Freedom To vs. Freedom From

[DunderMifflin]

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes, I disagree.  I think that the people who rape, murder, steal, or commit fraud should be incarcerated, at a minimum.

Do you think that it's a worthy goal for the future of humanity to be a place where police are not needed to incarcerate people who rape, murder, or steal, or commit fraud because no one is committing rape, murder, theft or fraud? 

 

Also "incarcerated at a minimum" is not really an accurate representation of how current justice systems of the world work.

There are already people in the world today who are questioning whether or not cramming all the baddies together in a prison where they experience more trauma and for the most part become even more vicious for their return to society is the best way we can come up to deal with those we have deemed criminal. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Nope but imo we should be working towards the goal where people with guns don't throw people into cages. Often times when they were wrongfully accused.

And a world where people rape,murder, and steal not at all or as little as possible. 

Do you disagree with these goals?

You cannot set as a goal, something you are absolutely powerless to achieve...not unless you plan to start tampering with human genetics.

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

I have made no assumptions, Ive clearly said that I have no idea if the future will be more Orwellian or if it will be a place where governments authorities aren't needed.

Clearly to me, the latter is the better goal.

You left out the more likely possibility that humanity won't change all that much for a very long time and that setting any goal based on human evolution is impossible to achieve as you don't know what, if any change will occur.

[MerenthaClone]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes, I disagree.  I think that the people who rape, murder, steal, or commit fraud should be incarcerated, at a minimum.

For what purpose?  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

For what purpose?  

Ideally, for rehabilitation.  That said I'm not certain that is always possible.  Where it isn't, the purpose is to keep them from hurting anyone else.

[DunderMifflin]

13 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

You cannot set as a goal, something you are absolutely powerless to achieve...not unless you plan to start tampering with human genetics.

I don't think any of us know enough about the reasons why humans do things we perceive as bad to claim that the one and only way the human race can elevate beyond them is to tamper with genetics.

I'm not claiming I'm going to personally orchestrate a change in humanity.

Quote

You left out the more likely possibility that humanity won't change all that much for a very long time and that setting any goal based on human evolution is impossible to achieve as you don't know what, if any change will occur.

I left out more than that, there are pretty much infinite possibilties for the future of humans or lack there of. 

A "It can't ever happen so don't even try" solution to problems is a thought that has been disproven lots of times already throughout history.

 

[Robin Of House Hill]

Hey, if planning for a future you cannot even guess at, floats your boat, have fun.  But as a matter of serious discussion, I've already invested all the time I've allotted to it.

[DunderMifflin]

Yeh only sorcerers and wizards that can see into the future should discuss the future.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just to try to get back to the initial question, I think we should be really suspect of any political figure who offers a supposed freedom at the cost of one that we already enjoy. I guess the Patriot Act would be the primary example I would point to. The idea was that we give up a measure of personal privacy in return for more safety. I'm not sure that we are measurably more safe post Patriot Act. What I do know is that these laws have done more to indict citizens for drug crimes and the like, which at least from a citizen's point of view is seen as an unintended consequence of these laws. We were told that these laws were meant to keep us safe from terrorist attack (which they may or may not have managed) not that they would be used to make it easier for law enforcement to prosecute drug crimes. 

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Not currently, but humans evolve and build upon the good (and bad) parts of previous generations. Who knows what humans will be in 100+ years with the current exponentially growing technological progress. I can easily see the world moving to a place where governments are thought of as an unnecessary relic of the past.

You either govern or are governed, but the public affairs have to be managed by someone.
Ideally, mankind will evolve in such a fashion that individuals all become enllghtened citizens doing their part for the public affairs (res publica), thus strengthening the social contract. There would be no government because everyone would be active, and at the same time government would be omnipresent because everyone would be the government.

But I actually agree with you that it is necessary to have faith in humanity. From a logical and philosophical point of view, we have no choice since we are humans. Alternatively, if you have no faith in humanity then there is absolutely no reason to advocate ideals like democracy and individual rights. Simply get as rich as you can to provide for your loved ones and f*** everyone else. In fact, f*** 'em hard since they were too dumb to understand that it's all about getting rich and f***ing everyone else. Seriously, what's wrong with these people?
 

[DunderMifflin]

I just think it's important to consider when making a deal with authority figures exchanging freedom for safety.

Could there be the hg wells future where there are two or more seperate evolutions taking place simultaneously in different directions? There's evidence that this is already happening.
If the general citizenry cools off and gets to a place where murder and rapes don't or virtually don't exist. Do those that want power over people and to be authorities then say "that's great! Now we don't have to spend so much money on our guns and tanks and shit and not lock so many people up in cages" or do they look around and say "fuck, no one is murdering or raping anymore. How can we keep locking people up??? We had a good thing going here"

In a world where our current worst crimes are nonexistent. What will be the "worst" crimes in that world? Is there still going to be a need from mainstream population to find others to call "scumbags and thugs"
Will 20 years sentences be handed out for going into the 10 items or less lane with 12 items? "Hey that lady gave her kid Doritos and Twinkles for dinner once, that's unhealthy!  Child abuse! arrest her!"

[Robin Of House Hill]

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Just to try to get back to the initial question, I think we should be really suspect of any political figure who offers a supposed freedom at the cost of one that we already enjoy. I guess the Patriot Act would be the primary example I would point to. The idea was that we give up a measure of personal privacy in return for more safety. I'm not sure that we are measurably more safe post Patriot Act. What I do know is that these laws have done more to indict citizens for drug crimes and the like, which at least from a citizen's point of view is seen as an unintended consequence of these laws. We were told that these laws were meant to keep us safe from terrorist attack (which they may or may not have managed) not that they would be used to make it easier for law enforcement to prosecute drug crimes. 

Actually, the original question was would people give up any freedom to, in exchange for freedom from want and harm.  The issue of trust for government was introduced by you.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Actually, the original question was would people give up any freedom to, in exchange for freedom from want and harm.  The issue of trust for government was introduced by you.

Apologies if I took it in a direction you didn't intend to go. Your initial post cites The Handmaid's Tale as an example. Even in that fiction, despite having militarized police on every corner, the citizens of that society are subject to terror attacks by an organized resistance. I don't think there's any such thing as true protection from harm. 

Are you meaning to ask the question as a thought experiment of sorts? For example, assuming there is some sort of technological innovation that enables the government to provide 100% protection to its' citizenry in exchange for suspension of other freedoms, what freedoms would you give up in exchange for such protection? 

[karaddin]

I could be wrong, but a potential angle in the Handmaids Tale part of the question could be the women giving up freedom to direct their lives ostensibly in exchange for freedom from the harms that may be inflicted by other men. The focus of THT is the patriarchal structure, not the government itself.

[Jo498]

7 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't think there's any such thing as true protection from harm.

This seems very misleading, if true in theory. In practice it is a huge difference, whether one lives in Germany, Denmark or France with a minuscule chance of being murdered by a criminal or dying in a terrorist attack (and a somewhat higher change of dying or getting injured in a traffic accident) or in some failed state or favela where basically the "law of the jungle" holds and the chance to experience violence and a violent death is a thousand times higher or more than in Western Europe or similar countries.

I might be simplifying a bit (or a lot) but I have the hunch that all the "modern" freedoms and liberties only became relevant in practice after some regions had established some kind of general peacekeeping, state monopoly on violence and rule of law. If one is constantly at least potentially involved in some kind of tribal or factional warfare, vendettas etc. he probably has not much time for the finer points of civil liberties.

[Robin Of House Hill]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

I could be wrong, but a potential angle in the Handmaids Tale part of the question could be the women giving up freedom to direct their lives ostensibly in exchange for freedom from the harms that may be inflicted by other men. The focus of THT is the patriarchal structure, not the government itself.

Except that in THT, the patriarchal structure is the de facto government. Even so, it appears that those who accepted that type of freedom from harm, were also in it for personal gain, i.e., the chance to have children, as in the case of the commanders' wives, or personal power, such as Aunt Lydia.  I suppose some of the Handmaids might see their circumstance as providing security and even a bit of veneration, but the performance anxiety must be off the scale.

As an aside, no one seems to be enjoying themselves, why do they want to perpetuate the species, under those conditions?

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 hours ago, Jo498 said:

This seems very misleading, if true in theory. In practice it is a huge difference, whether one lives in Germany, Denmark or France with a minuscule chance of being murdered by a criminal or dying in a terrorist attack (and a somewhat higher change of dying or getting injured in a traffic accident) or in some failed state or favela where basically the "law of the jungle" holds and the chance to experience violence and a violent death is a thousand times higher or more than in Western Europe or similar countries.

I might be simplifying a bit (or a lot) but I have the hunch that all the "modern" freedoms and liberties only became relevant in practice after some regions had established some kind of general peacekeeping, state monopoly on violence and rule of law. If one is constantly at least potentially involved in some kind of tribal or factional warfare, vendettas etc. he probably has not much time for the finer points of civil liberties.

That's a solid point. I'm coming at the question from the viewpoint of someone who lives in a country wherein I have a fairly minuscule chance of being murdered as a general rule. Were I a citizen of a country where that eventuality was much more likely, I would probably willing to sacrifice other freedoms in the name of safety or protection.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

As an aside, no one seems to be enjoying themselves, why do they want to perpetuate the species, under those conditions?

The patriarchy in THT seems to have a bit of a fundamentalist bent, methinks. Fun is probably pretty low on the totem pole in terms of what is considered to be important. Plus it's a post-apocalypse scenario, so propagation of the species is going to be placed at a premium.

[Robin Of House Hill]

If only they were more like the Heaven's Gate people.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 There's an article in Slate about The Handmaid's Tale that hits on some of what you've brought up, Robin. Not sure if you saw it or not, so I'll post a link to it here.

 http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/04/28/the_handmaid_s_tale_is_nostalgic_for_the_messy_contentious_feminism_of_right.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

From the article: One debate about positive and negative freedoms is raging now at American colleges, where detractors accuse campus rape activists of embracing victimhood by demanding protection from their schools. In a sense, those activists are seeking both—the freedom to pursue an education without being stymied by sexual violence is an important one—but it’s alarming that some schools, in their effort to support victims, may risk trampling the due process rights of the accused. I wondered if the Hulu adaptation was nodding to this conflict in one flashback scene, which shows the college-age protagonist working on a paper about campus rape. “For or against?” her best friend Moira deadpans. It’s not a particularly funny joke—but irreverence is the flame that flickers in Offred and Moira, preserving their humanity even under the homogenizing conditions of autocracy. There’s something both provocative and useful in The Handmaid’s Tale’s impiety—the boldness with which it flips the scripts of such sensitive debates.

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 There's an article in Slate about The Handmaid's Tale that hits on some of what you've brought up, Robin. Not sure if you saw it or not, so I'll post a link to it here.

 http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/04/28/the_handmaid_s_tale_is_nostalgic_for_the_messy_contentious_feminism_of_right.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

From the article: One debate about positive and negative freedoms is raging now at American colleges, where detractors accuse campus rape activists of embracing victimhood by demanding protection from their schools. In a sense, those activists are seeking both—the freedom to pursue an education without being stymied by sexual violence is an important one—but it’s alarming that some schools, in their effort to support victims, may risk trampling the due process rights of the accused. I wondered if the Hulu adaptation was nodding to this conflict in one flashback scene, which shows the college-age protagonist working on a paper about campus rape. “For or against?” her best friend Moira deadpans. It’s not a particularly funny joke—but irreverence is the flame that flickers in Offred and Moira, preserving their humanity even under the homogenizing conditions of autocracy. There’s something both provocative and useful in The Handmaid’s Tale’s impiety—the boldness with which it flips the scripts of such sensitive debates.

The problem with the article is that it conflates seeking protection with seeking justice.  As anyone who has seen the show, there are cases where only the prosecutor swearing the charges are true, is sufficient to convict the accused. It is a much different situation when it comes to convicting a man or rape.