Hello guys, lately mumblemumble started a topic "The transgender bathroom argument" and one of the topics that came up was the freedom, freedom of doing what you want against someone using the freedom for another reason (bad reasons mostly). Sometimes the subject went towards this direction, and I think that this will bring another good discussion.
What is freedom of choice? On my opnion, Freedom of choice is the possibility of choosing anything you want, anytime you want. From "Do want fries with that" to "Anyone in this classroom can be a president if you work hard enough". From the moment the newer generations were born (myself included, i'm from '92) we were taught that we could be anything we wanted.
But after a while we learned that, we won't just choose, we would need to study, work, train to achive that, and later on you discover that some of this choices are just too hard. What comes then? Depression, sadness, people that don't know what to do with their lifes, unhappy people working at a horrible job so that they can afford rent and an internet connection. This people are mostly filled with regrets of things they didn't do or gave up.
That is the background I know, many people, including my sister, fell victim to this cycle. Not knowing what to do, choose the wrong path, now regret choosing it, and is unhappy because can't find her path.
So what are the benefits of choice? I may've been too focused on the bad things and cannot see the good thinks about too much freedom.
Interesting topic!
The "problem" of "too much freedom" from the point of view of "What should I do with my life?" as you describe it is rampant nowadays, at least from where I sit. There is much handwringing about treating every child as special, everyone gets a trophy, kind of thinking, as being damaging, and this point of view is not without merit.
Recently I saw the basic problem summed up very well. Children these days, or at least in my day, were/are encouraged from an angle that does not truly encourage; it merely flatters. I was often told, growing up, "You're so smart," which made me lazy and entitled. If I'm smart, then obviously I should expect good things and a happy life. Turns out that's not how it works.
Instead of "You're so smart," a much better encouragement would have been "Look at what you achieved." Reinforcing accomplishment instead of "inherent virtue" gives a person not just satisfaction, but incentive to achieve more.
But I'm straying a bit from the question the thread seems to ask: is "too much freedom" damaging? I don't think so. Taking away freedom seems unlikely to produce greater satisfaction. "I was forced to work on this assembly line since I was 12, so the work makes me happy and fulfilled." Doesn't ring true, does it?
But I think that another ingredient needs to be added that I lacked as a child: a sense of responsibility for one's own direction in life - the knowledge that one's talent and potential is there to be realized, not squandered; that every choice means sacrificing an alternative, and that no decision is a decision (usually a terrible one).
The way they teach about freedom and choice helps the "What I should do with my life"
While I agree that "I've been forced to work in an assembly line since I was 12" dosen't ring nice, being 30 without a perspective of how to live, regreating the collage you took, the job you have and how you live dosen't sound nice either.
I'm not some coronel that want's to control everything, but i'm aware that Total freedom will never be achived in this modern world, so what if your life was Controlled Freedom? I already talked a little about "Sesame Credits" and some problems it might bring. Some say that this is a way to enslave people, making them walk in the line that the government wants.
You will have a "points system" that will talk about who you are. Your actions may increase or decrease the amount of points you have, and this points will define how good of a person you are. Coming from a country where is good to fool or lie to someone else, I really like this idea.
Very interesting post.
A few things people never think of is 1, freedom is always at odds with ITSELF (like it or not, the right to freedom of religion, and freedom of gay people are ALWAYS at odds somewhere along the line) and you need to lay out where freedoms start and stop.
Second, freedom is limited by RULES put in place by society. For instance, drinking and driving is illegal...now, this does limit my freedom, its just a fact. Is this bad? no. I'd much rather be inconvenienced with limited freedom than have everyone else killing others in accidents.
That is the main idea : what is the right balance of freedom? Obviously rape, murder, child molestation, these are limited, and not given as "freedoms" for very obvious reasons, but other stuff which is risky factors like drinking and driving is also limited. We also have checks and balances to prevent people from getting into dangerous situations, since criminals do not follow rules, and will try not to get caught, like sex offender tracking, loss prevention teams in stores, ect....even though both exist, there are STILL sex offenders / thieves. But these systems stop the effective attacks substantially which is why I had such an issue : Sex offenders can easily go into a girls locker room, peep at girls, and people can do jack shit about it. Especially if theres no cameras, and its just gawking, theres no "proof" or wrongdoing, and them being a man doesn't count if they say they are a girl, even if they have an erect penis, and male body hair.
So with every bit of freedom we have either given by law, society, ourselves (do we give ourselves freedom to be promiscuous, use drugs, eat terrible foods, ect?) has a price, and we need to weigh out : Is the BENEFIT of a freedom worth the PRICE? Something so few people examine.
Oh, and "freedoms" aren't determined by law, but by society. If you are in a house party, you are kind of under their rules, and limited by them. You can leave, but your freedoms are subject to change while there....that is another thing.
The only limit there should be on freedom is to ensure one person's freedom doesn't infringe another person's. This was a founding philosophy for the U.S., actually -- though its never been fully implemented nor realized (certainly not by the founding fathers whom collaboratively decided freedom didn't apply to women nor slaves).
Only problem is, this goes both ways. Wishing for safety and thus prosecution of drug users / pushers goes against "freedom" of people using drugs. Protection of children and women from would be offenders limits would be offenders rights.
Your idea, while not completely bad, isn't functional, as anytime 2 freedoms conflict, your idea falls completely flat.
And this exactly the problem with the bathroom debate. Comparing "freedom of expression" (limited use, limited benefit, not crucial in society) compared to freedom of safety, where women wish to be safe, and segregated from men (read : anyone with a penis). And while it's commonly argued trans are at risk, they are such a minority, its difficult to justify risking womens safety, in situations where any man at any time can enter a womans restroom / locker / shelter, and excuse it with "being a girl".
Saying rape is illegal is moot,, as if they get raped, its too late... Would you want a serial killer / rapist babysitting your family members under the excuse of rape is illegal? Fuck no...
Which leads me to another point. Preventative factors. Driving drunk for instance, by itself is harmless. Starting a car when hammered causes 0 harm, but has potential for more. This is another reason why freedom should be limited, risk.
The level of ignorance by transgender-o-phobes is appallingly high. Transgendered women are biologically women -- they were born wired to be female though possessing some male features but have since had hormone therapy and surgery making them women, now being forced into bathrooms.
There have been exactly zero documented cases of transgendered persons raping non-transgendered persons in bathrooms. There have been many more cases of priests raping children in churches ... parents have much more valid and real cause to fear for their children's safety in a church than from a transgendered person. Completely baseless fears have no defensibility to take away an innocent person's freedoms, it is beyond insane to prosecute and oppress someone because of your made-up fears that have no basis in reality. Making up claims about "those people" is demonization, that's what Hitler did to rile up the German people against the Jews, McCarthy against liberals calling them communist infiltrators and for centuries (and still ongoing) whites against blacks calling them lazy, mooching and inferior.
Chibi, You miss the point entirely. NOTHING is stopping a random pervert from throwing on a dress, saying hes a woman, and getting into these facilities. Nothing at all. You didn't hear about the case where a guy got into a womans shelter saying his name was jessica, and then assaulted women?
This is the big issue, the title or "transgender" is so vague it can be given or taken at any moment, at a whim. Add onto that how most grievous sex offenders have habits of crossdressing or such, and you have a real issue.
What keeps a sex offender from lounging in the girls lockerroom? Nothing...this is the fucked up part.
Also, everything always has SOME basis, even if its not always the full on stereotype, And considering the higher rate of transgender mental illness / drug abuse, the fact theres absolutely no restrictions for sex offenders, an everything else, weighing the "freedom" of a very few people to the safety of all girls and women should be a no brainer.
And I've cited cases of misconduct / assault by those using the transgender excuse, wether of not they "were" trans is irrelevant, as the rule still frees them to enter such places, so for that purpose, ANYBODY "can" be trans, because anyone who calls them-self it, and enters, for that purpose is "legally" trans.
And that is the biggest issue, the legal distinguish ability betweeen having any bathroom being public to both genders, and the current trans rule is just WORDAGE, and if someone says the right thing. Men stop being questioned once the T word is mentioned, because then those questioning them can be legally persecuted.
It, in a way reminds me of the situation of tynan, and the steam keys. legally he cannot "sell" steam keys, but really, all that is is wording...what is the difference between you buying a steam key now, and buying it now, and being GIVEN a steam key later? Wording...absolutely nothing else. And in the same vien, men being allowed in the womens restroom, and "just trans" being allowed, is ALSO only wording.
Please note, the thing checked for is if someone SELF identifies, which can be changed at any time, and would be extremely hard to scrutinize, under such rule. Any man, at any time, could "self identify" to essentially get a free pass. And this has happened.
Yo mumble, you already made a thread for the bathroom question, remember? You going to stink up every conversation on the board with your bigoted dreck? We used to have a nice thread here.
Take it this way >>>>>>>> (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=20030.0)
You were derailing just as I was, more importantly its still SURROUNDING the argument of the benefits of freedom, giving a SPECIFIC example how risks involved with giving freedoms can make the freedoms unjust, or at very least, how there MUST be checks and balances, which unfortunately for something as abstract as transgenderism, is next to impossible.
So don't even give me that. And do not insult me.
Mumble, you haven't been insulted. We understand that this is a really important issue to you, but it's not the point of this thread and I'm asking you not to derail it. Please use an appropriate thread next time.
Let's all get back on the topic of personal freedom. (Lol, did anyone else catch the irony in that?)
I consider "bigot" an insult, considering how its thrown about as such a hot word, but, fine.
------------------------
With the assessment of freedom, people must understand freedom is not an "end all be all", and that "full freedom" is the perfect situation. This is flawed. True, absolute, unlimited freedom is anarchy, which is also impossible as anarchy is only temporary, as SOME force will step into the power vacuum and take control. So instead of shooting for "full freedom" we need to shoot for freedoms / RULES, analyzing why we want such freedoms, what rules we need, and how we will prevent all the common problems in society with law / established rules. Things like theft, relationship issues, fighting, helping disadvantaged, ect, any society with rules (read : less freedom) has rules and guidelines to follow to protect people from / prevent these issues.
And for EVERY SINGLE FREEDOM GIVEN, we MUST carefully look at what risks there are, and what problems we could face.
For instance, lets say we give, or take away rights to arm to any given place.
Even without knowing the place, there are some effects we can take for granted.
-If rights are given, influx of arms will present itself in the market. Government will have slightly less of a tyrannical hold, if applicable. Criminals will be slightly less at advantage, as a law abiding citizen can fight back LEGALLY, without coming under fire from the government for illegal possession. Crime rate will generally lower, since nobody wants to get shot. HOWEVER, suicide through firearm becomes more of a thing (as well as a possible rise in suicide due to ease of use) and fire arm accidents become a higher statistic due to guns being more common.
-For rights being taken away, property is often destroyed / removed with no compensation (unless planned otherwise) which infringes on rights of owners of said arms. Government has more room to control things due to disarmed people (most tyrants disarm the people first thing). Criminals, thugs, or other illegal groups will still have guns, because if someone is a career criminal, following law isn't in their playbook. Not only that but they are more brazen since, outside police (easy to avoid) they will not be getting shot. However accidents and other incidents from firearms might lower from them being less common OUTSIDE criminal circles.
As you can see, both have pros and cons, but we need to look at which is more important. Is stopping criminality by arming citizens better, or is stopping suicide by gun? Is trying to remove a potential risk, and bringing in another potential risk worth it? This is a problem with all freedoms / bans / laws. This exact question.
And to answer that, we need to judge what everything is worth. Safety, the value of a human life, "freedom of expression", spiritual freedom , protection of children, ect, and weigh them all against each other in dozens of ways in dozens of scenarios, with dozens of outcomes.
Just as an exercise, we should ask outselves the EXACT value of these things...what are the values of :
-safety
-"freedom of expression" (read - NOT freedom of speech)
-freedom of speech
-protection of women
-protection of children
-spiritual freedom
-ect
If we are completely honest on how valuable things are and how maybe some things aren't AS valuable, this is the first step.
Second step is being able to actively see the side effects / consequences, intended but especially UNINTENDED from doing something. In the gun control example, suicide rate rising / criminals being better armed than civilians is usually not "intended" but still happens, and still has dire effects. So we need to plan ahead, and maybe take steps to prevent this, AND weigh an action with this in mind.
My rambling : a practical vision of FREEDOM.
Gathering fact :
- Some people want/believe they want freedom.
- Some people don't want/can't deal too much of it.
- Some people don't want/want others to have freedom over themselves.
Analysis :
- There's conflict of interest pretty much everywhere.
- Tolerance is only a step before concession. ...or before tunneling into a multiverse where thing go how we want it
- Concession come from people agreeing with each other.
- Agreement come more easily when all party are considered equal (that is until we agree on an intellectual metric)
Result :
- Gotta build a system of freedom-limiting rules that can shape and reshape as needed. As long as it work, it can be a participative democratic or a benevolent dictatorship.
- "work" being defined as peer consensual agreement with all "equal party" concerned.
As long as there is two distinct person, they will bicker. Good things we can appreciate conflict.
Still worth wondering if a technological-Hivemind would be interesting. I just hope it's not Hivemind(TM)Facebook-Googleplex.
I agree with Kegereneku.
I don't like do generalize things, but let's talk about a simple job.
You are asked to make an excel chart of some data and compare it, with colors, some formulas for price and basic formating. After done you will deliver it to your boss. Now you are a beast at excel, you can even program on it and make absurd calculations.
In the first instance, you are bound to a set of orders, on how to it, where to start, where to end, which formulas and templates to use.
In the secound instance, ou are just given a a line explaining what you have to do.
On which case do you think you are gonna perform better? I would for sure work better in the first one.
If society is bound to a certain number of rules, duties, etc, wouldn't it be alot more efficient? I'm not saying bound like the laws of a country, I mean bound like "if you don't do it, you will receive a lower salary". In this society, You are not limited on doing just one thing, you can always do more, work harder. But you are disallowed to do less than a certain point.
I know application is diffent than concept, but as a Concept, i'd like to live in a society like such.
Quote from: Chibiabos on May 27, 2016, 01:29:30 PM
The only limit there should be on freedom is to ensure one person's freedom doesn't infringe another person's.
Came here to post this. Anything else is statism.
Quote from: Chibiabos on May 27, 2016, 01:29:30 PM
The only limit there should be on freedom is to ensure one person's freedom doesn't infringe another person's.
I've read the thread, and was about to say the same thing in general, but the topic of freedom is much more complex than blacks and whites. There is always grey matter inbetween derived from people itself as everyone is different than other. As what mumblemumble said - total freedom is anarchy which will produce some kind of ruling power or oppressor sooner than later. I agree with mumblemumble in general.
There should be some vague lines drawn as law based on the principals, describing where ones freedom ends and the others begin.
Yeah, the gray areas are the ones we must take care of. But before we enter in it, let me try to screetch the extremes:
If you put the black and the white on the paper, what would turn out better for a society?
A rigid controlled method scheme that infringes in your freedom.
or
A total freedom with no rules, duties or anything, an anarchy.
On my look, both will be controlled by an authoritarian dictator that chooses what is right and wrong. I believe every society is bound to end in this way, from a small friendship of 5 guys who peek at the womans bathroom to a country with over 2 billion peoples.
What would be the best way to blend this two?
I think we don't need to "take care of" this grey matter - we need a grey matter to take care of itself. Both of extremities you mentioned will end up with some kind of dictatorship, especially the first one (1984, Orwell). Balancing the two isn't exactly possible, but I think the best way is to set boundaries by as few laws as possible. Private property, freedom of speech and independent court (judgment) are most important things that should be protected by law.
The most practical rule I live by is:
Freedom of one person ends where freedom of another person begins.
Quote from: b0rsuk on June 14, 2016, 03:38:48 AM
The most practical rule I live by is:
Freedom of one person ends where freedom of another person begins.
Word. This one already covers at least 90% of the issues at hand.
Wait, wait... So, if someone's freedom ends where another person's starts, then that's not the problem. The problem is the definition of freedom.
I personally believe that freedom should only be limited to the rights that is defined, standardized, and measurable. Freedom of speech is kinda bullshit since anything you say could offend someone's freedom of safety, or whatever, because of their mindset.
So, I think this code: One's freedom ends when it violates another's clearly defined rights would be better than the previous.
I would really hope that someday, eveeything is quantized, so that everything is measurable and thus end all ambiguity contained in summarized words in rules. But, of course, that day would never come.
Quote from: Miner_239 on July 10, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Freedom of speech is kinda bullshit since anything you say could offend someone's freedom of safety, or whatever, because of their mindset.
Then I think you're misunderstanding what freedom of speech in most first world countries means.
Freedom of speech, at the very basis, means that speech alone cannot be a reason to detain you and throw you in jail (by the government). That's basically it, it has nothing to do with the quality of speech, or the content, or the target of the speech.
Granted, it gets
way more complicated in real life because most countries still have a defined limit where "speech oversteps their boundaries". This is incredibly hard to define.
As an example, in Germany, you are free to criticize the government and everything the government does. You're free to assemble and protest any decision the government does etc. because that is freedom of speech.
However, it is illegal to assemble and call for violence to others or the government. Go to a public place and yell "all black people and their children should be killed" and you'll immediately be arrested and go to trial. Why? Because the German government considers this to be hate speech, so for the German government, you "overstepped your boundaries with free speech."
So all in all, freedom of speech can be summarized and it can be well defined:
"Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. "Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, political correctness, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform, perjury, and oppression. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not.
Quote from: Skissor on July 10, 2016, 11:36:20 AM
"Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. "
I agree, but there's no one stopping someone else from feeling offended and cause a risk of personal, off-the-law retaliation. I think I'm biased because of all the feminazi memes in memecenter, but if someone thinks of an example, then, as my literature teacher say, it's a representation of what our society might be.
My point is that speech should not be spoken if it harms. If you (and you alone, since talking to others about it is also opining) consider your opinion alone does more harm than good, then you should either change the mindset of the would-be offendee first, or stay in silence. I try to always adhere to this principle in hope that people would never share an offending belief without a previous discussion or brainstorm.
As I'm currently not in my school's dorm and almost all my reference for my novels are there, I can't elaborate more on how rights and freedom should work in my ideal world for fear that I'll mislead someone here. That is not what anyone wanted.
I sure agree, basically this is called the "Freedom of speech, but not freedom of consequences" kind of "rule". Basically, FOS grants you the protection from the government when it comes to your personal opinion, however, this does not apply to your fellow neighbours and society in general.
- Freedom of one person ends where freedom of another person begins.I've always considered this quote to be a thought-terminating clichés, the sort of thing you say when you have nothing to say or when it serve your personal interest.
Someone do something you
don't like consider harmful ? <INSERT QUOTE>
Someone keep you from doing something they
don't like consider harmful ? <INSERT QUOTE>
QuoteAnything else is statism.
And this remark make me analyze it.
The opposite of Statism would be Anarchism, but I don't think Anarchy actually exist.
Don't look at me like that, I mean that Anarchy is by definition "not a system" yet a system appear as soon as a Entity interact with another Entity with a huge chance of negative "punch in your face" feedback. So any anarchic
state is simply a succession of
States with no definite power structure, and adding more peoples in the mix simply cement it those to last longer.
Oh I'm sure some Libertarian "figured it out" and say the objective is a process toward maximizing freedom.
The flaw I see is that it's fundamentally incompatible with short-term technology (until AI and universal fabricator) and long-term : a finite universe (unless you are the only life-form in it). At some point you'll have to negotiate, make agreement, write rules...
So, anything
else might be
StatismPolity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity) but we will eventually find some that is more enjoyable than all the previous ones.
Last :
Quoting a wonderful website about
making SF (including imagining the laws of a colony (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacelaw.php)) that should eat up your free time :
Quote[...]the point is that Libertarian rule only works in an area where the the population is One. Things get tense where there are two people.
And if you get a small Libertarian community, you will have either
[a] Open warfare
A cohesive group who will hunt you down like the dangerous non-conformist mad dog you are
[c] A community of sheep enslaved by the biggest meanest sociopathic thug who just happens to be quicker on the draw than anyone else. Probably quicker than you, too.
Or [d] A cry by the community to get rid of Libertarian social Darwinism and replace it with the rule of Space Law so as to establish a place where "decent people" can live. Which means it'll suddenly have rules, laws, lawyers, treaties, politicians, and everything else you fled from on Terra.
Kegen made me look up on what libertarian is. That was indeed a good read. I fully agree with Kegen's post right there, although that remark made me think that if freedom need to end, then who would stop it? If it is the goverment, then is that not statism, too?
I don't know what that site Kegereneku linked is (rockets?), but I wouldn't use it as a dictionary for libertarianism in any case. The Wikipedia article is a pretty good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Keep in mind that Libertarianism dovetails neatly with Objectivism, the two having much in common (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand))). You could think of Libertarianism as the political expression of Objectivism's philosophy and ethics.
I disagree with the idea that Libertarian rule is fundamentally impossible with a population >1, if that is the point of the "Space Law" author. The assumption seems rooted in the notion that Anarchism = Libertarianism which is simply false. Libertarianism absolutely requires a government of limited size and scope, or, clearly enumerated powers and unenumerated rights. A Rimworld colony is NOT a libertarian paradise (neither is Somalia, thanks). Any colony is a loose collective of individuals with little regard for laws, little in the way of private ownership, perfectly capable of initiating violence... all the antithesis of libertarianism. If a Rimworld colony were libertarian, you would see pawns NEGOTIATING with each other for what they need, instead of collective ownership of nearly everything.
The only "reason" that "libertarianism doesn't work" is because it requires subordinating that most basic of human impulses (tribalism) to the intellect, in a rigorous application of logic, which is more effort than most people can be persuaded to.
I have only one comment to really make, this is my personal belief and in my honest opinion how the framers of our nation wanted us to be. We have freedom to do what we want without prosecution until your individual freedom takes away someone else's freedom. IE, I have the freedom to own a gun and uses it as I see fit; however, when you uses that gun to take someone else's life, you just used your freedom to take their freedom away. That is the line right there. You cannot uses your freedom to take someone else's freedom of anything. It sounds like a circle, but it is a concept that has to be described that way.
Quote from: Skissor on July 10, 2016, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: Miner_239 on July 10, 2016, 11:03:31 AM
Then I think you're misunderstanding what freedom of speech in most first world countries means.
Freedom of speech, at the very basis, means that speech alone cannot be a reason to detain you and throw you in jail (by the government). That's basically it, it has nothing to do with the quality of speech, or the content, or the target of the speech.
Granted, it gets way more complicated in real life because most countries still have a defined limit where "speech oversteps their boundaries". This is incredibly hard to define.
As an example, in Germany, you are free to criticize the government and everything the government does. You're free to assemble and protest any decision the government does etc. because that is freedom of speech.
However, it is illegal to assemble and call for violence to others or the government. Go to a public place and yell "all black people and their children should be killed" and you'll immediately be arrested and go to trial. Why? Because the German government considers this to be hate speech, so for the German government, you "overstepped your boundaries with free speech."
So all in all, freedom of speech can be summarized and it can be well defined:
"Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. "
Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, political correctness, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform, perjury, and oppression. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not.
there's many problems with this. First, you say screaming "kill black people" will get you arrested.. This is true, but groups who advocate KILLING cops, white people, and other groups... Do they face the same often? It happens, but nowhere near as much.
Another is where exactly is the line. Europe and Germany is a good example. You say people cannot criticize government, but people who VERY POLITELY express concerns are slapped with hate speech, when they mention theft, rape, sexual assault, assault, and other issues which are very real.
So this presents a VERY big problem : which is more important? Open dialog, or protecting feelings? If you have open dialog, anyone can discuss anything, no topic is taboo or off the table, but feelings will get hurt.
Where as if you protect EVERYONE'S feelings, any speech or action which someone CLAIMS to be offensive is then immediately under fire, and possibly shut down.
Lets look at a hypothetical scenario : group of former drug addicts complain about drugs in rimworld, claim it gives them ptsd thinking about days of addiction. They DEMAND rimworld either remove all drug references, or shut down.... Should this group prevail? My guess is no. Why? They aren't physically being hurt, pressured to use drugs, and the representation of drugs is mostly truthful.
Now really, this logic should be applied to all cases, and if you will do this, you see censorship is a big problem.
Even direct criticism shouldn't be stifled. Anytime you block ANY criticism under hate speech, you make it illegal to point out flaws and problems ..
Quote from: sadpickle on September 12, 2016, 04:27:05 PM
I don't know what that site Kegereneku linked is (rockets?), but I wouldn't use it as a dictionary for libertarianism in any case. The Wikipedia article is a pretty good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
[...]
I disagree with the idea that Libertarian rule is fundamentally impossible with a population >1, if that is the point of the "Space Law" author. The assumption seems rooted in the notion that Anarchism = Libertarianism which is simply false. Libertarianism absolutely requires a government of limited size and scope, or, clearly enumerated powers and unenumerated rights.
Although I never said that website was a source to define libertarianism, it doesn't get its definition wrong.
I did said "
Oh I'm sure some Libertarian "figured it out" and say the objective is a process toward maximizing freedom." because to me the problem is that the stated objective enter in conflict with the mean supposed to achieve it : More freedom, using as little rules (or decentralized at least) as possible, since rules are not easy to define in quality & reach rather than quantity.
You could follow 10 000 longingly-worded laws and have more freedom and choices than following a dozens shortly-worded laws.
Said another way : Libertarianism is the belief that if you don't try to facilitate cooperation on a large scale, it will (somehow) happen on its own.
What the "Atomic Rocket" website (which is about SF storytelling) pointed out, is just that (to make a good sf story) you can't have your
cakespace-colony without setting up a reason/system that make it work as a colony (for how long and how well is left up to your imagination) and demonstrating it with the flaws in the "no laws" logic that is in fact held by many young "libertarian".
As for "Objectivism" (stupid autocorrect), let's say it's not really a ...logical philosophy. No really, Ayn Rand is a loony who try to sell a self-fulfilling fantasy that "happiness will happen" if everybody somehow bow in front of "obviously great people" or people claiming to have more merit (and need) than others. Her thesis-novel "Atlas shrugged" is basically a bunch of reality-warping super-genius against moronic
peoplebot that have less sense of self-preservation than actual parasite, and it's supposed to stand for the real world.
Or said another way, it's in my opinion a fancy and sophisticated as hell way of saying "I believe that people who can pursue their self-interest shouldn't feel bad for exploiting other weakness for that"
It's anybody's choices to believe that, but as far as I know letting an human obtain
unchecked power over other peoples never led to maximizing individual happiness (at least without mass drugging or killing which is a bad sign).
Aside, I wouldn't say a Rimworld colony demonstrate any sort of polity, for there is no actual AI, only predictable bot mimicking life, not actually living. If each colonist had it's own AI motivated by survival/self-interest I don't say, but until then...
Quote from: mumblemumble on September 13, 2016, 09:42:03 AM
[...]
So this presents a VERY big problem : which is more important? Open dialog, or protecting feelings? If you have open dialog, anyone can discuss anything, no topic is taboo or off the table, but feelings will get hurt.
[...]
I don't think you realize, but Skissor was making a statement of what is being done and the common reasons for why, not telling what
should be done (based on personal belief) as you are doing.
Also, I see red flag in your logic as it amount to denying that word alone can hurt someone, it can and do.
I'm not taking position on your specific drugs example (this isn't the point). Just stating that if a (relatively)specific beliefs or hateful rhetoric is actively harming society (by targeting people who are part of it), then this is a motive to forbid it.
To take an absolutely random example : if -say- someone spread claims that homosexual are depraved and dangerous, this person may believe to be right (even if wrong) he will still be harming some peoples, peoples part of a polity system that may decide whether or not they should prevent such claims from spreading to "improve society".
This is not a "you should do that" statement.
Just a demonstration of why the process of improving society by
censorship protecting factual accuracy is difficult.
Some people will claim that a minority should have the right to pretend their belief are held by more people that it actually is.
Other will claim that everything that is said should only be "factually correct", never misleading.
And other will claim that it's ok for a minority to have "more voice" as long as they say "good things" (usually as defined by them).
...etc
No need to go on whether or not any the above is feasible or good.
EDIT : I saw that a few lines ended up at the wrong place and in the wrong order, rectifying.
Quote from: Kegereneku on September 15, 2016, 05:36:30 PM
As for "Objectionism", let's say it's not really a ...logical philosophy. No really, Ayn Rand is a loony who try to sell a self-fulfilling fantasy that "happiness will happen" if everybody somehow bow in front of "obviously great people" or people claiming to have more merit (and need) than others. Her thesis-novel "Atlas shrugged" is basically a bunch of reality-warping super-genius against moronic peoplebot that have less sense of self-preservation than actual parasite, and it's supposed to stand for the real world.
Or said another way, it's in my opinion a fancy and sophisticated as hell way of saying "I believe that people who can pursue their self-interest shouldn't feel bad for exploiting other weakness for that"
::)
Well, this is all patently false. But here's a quick primer for the genuinely interested: http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/introducing-objectivism.html
I read the link, and vehemently disagree on number 3. number 3 is basically saying if YOU don't get a direct benefit, there's no point. So saving someone, not raping people, not stealing, trying to refrain from swearing, ect, or just generally being decent has no reason for being. Pushing ones SOCIETY, and PEOPLE forward is a huge desire people should have...this is why people doing things they will never benefit from is a huge thing for society, like staying married, laying the foundation for the future, planting trees, ect.... these decisions aren't mainly done for those who do it, but OTHERS.
As for point 4, are they advocating courts should then NOT be involved in say, "protecting" gay rights by shutting down christian bakeries? Because thats what it sounds like they are saying... only use force on those who use force first... but really, that idea is bull, thats not the only reason police use force, or SHOULD use force.
And before you say rule 4 balances rule 3....no.... The best enforcement is INTERNAL enforcement. I don't have police monitoring me all the time saying I shouldn't rape, shouldn't steal, ect, but I know INTERNALLY its wrong, and my pleasures and wants DO NOT overthrow what is good for the world. I look at "what is best for the world" and try and start from there, and due to this, I am very resistant to the idea of rape, theft, manipulation, ect. Yes, I could beat up people I didn't like, maybe even kill them AND get away with it, or at very least make peoples lives hell without breaking law, this said I don't want to damage the world, I want to improve it.
This person, ayn rand sounds like an idiot. Shes basically saying fuck unity, fuck responsibility, fuck making the next generation better, fuck parenthood, fuck "the greater good", do whatever makes you feel good in the moment and fuck everything else. She also seems to shun the idea of family entirely, so screw her
Explains the insanity in a lot of people though. Thanks for showing me that this ayn rand person is a nut job, and almost all their followers are insane (though I kinda expected this considering a few youtube videos I saw)
Quote from: sadpickle on September 17, 2016, 05:48:15 PM
::)
Well, this is all patently false. But here's a quick primer for the genuinely interested: http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/introducing-objectivism.html
What a short answer ! You clearly haven't tried to interpret anything she said.
Of course her description is being philosophical and vague because any more throughout analysis show its contradiction. It's not the first time an author political view are bogus if you tried to apply them or in the best case as soon as you leave its ideal-context (as is happening everyday with Copyright laws, easy digital duplication and Artificial Intelligence/Labor).
btw, that description was published in 1962, I let you imagine what the world looked like for her at the time. Commie on one side, no strong monopoly, barely any dependence over another nation resources, and a market that didn't looked like it would ever be saturated.
Anyway, take this parts :
"" The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life ""What I said :
a fancy and sophisticated as hell way of saying "I believe that people who can pursue their self-interest shouldn't feel bad for exploiting other weakness for that"You think my error is "exploiting other" because it don't fit her intent of respecting everybody ?
"" It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. ""Problem : depending of the enforcement of ownership, self-interest defining "mutual benefit", and what result in situation of monopole you transform "mutual consent" into forced labor in no time at all. Possessing a coal mines in the 1900s and employing desperate workers was akin to master/slaves relation with barely less control over the slaves.
Ayn Rand "police government" would have to interfere with "economic" just as much as any current government or see constant infighting & murders between people trying to "take back what is theirs" I didn't even start on how the state finance itself without breaking the "no master" rules, are tax collected only on consent ? Is tax evasion criminal ? (going a little speculative a objectivist-state would become a puppet-state for foreign power in no time)
Then it get worse as technology evolve and one don't need as much cooperation from others, if a group acquired control of everything that matter and the rest of humanity don't have way to live without their consent, it would still fit her philosophy to the words...
...and her famous book spoke clearly of what she thought of "parasite".
If you want more reading, I just found an ex-follower of Ayn Rand explaining why he stopped (http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?t=15628). (edit : to clarify, I don't endorse everything he said, I found that post accidentally)
To me, it's time we stop talking about Ayn Rand and talk of real freedom.
Freedom is detrimental when the choices made are of pretty close utility. Like who's the lucky guy? There's no one right choice, everyone has their ups and downs. But obsessing over the choice can be bad.
Choice is always a good thing, but too many single choices can be like clutter. Then lead to some regrets. Albiet I'd say all in all it's a good thing. Better too much than too little.
That's why I like "Controlled Choice". One thing I had when growing up was that I studied in a progressive type of fundamental school where we would pick the subjects we wanted to studies.
From trucks to volcanos, from airplanes to chocolate, we choose many topics through pools, where every student in class was given a choice to create a topic or vote in one of them. The teachers would to adapt their material to the topic not forgetting that the basics of everything should be taught.
This was a good example on how to maintain the students entertained and show them they could choose what they want, inside a enclosed space. I can say that at least 70% of the students gratuated with me on that time, got into amazing universities and colleges, myself included (though I dropped to help my family company)
My idea of a school system that would help the youngsters choose the path of carreer/studies in their life was something like that: (Consider that I only know in depth about the Brazillian Schools.)
Fundamental School:
I wouldn't change anything, the fundamental school is necessary for the development of basics.
Highschool:
After the fundamental school, you are 13 to 15 years old, and in these 3 years, these schools would be full-time. After you enter in school, there would be a 6 month period where you would need to pick of the 3 areas you have interest at the end of it.
Exacts:
This would be for the people that wanted to do Engenieering, Mathematics, Physics, Arquitecture, (maybe chemesrty) and other courses that the main subject is calculos.
Health:
This would be for the people that wanted to do Health-related courses, nursery, medicine, physical education, nutrition,
odonto, and other courses that related to the human being and its care.
Humanes:
This would be for the people that wanted to do Human subjects, Languages, History, Geography, etc and etc.
This would allow students to choose the area where they would feel more confortble, and study these in more depth. There would still be general classes about the bases of the Highschool, but after that the students would receive a much more oriented subject.
... I rambled alot, I know this is not directly about freedom, but is an example on how I would introduce some of these controlled choice inside every student life. They wouldn't have a on rails education, they would be able to choose what they want to do, and receive a education better for their future. (Considering every teacher/school is competent)
This is an (long) example of what I think is better than total freedom. Controlled choice, where you are free to choose inside a limited amount of options.
Freedom is more or less impossible. There's a pie, and everyone gets a slice. If everyone has the exact same slice it's nice, but that becomes a rule and no one can change. If you let people take as much as they want you'll get some with some, and others with none.
In the end it's a question of what people can do, and what they can't do. There is no society that will ever truly allow you to do everything. As once a person does that first or to a certain extent a second person will no longer have that opportunity. I.E. getting mining rights and stripmining an area dry.
In the end however, it's a nice personal thought to feel as though the sky is the limit and there are no restrictions to action, but there will always be restrictions in functional societies. It's just that it can be resource constraints, social constraints, or otherwise cultural/laws.
Quote from: Listen1 on May 21, 2016, 03:49:43 PM
In my opinion, Freedom of choice is the possibility of choosing anything you want, anytime you want. From "Do want fries with that" to "Anyone in this classroom can be a president if you work hard enough".
...
But after a while we learned that, we won't just choose, we would need to study, work, train to achieve that, and later on you discover that some of this choices are just too hard.
...
So what are the benefits of choice?
"Anyone can become President" sits on the same log in front of a fireplace as "Anyone can be struck by lightning." It's not untrue, but it's gambling to put your hopes and fears on the unlikely instead of the likely.
So when getting ready to make a choice between several alternatives, first weed out all the ones that seem like less than even odds. Then you can pick from a set that will favor your every whim and fancy.