[ExI] Freedom (was: "PC")

[Harvey Newstrom]

"Spargemeister" <sparge at gmail.com> wrote,
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> 
> wrote:
>> I think everybody wants "freedom".  It's just that different people have
>> different interpretations of what they need to be free from.
>
> Obviously different people want different things, and conflicts
> abound. But describing every possible desire as a "freedom"
> exaggerates the problem and devalues true freedom. I'd like to be free
> of financial concerns, but I certainly don't consider that to be a
> fundamental human right.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.  The problem comes in when we 
try to classify which of these things is a real "freedom" and which thing is 
just some random desire.

> The key concept, I think, is *personal* freedom: the right to do
> whatever you want as long it doesn't interfere with another person's
> personal freedom. The government should be working to maintain the
> personal freedom of citizens, not imposing various arbitrary
> restrictions favored by popular ideologies.

I very much agree with this (libertarian) definition. My point is that 
everybody would agree with this definition.  They just won't agree upon its 
application.

Can gays kiss in public, or is that interfering with the personal freedom of 
straight families with children in public?  Can women get abortions, or is 
that interfering with the fetus' personal freedom.  Or, the example we 
discuss next, can spammers mail bomb whole segments of the population, or is 
that interfering with their personal computers?  People literally disagree 
where the lines of personal freedom are.

>> A libertatian
>> blames all ills on the government, and therefore wants the freedom of
>> anarchy.
>
> That's a serious mischaracterization of libertarianism. We don't want
> anarchy, we want a small government framework does the things only a
> government can do, such as manage public assets, coordinate national
> defense, and maintain and enforce federal laws.

Actually, I agree that your definitions are best.  But around here, there 
have been more extreme libertarians who literally want "no" government. 
They would call your definition of libertarian "minarchy" and the more 
extreme version of libertarian "anarchy".  I was slipping into the more 
extreme (and admitedly, less popular) definitions of libertarianism.  But my 
point still stands if I rephrase it using different terminology.

>> A person tired of spam and scammers wants freedom from criminals
>> and wants the government to "do something".
>
> Nope. I'm tired of spam and the last thing I want is for the
> government to try to fix the problem.

I understand that this is your viewpoint based on the libertarian rule.  But 
can you see, even if you don't agree, how someone could argue that 
mail-bombing someone else's mailing list or personal PC interferes with 
their own use of their own property?  For corporations running big mail 
servers, it is estimated that over 90% of the cost of processing and storage 
is forced upon them by external spammers without their consent.  Also, some 
people would argue that protecting our data infrastructures from 
interference from foreign spammers should be a vital part of national 
defense.

> I'm not going to bother with addressing each of those examples. I'll
> leave it as an exercise for the reader to evaluate them in terms of
> maximizing personal freedom.

I see your point that libertarianism is best.  I'm just pointing out that 
the libertarian definition ("right to do whatever you want as long it 
doesn't interfere with another person's personal freedom") is totally 
subjective.  It is based on what the person considers their personal space. 
The very definition of what is a "right" and what is "personal interference" 
will vary from person to person.

My point is that the disagreements on these forms of government is not in 
terms of the goal or the definitions, it is in terms of the values.  People 
choose governments that will maximize their own personal values.  In a way, 
it is like the free market at work.  Everybody (selfishly) chooses the 
government form that they think will best serve them.  And that 
determination is based on which things they value most.  I don't think 
anything I have said disagrees with your excellent points.  I just think 
that people's personal choices will lead them to choose other forms of 
government as the best way to implement the libertarian rule.

--
Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP