pull down to refresh

43 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 27 Nov \ on: Revisiting "Civil Disobedience" BooksAndArticles
What I have begun to tell them, besides the empathizing platitudes: freedom is relative, an ideal.
I suspect there is an absolute maximum to freedom but I can’t be sure so I suspect it isn’t always relative at least. Beyond the freedoms taken from us by force, there are freedoms we are competed out of (freedom to use someone else’s property for example) and other freedoms still depending on how we define it. By most common usage I’d say if we are left alone and without competition we are maximally free.
I’m not sure what point I’m making except that freedom is often expressed in relative terms yet I feel like we all can identify the absolute.
write
preview
177 sats \ 2 replies \ @Fiat_Revelation OP 27 Nov
I agree in principle. I think there is an objective standard of freedom. transcending physical property, provided by "nature" that we can all likely agree on. This involves minimal intervervention by authority. This I think Thoreau would agree...
there are freedoms we are competed out of (freedom to use someone else’s property for example)
True, but wouldn't unhindered competition inevitably lead to a right-by-might scenario? I haven't thought this through completely, but I believe the libertarian perspective would be that governments play some role here in protecting people from the use of force.
reply
66 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 27 Nov
I mostly meant economic competition, but yes, I believe humans can resort to violence to get what they want given no easier means and the role of government, if it has one, is to have the biggest, impartial peacekeeping service in a jurisdiction.
reply
301 sats \ 0 replies \ @Fiat_Revelation OP 28 Nov
The easier means here being though fair economic competition to acquire proprietary rights.
What about when a company establishes the type of monopoly like we see with Canada Post? It operates in a capitalist more-or-less free market and yet the government has imposed its coercive monopoly (its "crown" designation), thus free market competition is corrupted by government overreach. I suspect we agree is an affront on the individual.
I wonder if using/holding/transacting in Bitcoin, which has quickly surpassed the historical relevance of letter carrying, is seriously threatened by a similar coercive monopoly situation. ETFs, Microstrategy, and the semantic takeover risks seem to have a shot at this. Do you think people brainwashed enough for this to happen?
reply