to a society of thousands to billions. That's a lot of points of interaction. A lot of choices to be made, forced into or forced upon others.

Thus, life vs. liberty is not as binary a proposition as the likes of Henry might try to sell it, if looked upon broadly. After all, self-determination for a nation is something different than that for one of its subjects. Besides, it all "depends." for instance, there are some freedoms a lot of people will happily give up for the preservation of life - or even for a small measure of comfort. A lot of freedoms, in fact. Even self-determination, if it comes to that. There are those who would choose slavery over "greater hardship," never mind death, giving us whole industries in some parts of the world, running on debt bondage.

One can discuss it in the abstract terms of "greater evil," but generally speaking, people want to live. Having secured that - or been secured it for, they start broadening their ambitions.

So, how does one maximise freedom for the individual without losing social cohesion to the degree of a Mad Max universe..? If I knew that, I'd probably run for office of some sort on that platform. For now, pointing out that sometimes there really ought not be a law will have to suffice.

There is a lot more to say here... Might come back to it and expand my own version of "On Liberty."

[billy rubin]

sartre had sonething to say aboutbthis

[Old Seer]

Absolute freedom incorporates both doing good and evil.

[Asmodean]

Absolute freedom incorporates both doing good and evil.

Or has no regard for either. I suppose one is a subset of the other though, as one may very well incorporate something that way.

[MarcusA]

sartre had sonething to say aboutbthis

What did he say, billy? In the end, he admitted to himself, using words, that words were not enough. This much I know, the man had a way with words.

[MarcusA]

Absolute freedom incorporates both doing good and evil.

Doing evil for good reasons leaves us only with a bad conscience which is never freedom.

[MarcusA]

To me, absolute freedom smacks of confirmation bias.

[MarcusA]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." What we do to each other is always good with a touch of evil.

[MarcusA]

Liberty is to die for. We all die.

[MarcusA]

Erasmus praised folly, for from folly comes glory. The tragedy is that such is life, such is comedy.

[MarcusA]

Eternal Recurrence. There's no escaping the past, except by changing our minds. Small changes are incremental.

[MarcusA]

Man simply is. - Jean-Paul Sartre

God bless that Catholic bastard.

[MarcusA]

Liberty makes everything as clear as mud. "Dust to dust," the rest is mud.

[Asmodean]

Man simply is. - Jean-Paul Sartre

God bless that Catholic bastard.

Yeah, I miss the days when some things could "just be."

It's a rhetorical lament - there have not been such days in my memory. Take the abovementioned man as an example. Religions have all sorts of more-or-less divine reasons for that man to be. Biology has them bees and them flowers. Also sex. Hot and steamy sex. Still, one seldom gets the answer as to why a man is. Personally, I think it's an invalid question. "What is the cause of a man?" Why assumes motives that may or may not have been there to begin with and may or may not have persisted, changed or unchanged, until the moment of asking.