Is freedom a meaningless concept?

Post Reply New Topic

Government is only as good or evil as the society that creates it.

I'd also say the type of laissez-faire capitalism Von Mises fanboys yearn for is not consistent with peace and order. The brutal excesses of 19th century industrial capitalism are what fueled working class discontent and lead to the flourishing of extremist anti-capitalist ideology. Extremism on one side of the ideological spectrum breeds an equal and opposite extremism on the other side. It's a recipe for anger and conflict.

Neoliberals and their classical liberal forebears always understood that laissez faire capitalism requires a police state to keep the victims under control. As Thomas Friedman put it, the "invisible hand requires the iron fist". Some libertarians get this, others do not.

As bad as the government tends to be, the people it rules over really aren't any better.

I am fascinated every time I read a thread about the good or evil of government and how it is a reflection of the people who make that government. I prefer to think of "organizations" -- government, corporations, clubs, NGOs, churches, etc. What one discovers is that mankind always manages to corrupt/abuse these entities once they are established. Which begs that famous Rodney King quote, "Can't we all just get along ?" That does seem to be a paramount question.

sorry i am not in the "loop" and i have read no replies, and i am simply replying to the topic title.

"freedom" is the ability to choose between more than one option.
"freedom" is a tenuous concept (in my opinion (i had to add that disclaimer (as i have learned))).
"freedom" may be as basic as being able to choose whether you are executed by lethal injection, or by a firing squad.
"freedom" (in my opinion (groan)) is the ability to have at least 2 choices to decide between.

beyond that, "freedom" means not much.

one is only free to choose their "course" through a concrete set of immovable obstacles, and the constraints on freedom more define "freedom" than the emancipating aspects of it.

one is free to urinate at one's will provided one is in a situation where that will not incur a societal penalty.

one is free to say "flangastopothiliad!" at the top of ones voice in a quiet street.
whether or not productive things stem from ones freedom of decision between constrained options, it remains true that free will is only possible within the cracks (or voids) of solid reality.


free will is a quantum concept really when i think about it

From some article I read, titled "Conservatism: An Obituary".

Pinochet and all Latin American right wingers understood this. Rather than attempt to solve matters democratically, both right and left resorted to violence and oppression.

I think this is why we simply aim for what works out best. It's all a bit vacuous when you look at it at that level, thus utilitarian outcome becomes the default.

People should know that the Irish Potato Famine was caused by the coming to power of a classical liberal dogmatist regime in London under the leadership of John Russell. It was part of the laissez faire experiment.

I can't help but consider the so-called "Irish Potato Famine" disaster as anything less than an act of genocide carried out by wealthy landlords with the backing of the English government.

Attempts to blame the event entirely on natural causes is as much a kind of whitewashing and grotesque coverup as what happened in China under Mao. I just don't buy the notion that people can always be held less culpable for actions that cause mass death and suffering indirectly rather than directly if the result is the same.

If you are free, then refrain from paying taxes.
If you do you will find out the level of freedom you actually have (ie. none)
You are 'free' if you comply. Is that your definition of freedom?

You are right about the taxes. But we can choose our trades and professions. We can choose the people we associate with. And we can pretty well say whatever it is we want to say. That is some freedom.

In any nation governed by law freedom is not absolute. It is limited and constrained in very real and substantial say. But freedom of conscience, freedom to think what one will does count for something.

Absolute and total freedom never really existed anywhere and at any time. We are still bound by the physical limits and constraints of the natural world and in the end we die. So at best we can enjoy some sort of partial freedom.

ruveyn

Hold it, hold it, hold it! I recall you telling me you weren't going to die!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Yes I am

I said I was going to outlive you.

None of us are getting out of life alive.

ruveyn

Well, I'm not about to swear off red meat, sweets, or beer, so that may very well be true.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer