The Value of Freedom

[xris]

Originally Posted by hue-man

How is equality decided at birth and impossible at the same time? What does that even mean? I disagree that freedom is an illusion. Who among us is deluded enough to believe that we have absolute freedom to do what we want without rule based consequences? It's not so much that freedom is an illusion; it just comes in degrees.

So degrees of freedom you want to suggest rather than freedom. That's like saying you have the freedom to move around in your own house but not go outside, house arrest.

Equality is impossible because your degree of equality is an accident of birth. You may be born into an society where equality is valued but you might just be born where it has no value. You may value yourself as equal but the society may not.

[Khethil]

Random thoughts to contribute to the discussion...

Freedom only has meaning when discussed in regards to a particular type - as an expression of how much agency this, that, he or she can do 'X' without external constraint. It has no absolute form - try to define such and what results is a descent into verbal absurdity: I'm free to be or not be free, we're free to not allow each other to be free, and the like.

Equality, as has already been said I believe, is also a worthless term without describing what kind or type of equality we're discussing. Again, it's a term that describes relative similarity of "sameness" - which could apply to ability, constraint, intellect, height, opportunity and so on.

Even couched in a political context; both terms scream for clarification. Once more, these are concepts that can be applied to a myriad of conditions. What's more, how can there be (complete) equality with (complete) freedom? Is this possible? "Equal" implies an evaluation - but again, evaluation of what? Any factor we place on the table, person-to-person, will net in a quantitative difference - how can such justifiably be called "equal"?

Thanks

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by xris

So degrees of freedom you want to suggest rather than freedom. That's like saying you have the freedom to move around in your own house but not go outside, house arrest.

You say degrees of freedom rather than freedom when you should emphasize the type of freedom you're speaking of. You're talking about limitless freedom. I'm talking about freedom of non-coercive or aggressive actions; practical freedom.

Originally Posted by xris

Equality is impossible because your degree of equality is an accident of birth. You may be born into an society where equality is valued but you might just be born where it has no value. You may value yourself as equal but the society may not.

How does any of this make equality theoretically impossible? Are you talking about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? What about equality before the law; is that also impossible?

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by hue-man

Some people regard freedom as the ultimate political value, while others regard equality as being more valuable or equally as valuable as freedom. Why is it that some people value freedom with little to no constraints (anarchists, libertarians, etc) even when there are obvious negative externalities? Is it because of their will to power?

First, let me say that the same question could be asked of the collectivists; why is it that some people value social equality regardless of the obvious negative consequences?

Secondly, let me try to answer your question as someone who is a libertarian. I enjoy movies by Quentin Tarentino and Wes Anderson, I like the beach and skiiing, I like going to the bar. I've never yet met a group that liked any of these things; never ran into a collective on the street which told me about its wild night at a party the night before. In short, I'm not aware that groups or collectives have experiences or even live. As far as I know, only individuals live and can enjoy life. Philosophically, I describe myself as an 'aesthetic nihillist' which is to say that I believe in nothing except that which I choose to believe in, for pleasure or neccessity, knowing that my belief is unfounded nonetheless. My prime maxim is that the meaning of life is living, the only reason to live is to enjoy life, not to please a God, not to conform to a morality, and not to work towards the interest of the collective. I believe that individual freedom, not only in a political sense, though obviously that is important, is the conditio sine qua non for this kind of good life, or any other for that matter. If the purpose of society is not to allow the individual maximal freedom to pursue his happyness, whatever that me be, then society has no purpose in my view. If humanity cannot survive except my sublimating individuals into the collective, then I say let it perish.

That sentiment is my first, second, third, fourth, and fifth reason for being a libertarian and believeing in maximal individual freedom. My sixth reason is abject horror at demonstrations of the alternatives. There is nothing on earth that has caused more misery, more poverty, or indeed led to the slaughter of more innocent human beings than the desire to centralize control in the hands of the state, whether justified by the 'divine right of kings' or the 'common good.' I think history's lesson is excruciatingly clear. I find it rather funny that you would see the Will to Power as the cause of individualism. Quite the opposite. Philosophically, I do believe that the will to power, to mastery and control, is the driving force of reality - but I view individualism, especially as it manifested in the U.S. a few centuries ago, as the great struggle against that force that wants to dominate for the sake of dominating. Collectivism under whatever name is, in my opinion, the perfection of that Will to Power in social terms. Orwell's oligarchical collective engaged in torture for the sake of torture, murder for the sake of murder, tyranny for the sake of tyranny: control for the sake of control. There are idealists who do not support collectivist systems for these reasons, no doubt the vast majority do not, but the people at the top of the power structure in this country, in my opinion, most definately do. As I've said many times before, there is only individualism and collectivism, but collectivism does not mean real, idealistic communism, it means brutal top-down control of everyone for the sake of the pleasure which those at the top take from exerting that control, regardless of what set of slogans are used to justify this.

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

First, let me say that the same question could be asked of the collectivists; why is it that some people value social equality regardless of the obvious negative consequences?

Secondly, let me try to answer your question as someone who is a libertarian. I enjoy movies by Quentin Tarentino and Wes Anderson, I like the beach and skiiing, I like going to the bar. I've never yet met a group that liked any of these things; never ran into a collective on the street which told me about its wild night at a party the night before. In short, I'm not aware that groups or collectives have experiences or even live. As far as I know, only individuals live and can enjoy life. Philosophically, I describe myself as an 'aesthetic nihillist' which is to say that I believe in nothing except that which I choose to believe in, for pleasure or neccessity, knowing that my belief is unfounded nonetheless. My prime maxim is that the meaning of life is living, the only reason to live is to enjoy life, not to please a God, not to conform to a morality, and not to work towards the interest of the collective. I believe that individual freedom, not only in a political sense, though obviously that is important, is the conditio sine qua non for this kind of good life, or any other for that matter. If the purpose of society is not to allow the individual maximal freedom to pursue his happyness, whatever that me be, then society has no purpose in my view. If humanity cannot survive except my sublimating individuals into the collective, then I say let it perish.

That sentiment is my first, second, third, fourth, and fifth reason for being a libertarian and believeing in maximal individual freedom. My sixth reason is abject horror at demonstrations of the alternatives. There is nothing on earth that has caused more misery, more poverty, or indeed led to the slaughter of more innocent human beings than the desire to centralize control in the hands of the state, whether justified by the 'divine right of kings' or the 'common good.' I think history's lesson is excruciatingly clear. I find it rather funny that you would see the Will to Power as the cause of individualism. Quite the opposite. Philosophically, I do believe that the will to power, to mastery and control, is the driving force of reality - but I view individualism, especially as it manifested in the U.S. a few centuries ago, as the great struggle against that force that wants to dominate for the sake of dominating. Collectivism under whatever name is, in my opinion, the perfection of that Will to Power in social terms. Orwell's oligarchical collective engaged in torture for the sake of torture, murder for the sake of murder, tyranny for the sake of tyranny: control for the sake of control. There are idealists who do not support collectivist systems for these reasons, no doubt the vast majority do not, but the people at the top of the power structure in this country, in my opinion, most definately do. As I've said many times before, there is only individualism and collectivism, but collectivism does not mean real, idealistic communism, it means brutal top-down control of everyone for the sake of the pleasure which those at the top take from exerting that control, regardless of what set of slogans are used to justify this.

I think moral aestheticism is a better way of describing your value philosophy than aesthetic nihilism.

Just so we're clear, I use to lean towards collectivism, but now I actually lean towards individualism. However, I disagree with the notion that the desire for central control is merely for the pleasure of those at the top. I don't think Marx or Bakunin favored collectivism for that reason. However, I believe that some people do want to indoctrinate people with collectivist values for their own individual pleasure. I also believe that extreme collectivism is more predisposed to negative outcomes than individualism, but extreme individualism also has its problems. I believe in a political golden mean.

[xris]

Does this perceived freedom describe by academia have any relevance in the real world of daily life? For example I feel my freedom has been eroded by the very mundane simple things of life. Our water supply is from a monopoly company and i have no power to change their excessive charging system. It frustrates me and i feel aggressive towards this inability to have a choice in where my water is supplied. It is real and although mundane for many, this lack of freedom has me steaming and stirs feelings of rebellion. A pound of tea or a gallon of water, it has the power to change history for ever.

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by xris

Does this perceived freedom describe by academia have any relevance in the real world of daily life? For example I feel my freedom has been eroded by the very mundane simple things of life. Our water supply is from a monopoly company and i have no power to change their excessive charging system. It frustrates me and i feel aggressive towards this inability to have a choice in where my water is supplied. It is real and although mundane for many, this lack of freedom has me steaming and stirs feelings of rebellion. A pound of tea or a gallon of water, it has the power to change history for ever.

This is not a lack of freedom, but a lack of power.

[xris]

Originally Posted by hue-man

This is not a lack of freedom, but a lack of power.

Freedom is perceived . I have the power but not the freedom to exert it. I could blow up the water works its within my ability, i could serve a horses head to the directors. Its the freedom to have choice in where i get my water from that is the object of my freedom. I just want the freedom of choice not the power to change the system. With your opinion everything concerning freedom is about power. Give me an example where freedom is not about power?

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by xris

Freedom is perceived . I have the power but not the freedom to exert it. I could blow up the water works its within my ability, i could serve a horses head to the directors. Its the freedom to have choice in where i get my water from that is the object of my freedom. I just want the freedom of choice not the power to change the system. With your opinion everything concerning freedom is about power. Give me an example where freedom is not about power?

What isn't perceived? I think you mean freedom is a matter of perspective. All of this is off topic. I'm talking about political freedom or liberty, not the freedom to choose where my water supply comes from. Trust me when I tell you that if you lost your political freedom you would realize how big of a deal it really is.

[xris]

Originally Posted by hue-man

What isn't perceived? I think you mean freedom is a matter of perspective. All of this is off topic. I'm talking about political freedom or liberty, not the freedom to choose where my water supply comes from. Trust me when I tell you that if you lost your political freedom you would realize how big of a deal it really is.

Freedom is in the detail , it is an illusion your political freedom. The detail can be choice and democracy does not always favour the majority. My fathers fought for freedom so i think your advice on the value of freedom is just a bit over rated.