What does freedom mean for those who aren't capable of self-reliance?

Here and elsewhere, I often see freedom defined in terms of independence from others. Can someone be free if, for whatever reason, they can't be independent? What are the implications if they can't? (The typical responses seem to be to either say that everyone is capable of self-reliance, or say that weak people deserve to die. Getting either response scares me.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Freedom to starve isn't freedom. Freedom to me is equal participation in the community without facing undue bias and with enough food, shelter, health care, and clothing provided to get by. Bare minimum is needed no matter what, including ideally social needs, and the right to do just about whatever you want with your speech and possessions. Anything consensual and egalitarian should be completely respected. Exploitative relationships, the 'subordinates' should always be the legally privileged ones as this isn't really free.

edited 28th Apr '11 7:50:11 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

"Boned" comes to mind.

Fight smart, not fair.

@OP: Such a definition of freedom is simply flawed, at best.

The previous quote contradicts the following: I don't consider having to provide another with shelter, clothing and food to be very free, consenting or equal.

edited 28th Apr '11 8:29:15 PM by GreatLich

I define freedom as no one is telling you what you're supposed to be, and no one's forcing you to be that way.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

Now comes the question of the difference between economic freedom and social freedom.

"I don't consider having to provide another with shelter, clothing and food to be very free, consenting or equal."

I'm saying that society should provide our basic needs unconditionally. I did not say anyone should be coerced in order to do so. Basically I meant people can just go ahead and take it, like a gift economy.

edited 28th Apr '11 8:37:19 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Er, no. I don't see how any of those things are necessarily connected.

I mean, nobody's forcing anybody else to be free (I hope, at least). You wouldn't force a toddler to be independent, wouldja?

I have the freedom to choose to not be free! Don't take that right away from me!

Anyway...

Pray tell, if people don't have to provide those gifts for others to take, then who's going to provide the gifts in the first place? They just don't poof into existence after all and in any society there is some work needing to be done by certain groups for others.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

You can steal stuff, and squat you know.

But if its expected to be free, I assume society would adjust appropriately. We got open source software, now we just need "open-source" kitchens and clothing stores. Free libraries are here already. Public housing could just become the norm too.

edited 28th Apr '11 8:49:59 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

That's "free as in speech, not free as in beer", as the saying goes.

Yeah, but food and clothes are consumables, unlike software, you can't just copy and paste them to infinitum.

That being said, freedom is freedom, you've got the freedom to be unreliable and corner yourself with the numerous bills you got because you didn't know how to handle yourself. Yes, children should be raised to be prepared for this stuff, but freedom is still the same regardless.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

"you can't just copy and paste them to infinitum"

It's true there can't be an infinite supply. Which why is there is the concept of rations. And when you go to the library do you always check out as many books as possible? Plus at this point we can afford lots of luxury that we don't use due to monetary constraints. The automated production potential is enormous, for both food and clothing. Soon this could be true for houses too [1].

edited 28th Apr '11 9:10:49 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Yes, except library books get put back so others can take them. If I get a sudden hankering for the taste of books, well gee, wouldn't be anymore. Rationing stuff still causes it to run out and using machines to make you your clothes and food still will result in them breaking down at some point (not to mention the amount of work to build that many in the first place and program them to do all of the self-sustaining stuff. Even if you make robots to repair those robots, it'll get to such a complex point that it'll just break down. It's communism except no one is working and that's flawed.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

That needn't be the case. There just needs to be enough people working voluntarily to sustain the processes. A.I.s would be the ultimate work-saver though.

edited 28th Apr '11 9:19:51 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

A "gift" economy may work in a small village, not so much at any larger scale.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

Again, infinitely complex and AI still break down.

And a community run on volunteers? Don't mind me asking, but why should I, or my neighbor, or his grandma, bother with volunteering? I get free food anyway and the ability to spend time doing whatever I want too. Repeat that a few times and you'll figure out part of the reason why Communist Russia only worked when Stalin pointed a gun at your head.

Self reliance is necessary to some extent to maintain a society, and all the more so to maintain some freedom before that voluntary work becomes forced upon you.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I'm for radical decentralization and degrowth. I think towns and cities are far too large.

"AI still break down"

Then it's fixed by other A.I.s.

And what if I gave you an example of larger-scale communism?

No. The Spanish Revolution

edited 28th Apr '11 9:48:14 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Love, you're still running into the problem of infinitely complex A.I.s that will need to be able to fully understand itself and repair itself, or in other words, need to know how to repair the repairing part of itself and no one has figured out how to do that yet. More so, that still fails to address the physical limitations of machines breaking down you need new supplies to replace them. Going to make robots to do everything ever? Why not just start a robot civilization and get it over with.

And you're either suggesting people live in anarchy (in other words, living on your own and dying because humans function best in packs and would still need self-reliance and while gaining absolute freedom at the cost of all security) or living in small family units (where they still need other groups to develop tools for them, meaning that they're still not totally self-reliant and are forced by nature to make those tools anyway, and arguably lose plenty of freedom anyway having to care for each other).

No lunch is ever free.

EDIT: I assume that larger scale communism is Russia, in which case, gun to head to bring up to speed during wartime when the US was able to jump up to speed anyway because of profit margins.

edited 28th Apr '11 9:35:18 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Russia was decades behind in terms of industrial development, even if Communism was the issue, they would have been behind.

Communism wasn't the issue. Crazy Comrade Stalin was their immediate issue, but before that Russia itself was well behind.

Why do you think that it was behind in the first place? Why bother work harder than anyone else if you're getting paid the same?

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

You do realize I only believe in communism because it makes me feel good, right? As I was saying, the Spanish Revolution is a great example of larger-scale communism. You seem fixated on Russia even though it didn't even implement communist principles. Why? How do you respond?

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

I can't really say I care so much about whether or not it makes you feel good (or anyone in particular) but whether or not it manages to be sustainable. Communism can at least work on paper, an economy where you don't have to be self-reliant thanks to "gifts" just outright fails because there's no reason to ever bother to be the person who makes those gifts in the first place and so freedom has to be loss by forcing people in some manner to make those gifts so they don't have to be self-reliant at all.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

[1]

Fails? It's essential feature of human behavior.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Nah, altruism and trust are not necessarily part of human nature, they're learned. Need and desire are though, which is why there are far better economies for driving individuals.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.