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

Russia was behind in the first place because...well, I don't know, maybe the Tsars were responsible, maybe the Mongol invasion, maybe because of the Vikings, or because of just not developing as fast as Western Europe.

Communism, even the in-name-mostly kind, didn't cause Russia to be behind, it was already behind before the October Revolution.

That said, in terms of growth...well, check it out, you might be surprised.

edited 28th Apr '11 10:18:14 PM by blueharp

OK fine, Usht. You're right. Whew. It really sucks in comparison though, which is why I am a primitivist too. But I don't like your ideas. It's intrinsically aversive to go through that.

edited 28th Apr '11 10:13:26 PM by LoveHappiness

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

I believe that we are always free, and the only limitations are physical laws of the universe. For example, I'm free to run for as long as I want, but at some point my body will require me to stop and acquire more energy, so I am not free to run as long as I want.

I am free to rob a bank to get more money. I am also free to face the consequences of my actions and be arrested in the process (or not, if I am not caught). The rules and laws of society do not matter. I always have the freedom of choice to decide to break them or to make decisions that will harm myself (tying back into those who aren't capable of self-reliance). There are simply consequences to whatever decision I make, whether beneficial or not.

I'm working on it.

You might find it surprising, however, that you can have miniature gift economies within competitive areas due to the need for individuals to band together as a workforce, resulting in friendships and bonds that will allow for that necessarily level of trust and fellowship, allowing those people to exchange favors as needed to help each other because they know they can rely on each other.

Is that really self-reliance, nah, everyone has a bad day, but you've got the freedom to choose to be a loner if you want and still have a good chance at succeeding in such an economy, you'll just be missing out on some really nice bonuses from working with others. That's the beauty of it, the competition brings out the best in people while maintaining their freedom to make the choices they want and the ability to choose between being totally self-reliant, totally reliant, or somewhere in between.

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

^^ What about our own limitations? I'm not sure my aunt can be considered "free" when her paranoia and bipolar disorder have messed up her life so badly. American beliefs on freedom mean she can't be forced into taking medication, and she'll never voluntarily take it because of said paranoia, so she'll be like this forever.

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

Usht, this discussion has made me depressed and really anxious.

But I'd argue the exact opposite. This is not choice, and cooperation is far more pleasant than competition (which is characteristic of primitive societies). The "benefits" are bull.

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

Well, if we can make her self-reliant and more free by giving her that medicine, then should we not? Granted, you'll never be truly self-reliant but if there's a solution to her lack of self-reliance that results in her inability to fully grasp freedom, then should we not give it to her?

By the way, if you guys haven't figured it out yet, I'm very much "self-reliance = more freedom".

EDIT: Then take a break. I'd prefer to have a discussion with someone who doesn't take this stuff personally because when you get down to it, it's just a bunch of posts on a site. Take a breather and come back to the discussion when you're feeling better and if you want to.

edited 28th Apr '11 11:02:25 PM by Usht

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

"self-reliance = more freedom"

Freedom to starve is great!

Having your most basic physiological needs under threat is awesome!

edited 28th Apr '11 11:03:45 PM by LoveHappiness

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

However, I will not listen to slippery slopes.

edited 28th Apr '11 11:07:47 PM by Usht

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

I don't know. What does this "self-reliance" really amount to? Will you explain it without sugar-coating?

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

Sure thing, self-reliance means being independent by providing yourself with what you need. In the case of a free enterprise economy, this means being able to earn income and use that income to support yourself as well as being able to deal with various problems that may pop up along the way. It may not seem like self-reliance at first if you need others to sell items and services to you in the first place, but keep in mind that they wouldn't have offered that in the first place unless you had something in exchange for them in the first place, so it still relies on you being able to secure yourself that income. This results in the largest amount of freedom because you are free to choose how to handle those funds and what you can get with those funds. Some choices are inherently better than others, but you're still free to buy what you like, live how you like, and yes, even starve if you fail to ever achieve a decent level of usefulness.

Even in this case, disabled people may lack the mental capacity to be full self-reliant, but they can at least use some ability of theirs to be useful somewhere, even if it isn't necessarily in the public eye. While people like this will need to be cared for, it will ultimately be the choice of the caretaker (morally or otherwise) to care for them and if he or she deems it fit, leave such a position.

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

So no welfare, no benefits or unions, no right to strike, no right to be free of discrimination and harassment, no right for food or water or shelter, just unrestricted capitalism, consequences be damned? Apparently also against fundamental human rights for the disabled? Eh...

edited 28th Apr '11 11:25:48 PM by LoveHappiness

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

Nope, because this access to freedom also gives the people the ability to rally and fight for such rights if they need to. If people want welfare and that's economically feasible, someone will fulfill that demand. If people feel they are being treated unfairly at a job, they are free to rally or leave and get a better job else where. If people want law enforcement, they are free to enlist and pay for a group of police to manage things for them (and if this is universal enough, the community can all pay a small amount to the police group for the same service allowing for maximum benefit). And if people feel that the people with disabilities aren't being treated properly, they'll again similarly contract a group of people to enforce rights for those groups, we call this a government.

In fact, it's kind of like taxes, except you pay for it only if you want it because that's how free enterprise works?

Food and water? Nah, you'll need to work for that.

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

"Food and water? Nah, you'll need to work for that."

Yeah, no. You give food and water to people who need it, then worry about work. You would have us ignore starving people because they aren't economically productive? Because that's what's happening.

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

Why? What's in it for the person fulfilling it?

What if there is no better job elsewhere, because no company considers it advantageous to treat the displaced employees in a way they would find acceptable?

What if the people who need it don't have the means to afford it, even when pooling their money together?

If you have to enforce something, then we've stopped being totally free here, haven't we?

And if we don't enforce it, what happens if the people being picketed decide to just not give a rat's ass what the disabled people want?

Basically, the problem with expecting everyone to either be able to be self-reliant or find non-forced help is that there just is not enough people who will voluntarily do the latter to fulfill the need, especially since often there's more net benefit to not providing the help than there is to providing it.

edited 28th Apr '11 11:45:16 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

No, I'll give you food and water if I deem that it's morally or economically good to do so. I just pull the chain when you are showing signs of leeching off of me instead of trying to improve yourself.

Heck, I could give you charity, or I could give you a job, train you, and have a loyal employee out of the deal who I rely on when the going gets tough. Give a man a fish or teach him to fish?

All good points, but the point is, free enterprise and democracy have the ability to evolve into whatever the people deem fit. They start off with total freedom in what to choose to do and exchange that freedom for what they find most desirable.

edited 28th Apr '11 11:48:36 PM by Usht

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

There's a middle-ground to all this, you know.

But what Love seems to be trying to recommend is a Resource Based Economy, something like The Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement is pushing for.

The problem is, while all the ideals are really lofty and nice sounding, there's several reasons why it won't work.

Some people need work, I'm one of those people, I'd go crazy if I didn't have a job.

Someone has to keep the lights on. At the end of the day, someone has to bite the bullet and even if we have machines doing most of our work for us, those machines break down eventually and need to be taught how to fix things et cetera. Not to mention the way this stifles creation, bunch of lazy assholes would just start taking in any way they can.

To be honest, I want nice and shiny things that other people don't have. Why would I work for something I really want if everyone can have it? It just kind of defeats the purpose sometimes. Humans strive for things that show some sort of status. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not into this whole 1 percent of humanity owning almost half of the GDP of the world, I think that needs to be fixed. But I want there to be a bar somewhere, I want to be able to work hard enough to get something like a nice car, or a faster computer, or a cool and expensive gun, because part of the fun of having those things is showing off a little.

Well, I can't speak for Love, but for me it strikes me as being less nobody working and more the idea that you should be free to work to give yourself extra while knowing your basics are already covered, not the situation some people have being stuck putting in lots of hard work just to survive, with the option of getting anything extra being beyond their reach.

edited 29th Apr '11 12:56:44 AM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

No human being is truly self-reliant. That's just not feasible, us being social animals and all, but I do not see how this is a problem, or what this has to do with freedom.

As for gift economies/resource based economies, I think that they might be possible and desirable, if the circumstances are right; but of course, setting up the right circumstance would be an insanely complex social engineering problem.

Attempts along these lines are interesting, and could lead to Cool Stuff - but I would not hold my breath for them fixing everything that is troubling about the current state of the world.

edited 29th Apr '11 2:25:34 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Nobody is truly independent; no human is an island. That "self-made man"? He'd be nothing without his fellow humans.

Reading this thread (especially Usht and LoveHappiness' little argument) made me remember The Selfish Gene somewhat. Nature, as in society, it is "best" to behave selfishly in an altruistic environment. The Prisoner's Dilemma is an excellent way to demonstrate this. I'd spiel about it, but nobody wants to hear that.

*

edited 29th Apr '11 2:43:01 AM by AllanAssiduity

If you have not seen it yet, you may want to have a look at Axelrod's experiment on the iterated prisoner's dilemma: it turns out that the best strategy was "Tit for tat", not "always defect" (and actually, for the original experiment "tit for two tats" would have been even better).

Or consider the Ultimatum game, in which humans routinely outperform the theoretically optimal strategy.

edited 29th Apr '11 3:17:55 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The problem with this argument is that both sides have good points (and I agree with Barkey, there's a middle ground). You need to work to provide for yourself and others because resources are scarce and can't be replicated and distributed without cost. At the same time, that's not to say that everyone is equally capable of working to provide in that way. A paraplegic man certainly has the spirit to work and make it in the world, but all the wishing isn't gonna get him out of bed unless he's given a means. He can earn it, or have family or friends that provide him support (The Power of Friendship and Love certainly are real, being better motivators than money most of the time), but what if he wasn't fortunate enough to have those things?

That's the problem with lack of safety net free societies; they treat the world like a PVP MMO, only benefiting those who were fortunate enough to be born into a supportive web of influence so they get better at "winning", while those who weren't are one mistake away from losing, and there's no respawn.

And the only answer to this is "well, society will work something out." And you know what, you're right. It's called civilization, and next to agriculture has been our most widely successful piece of technology. Every civilization has had a government that provides in some way in exchange for the compliance of its citizens, and it's allowed us to dominate the globe. Meanwhile no example of a government-free society exists outside of fiction, and maybe those micro-nations you hear about, and they're so small or poor they don't matter.

Ultimately, there will always be some element of protection in a so-called free society just as there will always be some element of force in a communistic one. Humans are clever, but we're at our cleverest when we're working together, whether we think it's worth our trouble or not.

I think you can't just transplant people into a system that doesn't fit their culture and expect them to make it work.

Chinese-style communism seems to have worked out fairly well. I mean, they are a repressive government, but it's not like they have to threaten people with death to get them to work hard. (At least, that's the impression I get from my Chinese friends.) But China has a collectivist culture, which means people value being useful to their community as one of the highest values. Maybe communism only works for collectivist cultures.

If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.

It also shows that government needs to be a potentially evolving thing. China has something of a free market now as well, and seems to be doing them good. A completely free society would need to constantly enforce such a thing, which requires an agent to enforce it; if not a government (meaning it's no longer totally free) than it'd be different bickering private parties. In which case they spend too much time keeping a government from forming and not enough doing their free market thing. Ironically, not so dissimilar from an overly regulatory government that can't get anything done.

EDIT: dissimilar, not similar. >_>

edited 29th Apr '11 8:08:43 AM by Ratix

@Carciofus: Oh, indeed, I checked it out. Dawkins mentions it in The Selfish Gene, and I couldn't resist looking it up.