This is a false choice. Seeing bounds and ties to each other as burdensome isn’t “human nature”. Human nature is cooperative and collaborative and requires valuing people beyond immediate material gain. Wisdom is another term.
wdym?
This is only true if you would choose to use your freedom in ways that don’t benefit others.
I’m free as hell. I choose to use my freedom to help my children, my wife, and my community. So no, they and I don’t need to be more capable of taking care of ourselves. We can take care of each other. Because we choose to. Because we’re free to.
What you’re saying doesn’t contradict OP?
"I’m free as hell. I choose to use my freedom to help my children, my wife, and my community. So no, they and I don’t need to be more capable of taking care of ourselves. "
Yeah, as I said, this is the level of freedom you want for everyone. People who freely associate with each other take care of each other.
You missed the part where there are people who don’t/can’t take care of themselves in this scenario
Nope, I spoke of collective freedom and ability. Read the statement again with some thought.
I didn’t say “the more freedom you want for yourself, the more you must take care of yourself”. I spoke of freedom any one person wants to have for everyone, meaning themselves and others (including people with disabilities OR people they don’t like). And I said you’d also need ableness in proportion to the level of freedom you want. If you aren’t able and can’t take care of yourself, it would be in your best interest to support systems that enable getting you the kind of support you need (though you don’t have to, if you want to grant everyone the freedom to refuse to support you). And if one is so disabled that they can’t do anything for themselves, they probably aren’t too concerned about abstract societal freedoms to begin with.
You probably live in a society which intentionally supresses gangs, serial-murderers, & other kinds of “freedom” that some really want to be indulging in…
“Freedom” is a code-word for lawlessness, for many.
& state-lawlessness allows personal-law-with-a-gun to be the only law.
Much of the ideology of the US seems to be predicated on that kind of “freedom”: the freedom to be the only law, to be the enforcer, the judge, the jury, & the executioner.
As many have noted, the whole “free speech” thing means “only for me” kind of “freedom”.
But it’s the same logic with right-to-live, right to kill-others, etc: it’s narcissism, all the way through that whole ideology, from the evidence it forces in the world’s face.
DarkTriad’s real.
It’s committed to making itself the only “lord”.
Every variant of oligarchy/feudalism bullshit, whether “communist-party” enforced feudalism, or fascist feudalism, or corporatist feudalism … all of them demonstrate that removing livingwage from as much of the population as possible is the basis of the “freedom” they want to enforce, because of what it enables later…
I wish this world were sane.
I wish the system itself were rigged to be raising lives up as far in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs as possible.
But the evidence is that criminality’s the real ruler of this world.
& that healthy-freedom is only a temporary mirage…
All those reports about democracy being eradicated, globally … it’s civilrights which is being eradicated globally.
That’s the “enemy” in the eyes of the ones who’re highjacking our planet’s governments…
I’ve read that in Scandinavia it’s entirely possible for women to choose their careers by preference, not by being pressured into it by institutions or by men.
& the segregation-of-jobs is significantly greater than it is in the places where male-pressure ( North America for sure, probably some of Europe ) or institutional pressure ( Soviet Union was that way )…
That is a kind of freedom.
Parenting, simply being able to afford to be with one’s children for their first 4 years, & to be providing them with proper nutrition, shelter, education, etc, is freedom.
That’s been nearly-eradicated from North American lives, except for the most-fortunate…
Parenting is a luxury?!
Insanity.
Maybe I’m just too bitter…
I don’t think the kind of freedom that you’re having is normal, in North America.
& that’s a problem, in my bitter eyes.
Sorry to have bothered with all these words.
_ /\ _
Bingo. Same with religion - I already kill and harm as much as I want to, which is zero. I like helping my community and my family, and even for selfish reasons it benefits me because they have my back too as a result.
If a person needs a book or a threat to behave in prosocial ways, they have a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller
Helen Keller was blind and deaf.
Very powerful social advocate.
She needed tools and accommodations, not charity. She fought for systems that allowed her to participate, not for others to do things for her. That’s the difference between dependency and interdependence with autonomy. She fought for the level of the freedom she wanted for everyone as much as she was able.
Now you’re just arguing the definitions of words.
And I’m pretty sure that the only reason her teacher was able to help her grow was that the teacher got training at charity schools.
No, I’m going by the real definitions of words. Charity by definition is something done in informal basis (and as such, it’s unreliable). It’s not welfare system - which Keller wanted (reliable egalitarianism). Keller herself was vocally against relying on charity as the sole system of support for the needy. She argued that as long as the disabled and the poor relied on the “generosity” of individuals, they remained subjects rather than citizens.
In May 1888, Keller started attending the Perkins Institute for the Blind. In 1893, Keller, along with Sullivan, attended William Wade House and Finishing School. In 1894, Keller and Sullivan moved to New York to attend the Wright-Humason School for the Deaf, and to learn from Sarah Fuller at the Horace Mann School for the Deaf. In 1896, they returned to Massachusetts, and Keller entered The Cambridge School for Young Ladies before gaining admittance, in 1900, to Radcliffe College of Harvard University, where she lived in Briggs Hall, South House. Her admirer, Mark Twain, had introduced her to Standard Oil magnate Henry Huttleston Rogers, who, with his wife Abbie, paid for her education.
Yeah, she did it all by herself lol
Let me be clear, I’m by no means knocking Helen Keller. But dude, let it go that doing everything by yourself is somehow better, because it’s not.
Where did I ever say that doing everything by yourself is better somehow? I pointed out specifically that she needed assistance. She didn’t need someone to do everything for her, she needed someone to enable her to do as much as she could for herself, and that’s also what kind of policies she fought for.
I just don’t understand your point I guess
I’m not making moral claims, nor am I saying what “should” be. I’m just pointing out an obvious feedback loop, which however does put the onus on the reader to figure out for themselves how much freedom they want to allow for everyone (again, not just themselves).
Seems to me you’re trying to read what I said as a call for some “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” idea. Which is isn’t, if you pay attention to the words I used.
Freedom is dependent on responsibility.
The more DarkTriad { narcissism, machiavellianism, sociopathy-psychopathy } is rampant, the more enforcement is required in order to limit that.
An incapable-of-responsibility population, & … only “freedom” is possible.
A truly-responsible population, & self-management & responsible-innovation can live well.
Nobody’ll believe that until everybody’s dead, though, it looks like…
_ /\ _
