[ExI] Freedom (was: "PC")

[Spargemeister]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Harvey Newstrom
<mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> "Spargemeister" <sparge at gmail.com> wrote,
>>
>> 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.

Which is where the concept of personal freedom comes in:

>> 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.

Using that as a guide, a lot of legislation is clearly anti-personal
freedom and anti-libertarian.

>>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.

Well, obviously. We're never going to get everyone to agree on anything.

> Can gays kiss in public, or is that interfering with the personal freedom of
> straight families with children in public?

If hetero kissing in public is OK, then gay kissing in public has to
be OK, too. I don't see how one group's preferences can be allowed at
the expense of another.

> Can women get abortions, or is
> that interfering with the fetus' personal freedom.

That depends upon whether fetuses are considered people. Personally, I
favor a rule along the lines of granting citizenship status to unborn
children who are sufficiently developed that they can likely survive
independent of the mother with current medical technology. So right
now, I'm OK with first trimester abortion, not OK with third trimester
abortion, and second is the gray area. But that's just me.

> 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.

Of course, and legislators, voters, and courts will have to work out
those lines.

>> 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.

And how is that different from vanilla anarchy?

> They
> would call your definition of libertarian "minarchy" and the more extreme
> version of libertarian "anarchy".

Sounds like they just want a less extreme label for themselves.

> 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.

Yes, your point stands: freedom means different things to different
people. I think that applying the personal freedom test will go a long
way toward helping to decide conflicts, but the usual legal processes
will still be necessary.

>> 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?

I see it, and I agree. I just don't think it's something the
government can fix. Sure, there should be anti-spam laws. And they
should be used whenever possible to punish those who break them. But
by themselves, I don't think they'll fix the problem. I think
technological fixes will be more effective, and I don't think the
government should be in the business of developing/supporting them.

> 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 mostly agree with that, though I still don't think spam has the
potential to be a threat to national security.

> 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.

I didn't mean to imply that the personal freedom test was some kind of
magical Golden Compass that would immediately enable world peace.

> 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.

I'm going to have to sleep on that.

-Dave