The benifts of freedom?

[Listen1]

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.

[Zombra]

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).

[Listen1]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Chibiabos]

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).

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Chibiabos]

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.

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Zombra]

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 >>>>>>>>

[mumblemumble]

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.

[milon]

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?)

[mumblemumble]

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.

[Kegereneku]

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.

[Listen1]

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.

[sadpickle]

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.