In these troubled times, with authoritarianism on the rise, it is well for those who value liberty to take stock of what freedoms they have and determine which they will keep. To that end, I have of late been pondering a question: what are the fundamental freedoms? By this I mean, what freedoms must a person at minimum enjoy to be considered free. Beyond the interesting philosophical implications of this question, it also has the practical purpose of revealing which freedoms ought to be fought the hardest for, and consequently which hills are worth dying on. I propose as answer to this question that there are three fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of defense, and freedom of religion. I believe that these three hold together as the bedrock upon which all other freedoms stand, and that they also correspond to securing freedom in the three primary aspects of person-hood: freedom of mind, freedom of body, and freedom of soul.
The first freedom, freedom of speech, protects the freedom of the mind. For a mind to be truly free, it must be free to consider all things: right and wrong, true and false, good and evil. To hem in a mind by removing topics from consideration is to reduce the person to whom the mind belongs, by depriving them of the ability to judge ideas themselves and make their own choices. For there is no freedom without the ability to choose, and there is no choice without options. Thus the maximum amount of freedom is secured when all options are available for consideration, and this is only possible if people are not limited in their speech. It is through speech that ideas are shared, refined, and judged, and to limit the ability of people to speak is to limit their ability to think.
The most common objection to this freedom is that some ideas are wrong, false, or evil, and that such ideas must be suppressed, for the benefit of the community as well as of the individual who will be spared being subjected to such harmful ideas. While it is indeed true that many ideas are wrong, false, or even evil, I would submit two rebuttals to the proposal that these must be suppressed. First, on philosophical grounds, depriving a person of the consideration of an idea limits the mind and diminishes the person, as previously stated. Second, on practical grounds, the very fact that people develop faulty ideas should make plain the folly of suppressing such ideas: that the list of faulty ideas may itself be faulty. If people can err in their ideas one way, they can just as easily err in their ideas the other, and so if the suppression of ideas is accepted it is inevitable that there will be right, true, and good ideas that are incorrectly labeled wrong, false, and evil, and thereafter suppressed. The harm in suppressing beneficial ideas I consider self evident, and so will not belabor this point.
Freedom of speech is also one of the two necessities for securing all other freedoms, for without the ability to plead one’s case one will be utterly unable to make any headway on the road to liberty. This is evidenced for time and time again throughout history, as before any positive change has been made it has been first spoken of. Without the ability to speak freely, people loose the ability to make positive change, as an idea must be shared before it can be accepted and acted upon.
The second freedom, freedom of defense, protects the freedom of the body. For a person to be in control of their own body, its labor, and the products thereof, a person must be allowed to defend themselves. If a person is deprived of the ability to defend themselves, they are at the mercy of those who are still able to wield force, and can at any time be coerced by the threat or action of violence to surrender control over their body, its labor, and the products thereof. In short, a person deprived of the freedom to defend themselves is a slave to all who are capable of aggression. To properly be able to exercise the freedom of defense, a person must be allowed to keep, bear, and as appropriate use weapons sufficient to enact this defense. As history has shown that malefactors bent on subjugating people come in many forms, from the solitary common criminal to armies of conquering soldiers, the freedom of defense requires the right to weapons that can meet a range of threats, up to and including weapons that some may consider solely weapons of war. But to deny a person the ability to meet the full range of threats is to subjugate that person to the threat which they are prevented from countering.
The most common objection to this freedom is that there are those who will misuse their weapons, using them not to exercise their right to defense but rather to offend against others. And while this is true, it is no justification to deprive people of their rights. From a philosophical perspective, it is unjust to deny a person of their rights as punishment for crimes they did not commit. From a practical perspective, no society of significant size has ever demonstrated the ability to remove all weapons, and in fact where weapons are most tightly controlled they tend to be most common among the criminally minded class of people, those most likely to abuse their weapons to harm others rather than use them to exercise their own freedom of defense. Thus the restriction of weapons has the effect of empowering those most likely to abuse the use of weapons while dis-empowering those most likely to use them responsibly. Rendering honest people defenseless in the face of dishonest people creates an unjust society, as it ensures that those of good intent will be subjugated by those of ill intent. And an unjust society is not only immoral, in practice it tends to descend into either authoritarianism or anarchy, as injustice inevitably erodes the order in any society.
Freedom of defense is the second of the two necessities for securing all other freedoms, for without the ability to defend oneself one will be open to intimidation or worse from those who wish to suppress efforts to advocate for the expansion of rights. It is all too common for those who find themselves unable to win an argument with words to resort to silencing the argument with weapons. With the freedom to defend oneself, one at least has a fighting chance to stand against oppression.
The third freedom, freedom of religion, protects the freedom of the soul. I hold what some may consider an expansive view of religion, as I define religion as the search for the fundamental truths of reality and the subsequent beliefs and practices that flow naturally from finding that truth. Under such a definition, religion can be seen to be of great importance to almost every person, for there is nothing more meaningful than finding the answers to life’s most important questions and choosing to align oneself with or against these answers. As such, depriving a person of the ability to find their deepest fulfillment is indeed the cruelest torture that can be inflicted upon a soul. Even if the answer they find is wrong, so long as they do not force their answer on others nor use their answer as an excuse to do violence to others, they should be allowed to persist in their folly, as it only harms themselves and every person has the right to do what they will with their own soul, as it is the most essential part of a person and therefor the part that most fully belongs to them. But the freedom of religion is not merely the freedom of belief, as that is already essentially covered by the freedom of speech. It is more: it includes the freedom of practice, for belief without practice is empty, as practice is the implementation, expression, and fulfillment of belief. So long as such practice does not infringe on the rights of others it must be tolerated as part and parcel of the freedom of religion. The correct way to counter the folly of false religion is through the exercise of freedom of speech and the respectful demonstration of right practice, for not only does this respect the rights of all but it is also the surest way to win over souls to the truth, for the soul of a person tends to respond more favorably to insight and example than to oppression.
While this freedom is unlike the previous two, in that it is not a necessity which enables one to strive for all other freedoms, it tends to be the most meaningful to individuals as well as the most beneficial to society. For any society that can bring itself to the toleration of competing religions is a society that can bring itself to the embrace of a wide array of freedoms. Once people accept that they can agree to disagree about the most important issues, finding the same tolerance for lesser issues becomes that much easier. And the inverse is true as well: a society that does not embrace a freedom in religion is a society that will be unable to embrace freedom in many other areas as well, as the accepted range of beliefs and practices will be very narrow, and thus the society will trend towards dogmatism and close-mindedness. Even those who find little use for religion even under my expansive definition should find that a more tolerant society is preferable to a less tolerant one, and therefor see the value in this freedom.
With these three freedoms secured to an individual, I believe that they can be accounted free, at least in the most basic and fundamental sense, as in the enjoyment of these freedoms they are afforded mastery over their own self. When deprived of any one or more of these freedoms, I do not think an individual can be accounted free, for at least one aspect of their person-hood has been taken from them without their consent and control of it put in the hands of others. There are, of course, many other freedoms besides these three, but they all either flow from or require the exercise of one of these three to fully enjoy. A person who has only these three may be otherwise oppressed, but they are at least free, as they have control over their own destiny and are empowered to fight for their further liberation. A person who has all other freedoms but not these three, while they may not be oppressed they are not free, for they neither control their destiny nor are empowered to defend the freedoms they do enjoy, and thus enjoy them not of their own accord but at the pleasure of others, who are their masters. Thus I hope I have demonstrated the importance of these three freedoms, and illustrated the necessity of protecting them at all costs.
In these troubled times – joe iz prez. no more troubled times
I just looked at the clock and I’s said to myself, “Time to First.”
how’s that working for you?
Your inane comment doesn’t concern me. Go back to Romania.
Dude, you should back the fuck off, pie is a fine person, dont be a dick
it’s okay Yusef I pay him little mind
Pay no mind 1: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yHjjqYQpBQg
2: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IDYKslnO0r0
The most damaging thing we could do is ignore him. Completely. At all times.
*cough* mute button *cough*
(it’s right next to the cum button)
it’s right next to the cum button
So that’s why I don’t . . . uh, never mind.
I keep forgetting about that. Thank you for coding it.
THERE’S A CUM BUTTON???
*splooges on mike
*
/yep, guess there is.
Well, that’s the only First that matters.
One of the benefits of usenet, and the clients thereto was
a killfile. Banning wasn’t necessary, as the newsreader
allowed everyone to decide for themselves who was obnoxious
enough to not see. All of these web forums are a poor
substitute, but they’re what we have.
I don’t have a killfile here, and while I don’t mind most of
the people here, even when they say things I find offensive,
I sort of wish for one, as there is someone who would be
the first to be on it.
I’ve been using the mute button as a bit of a cool off for myself. There are a couple who are perpetually muted for reasons, but mostly I just put people on mute for a few days when they’re being irksome and I don’t trust myself to not be an ass back to them.
It was very helpful during the election season and shortly thereafter.
Really, I want to get to the point where I can mute by content. Disabling NSFW links, for example. Hiding comments when a specific commenter uses a specific phrase. Hiding threads that I don’t want to be tempted to participate in. Etc.
Why you hate me!?
I remember killfiles and usenet. I miss usenet.
I never used killfiles, instead just ignoring people I didn’t care for, but I remember them being mentioned in usenet flamewars. It amused a part of me.
I remember Reasonable. That was the best.
I would think it goes without saying that there was nothing actually meant to offend Pie there. He has nowhere to go back to – he’s posting from Romania. Nor did I begrudge him mocking me. When responding to Pie, I highly doubt he would take offense to anything I say. Let alone that. But apparently it does need to be said for some. As in, there was actually nothing serious about any of the comments in question.
How are we going to hate you if you’re being reasonable (not that I care, my thumb is as capable of scrolling past the firsts as anything else around here)?
Outside insults lobbed at The Hyperbole, who I genuinely loath, people should generally not take anything I say about them seriously. Anyone is free to hate me or still take offense, but even I’d say they’re wasting their time.
“The Hyperbole, who I genuinely loath”
Wow, why?
I find he argues in bad faith, and I don’t think he does it just to be contrarian, either. He has that contrarian streak where he’ll argue for the sake of it, but he finds himself in so many arguments around here because of his general sensibilities which genuinely are left leaning. So when he makes a comment like the one he did yesterday, that people voted for Trump because of racism, he may be kind of joking. But only kind of.
I can get along fine with people I disagree with, but then I have to go back to the “bad faith” part. He will be willfully obtuse with his own points while taking everything someone else says at its most literal or extreme. Some people see this as useful around here as it breaks up the echo chamber vibe that we sometimes have going on. I find the way he does it, to use HM’s favorite term, mendacious. He’s a dishonest little prick.
Maybe he should just be rude and insult people at random, like…?
Well, he did pretty much call a significant portion of the people who post here racist yesterday (not me, though – I’m a proud non-voter).
Man, that joke must have really hit close to home huh?
No.
I find Bro to be amusing. He occasionally breaks character, which makes his Bro persona more amusing, to me at least.
I’m somewhat embarrassed to admit that I think he’s funny, too, and wouldn’t want him to be banhammered.
I’ll take it.
His comment is quite ane.
it is well for those who value liberty to take stock of what freedoms they have and determine which they will keep – sadly those who value liberty are too few to matter
By this I mean, what freedoms must a person at minimum enjoy to be considered free – maybe freedom to get the fuck out of where you are living and go someplace better if such exists
Free to gambol? [runs away laughing madly]
We are rapidly approaching the loss of that one.
Coronapanicdoomterror was the greatest thing to ever happen to power-hungry authoritarians.
Thanks for writing this, Gadfly. I would substitute freedom of conscience for freedom of religion. Freedom to speak is a natural extension of freedom of conscience, for what good does it do you to have thoughts if you are forbidden to express them in public?
I also prefer freedom of conscience
Sure you would, you Godless Romanian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Gadfly is using “soul” the same way you’re using “conscience”. Freedom of religion is the freedom of outward expression, while freedom of conscience is less tangible.
Yes, to me freedom of religion means not just belief (which is impossible to regulate, at least directly) or expression (which is already covered by freedom of speech) but also action. It gets a bit nebulous there, of course, but the more expansive you make the definition of religion (and I have a very expansive definition) the more behavior it protects. Why is this all under the heading of religion? Because religion is the most important thing for most people who practice organized religion, which is the majority of people, and I also consider philosophy to be in the same category of religion so would incorporate those who hold fast to and practice a philosophy, it is something people will argue more heatedly about than the other things (up to and including wars), so if tolerance can be established in that arena it can be extended out to adjacent areas.
Thanks for the feedback Tonio. Freedom of conscience is indeed a more inclusive name than freedom of religion for essentially the same thing (in my view), but since after deciding on the three freedoms I thought most important the concept of relating them to “mind, body, and soul” popped into my mind, and I liked that idea, I decided to keep the religion name to keep the correspondence clear. I tried to make it clear that I had in mind a more expansive idea than merely what is colloquial considered “religion” (as I believe that religion and philosophy are two sides of the same coin and therefor essentially the same thing), but perhaps I should have put more work into fleshing that out.
The third freedom, freedom of religion – I find this iffy unless a laws of robotics style condition of not affection the previous two laws…
Remember that when there appears to be a conflict between rights that one of those things is not a right.
A person’s freedom of worship does not in any way affect me, even though I’m a non-believer. Only when the religious person expresses a desire to silence the speech of others does it cross the line between a right and an imposition of your will on others.
true but sadly it needs to be stated constantly
I mention it for religion because it is very often not the case with many of the religious
It’s really interesting. I would consider freedom of religion to be thoroughly covered by freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. There’s no need to have a separate freedom of religion, which could be construed as a positive right. Indeed, we’re seeing “freedom of religion” being used a weapon against those who would dare employ Muslim cashiers in the sales of pork and alcohol. That’s a relatively light example. Nevermind Sharia Law which is a natural extension of freedom of religion.
Of course the real world plays out differently from our theoretical Libertopia. When freedom of speech and freedom to assemble have been trampled on, it’s been surprisingly freedom of religion that has pushed back some of the worst tyrannical tendencies of the American gov. Homeschooling only exists as an option in America today because of the freedom of religion. (((I))) even purchased a lifetime membership to a Christian-based homeschooling advocacy group because they are the most powerful force in keeping homeschooling legal in the USA.
We all saw the same with the tyrannical Covid restrictions, where freedom to assemble arguments were laughed out of court but many freedom of religion arguments were upheld.
. I would consider freedom of religion to be thoroughly covered by freedom of speech and freedom to assemble – absolutly and it may be more productive
In a similar vein i was listening to An Audio Mises daily about the Ute Indian tribe pushing back on the Biden Admin and asserting their sovereignty in the face of his Oil Drilling ban. They were successful and got an exemption.
I do not begrudge them for standing up for their rights, I begrudge the Government for trampling on mine and not extending the exemption to everyone. Likewise, there have been many exemptions made because religious people have fought and stood on their rights to religion and freedom of conseince. I would not begrudge them retaining their rights, but be glad that at least some people were able to wriggle out from the Tyranny of the Fed Gov.
Them ain’t no True Injuns!
Nevermind Sharia Law which is a natural extension of freedom of religion.
Only if sharia law is only applied to people who freely consent to it. Sharia law enforced by the government is not so applied. One of the confounding things about Islam to Western Europeans is that Western Europe arrived at a separation of church and state (even where there is a single state-approved religion) that is pretty much unknown in Islam. For a variety of reasons, the use of the state to enforce Islam is widespread and accepted, even insisted upon, by some? many? Muslims.
“For a variety of reasons, the use of the state to enforce Islam is widespread and accepted, even insisted upon, by some? many? Muslims.”
I was listening to a Cato Daily podcast the other day about the decision to define Chinese treatment of Uighurs as genocide. One of the contributors noted that there had been little, if any, condemnation of the Chinese government by Islamic governments. He conjectured that this was because those governments did not want to undermine Chinese authoritarianism as it would undermine there own.
I would speculate that its because there is enough Chinese lucre going to Muslim governments/officials.
I’m sure there’s plenty of Chinese money involved, but the Uighurs have their own brand of Islam/culture that makes them different and distinct in the eyes of the states that would typically take offense. Iran isn’t going to rock the boat with China over another sect of Islam they consider heretical, especially when they’re main foreign policy goal is basically to thumb their noses at the US. And the Gulf States are even less inclined to care.
Indonesia has “freedom of religion”. You are “free” to express one of the 6 approved religions: Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Confucianism. Setting aside obvious exclusions (Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, 7DA/JW/LDS, Sufi/Bahai, Jains/Sikhs, etc.), there is no freedom to express atheism in general, and certainly not to question one of these religions or convert among them (that would be counter to good social order). So some clarification is probably needed when just summarizing.
But the same could be said of freedom of speech and freedom of defense. Well, you’re still free to say lots of things, just not this “small” list of forbidden things. Well, you’re still allowed to defend yourself, just not with this “small” list of forbidden weapons or martial arts. I don’t think religion is that unique in this regard.
How does one express atheism in any way that is analogous to theistic worship?
Atheist social media is just a mirror image of theist social media with different shibboleths. I’ve run into atheist equivalents of street preachers back in college. Unitarians have got the “church” part covered. New Age hippies had only vague “spirituality” but still got together a lot. The overlap between atheists and IFLS types is pretty strong, too, so everything from a planetarium to a research lab can be an atheist temple. Wearing a colander on your head was mostly a joke but it wasn’t the theists doing it. How people express their atheism is up to them, and there’s no obligation to express it outwardly, but lots do.
Atheists are far more preachy than theists, in my experience.
That has been my experience as well. They make themselves really easy to dislike. I am a bit of an atheist/strong agnostic myself, but I came from a religious background, and most evangelical atheists (often themselves apostates) are really pricks about it.
Among [[[LDS]]] populations is a saying “They can leave the church, but they can’t leave it alone.” I think the same can be said about a lot of people who go through a shift in world view, that they feel like they have to be on the front lines denouncing what they disbelieve.
That said, some of the most Christ-like people I have met have been nonreligious people who genuinely believe in being nice to other people.
Agreed. I’ve even started just calling myself nonreligious instead of atheist because I can’t stand the whole atheist “culture” that has come about. When I was in my early 20s I thought Richard Dawkins was the most amazing genius of our time, but I saw after a while that he’s not particularly insightful. And most dogmatic atheists tend to be pretty far Left and subscribe to a fake historical narrative where the Bible was responsible for all the ills in the world.
Yep, I ditched “atheist” for all the same reasons. In summary, they are tedious and annoying.
I follow along the lines of an old poster at TOS.
I’m an apatheist. I simply don’t care that much. I have too many non-spiritual problems to sort out to worry about whether a god exists. I don’t claim any moral authority based on there being a god, nor do I denigrate those who do as long as they aren’t forcing their shit on me.
I do, however, find any obstruction to freedom of religion unconscionable.
I tend to go along with the analytical framework first proposed by the sociologist Peter Singer in his book The Sacred Canopy — if you have an over-arching belief system (fulsome or sparse, systematic or chaotic or somewhere in-between, doesn’t matter) , then you have a religion, even if it’s unique to you.
In such a framework, the statement “I believe God does not exist” is as much a faith-statement as any other, and thus atheism is a religion. So is the worship of the material world. So is every “established” religion. Singer’s point was that, with very rare exceptions, everyone has a mental framework for making sense out of existence. So far as we know, only humans have (or need) this framework. Existential questions do not appear to bedevil my Shih-Tzu, the lucky little bitch. ;-)
I know of some religious people that think atheism is a religion.
C: Constitutional; there should be a written constitution spelling out the rights of people and the limits of government.
P: Property: All rights derive from the first right, the right to property. The first and most important right a person owns is their body, all other rights are derived there in.
R: Rights, those those thing inealiable to the human condition. Some humans are born where their is no water, no food, and thus are not rights. Such is the definition of rights, that by being a human you have them. Thus food, housing, water, medical care and such are not rights. but being born human you have access to speech, by owning your body you can acquire other property, as long as your claim does not infringe on another humans claim, that property you own can not be searched without cause…basically all of the bill of rights, even the 10th amendment is about a group of people and their collective property rights…
M: Minarchist, that government which governs least governs best.
I had always wondered what the name meant.
The US Constitution does enumerate certain rights of the people, and also places certain limits on government. The most beautiful part of the constitution is the declaration that all other rights belong to the people. The problem is that those limits are often ignored. You could write a hundred thousand word constitution and still not be able to enumerate all the things that government is forbidden from doing.
I had always wondered what the name meant. – he keeps mentioning it
That is why the enumerated powers should be the only powers. Only geeks like us will find that ‘cool’, but the questions is, going forward, if we were to start again, how would we word it any different? Set out punishment for those that don’t obey? Make a regular sacrifice to the freedom God?
We obviously cant find some magic mixture of words that will heel the authoritarians. Rule of man will aways win because it appeals to the darker motives of humanity.
Could we theoretically improve on the Constitution? Sure. Would it make any difference? Maybe for a few generations.
Any constitution is only worth the paper it is printed on. The U.S. constitution was pretty good as written, but is basically worthless right now. Aside from not quartering soldiers in peoples homes, I don’t think there is a single part of it that hasn’t been gutted and worn as a skin suit.
Just wait till Biden’s White Nationalism Task Force officers are investigating extremists in your neighborhood and need accommodations for the night. Any resistance will be taken as a sign of Trumpist insurrection.
Terminators programmed to eliminate any politician that proposes violations of the Constitution.
Who gets to program the terminators?
Me.
So, death penalty for puns?
“Aside from not quartering soldiers in peoples homes”
That’s been at least partially gutted since that case in CA (?) a year or two back.
how would we word it any different
“We’re not fucking kidding. Exceed your powers, violate our rights, and you are personally responsible, whether for monetary damages or a criminal conviction.”
Honestly, though, it doesn’t matter what a constitution says if the culture/society isn’t aligned with it. That’s our problem today, not how the Constitution is drafted. A constitution formalizes the arrangement between the government and society as a whole, and is a useful tool for enforcing that arrangement. But as any lawyer can tell you, it doesn’t matter whether the other guy breaches a contract, if your client is unwilling to enforce it.
And the situation we are in where the government simply ignores the constitution is what the second amendment was originally intended to address.
“We’re not fucking kidding. Exceed your powers, violate our rights, and you are personally responsible, whether for monetary damages or a criminal conviction.”
The NH Constitution has Article X.
I always thought this article was a waste of space. Do you seriously think government officials are just going to roll over and take whatever comes from the peasants when the government officials overstep their authority because of a bunch of words on paper?
Belong to the people or the states? I thought the constitution said they belong to the states.
Unfortunately that’s a hole big enough to drive a D11 of interpretation through.
D11 would be a pretty good platform for Killdozer 2.0.
I think merely suggesting that might count as “incitement” or “terrorism” or something ?
The 9A+10A are worded somewhat confusingly, but this is how I interpret them:
Powers not reserved for the feds are left to the states, but if also unclaimed by the states in their own constitutions, are left to the people. This last bit may seem obvious or redundant but at the time legal privilege for the aristocracy and clergy were still pretty common.
Rights not enumerated shall not be disparaged simply because they are not enumerated. A classic example of this would be the Supreme Court upholding the No-Fly List because there’s no right to fly. The fact that there’s no (enumerated) “right to fly” ought to be meaningless in any court in the U.S. because of the Ninth Amendment.
The ninth amendment basically says, there are a whole bunch of other rights that aren’t listed and just because they aren’t listed doesn’t mean you can go infringe on them. If you ain’t granted the power to do it the text of the constitution then you better leave well enough alone.
I’m unsure of current supreme court jurisprudence on the latest interpretation, but the above is what it should be.
There was some Justice, I think Thurgood Marshall, who had a line about how you shouldn’t really apply the 9th amendment unless you really understand it. Basically, tread carefully. I wish I could find it, but it basically sums up the attitude of the courts to that one.
I’m unsure of current supreme court jurisprudence
“Wait, there’s ten amendments in the Bill of Rights? Nobody told us!”
P: Property: All rights derive from the first right, the right to property. The first and most important right a person owns is their body, all other rights are derived there in.
Property is definitely an important right, and hearing what other people regard as the most important rights was a big reason behind wanting to publish this piece. From my view, however, property is not the first right, simply because in order to enforce property rights one must be able to defend oneself. If you cannot defend yourself you cannot defend your property, so I view property rights as being secondary and emanating from the right of defense. But I would be interested in hearing a rebuttal. Although, perhaps we are essentially saying the same think, as I link the right to defense to the ownership of the self.
I would link property to self ownership, with defense also coming from that right. If I own myself, I can protect myself, and things that I’ve earned with my own freely exchanged time and work.
Borrowing from my memory of Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, what are you defending yourself with? If it is not yours, how can you make the decision to use that thing to defend yourself with? Similar with your body. If you don’t own yourself, how can you take action to defend yourself? What if your “owner” (remember, you haven’t shown you own yourself) doesn’t want you to defend yourself?
Good questions to think about. I would say that even discussing freedom presupposes self-ownership, so perhaps that is the 0th freedom. And as a practical matter you can defend yourself with tools you don’t own, although ownership of the means of defense is part of the right to defense, so I could see how property might precede defense. However, I still think that property requires defense, as otherwise it is theoretical and not practical, so to me this seems like it becomes a bit of a chicken-and-egg question.
The first and most important right a person owns is their body, all other rights are derived there in.
Yes.
A person who has only these three may be otherwise oppressed, but they are at least free, as they have control over their own destiny and are empowered to fight for their further liberation.
I am not so sure. When you can’t find decent housing due to government policy, earn enough money, obtain for yours and your own decent healthcare etc these freedoms are nice, but not that essential because further liberation may take time you don’t have
I am not so sure. When you can’t find decent housing due to government policy, earn enough money, obtain for yours and your own decent healthcare etc these freedoms are nice, but not that essential because further liberation may take time you don’t have
That is a good counterpoint. It has indeed frequently been the case that people fighting for further liberation have not seen that liberation in their own lifetimes. And the ability to make a living is of course essential to survival. But being able to pursue liberation is more essential to being free than to surviving, so I still think that having the equipment to fight (having your words and weapons) is of the utmost importance. But perhaps I should think on this more.
I like surviving myself, so far
but I am aware survival and liberty are sometime one-or-the-other kind of a deal
so in essence is survival part of liberty ?
That is a really good question, and as I’m inclined to answer both yes (how can you have liberty if you are dead) and no (most people who have lived have lived without liberty), I’ll have to think about it.
Freedom to eat an Earthican flag is way up on the list for me.
Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmmm President Barack Hussein Obama! Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmmmmm
Again, For the Children!
AM I BEING DETAINED?
You are acting like a child.
Opera applause gif right here^
…a hot child?…asking for OMWC…
You mean that 9 year old who got maced?
Pepper sprayed. At least her eyes weren’t cold anymore. (Don’t read the comments on Fox.)
I think we can all agree that what we really need to look out for are those libertarian terrorists.
The Department of Homeland Security issued on Wednesday a nationwide terror alert lasting until April 30. The alert warns of potential terrorist attacks from Americans who are “ideologically motivated” and have “objections to the exercise of government authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”
The language used in this alert suggests that millions of Americans are potential terrorists. Second Amendment supporting, antiwar, anti-tax, anti-politics, anti-militarization, pro-life, and anti-Federal Reserve activists certainly have “objections to the exercise of government authority.” They are certainly viewed by the political class and its handmaidens in big tech and the mainstream media as ideological extremists. Anyone who gets his news from sources other than mainstream media or big tech, or who uses certain “unapproved” social media platforms, is considered to have had his grievances “fueled by false narratives.” For something to be considered a false narrative, it need only contradict the “official” narrative.
Second Amendment supporting, antiwar, anti-tax, anti-politics, anti-militarization, pro-life, and anti-Federal Reserve
I see they read my newsletter.
Well, I mean they did try to kill Doc Brown.
Oh… sorry wrong country.
…Can I just say, I don’t think them Lew Rockwell fellers are our allies. Lew Rockwell never had an idea any expression of thought than blaming ‘other people’ for our lack of freedom, when in reality it is our fault. Each an every one of us, and we need to figure a way out, or die in the swamp.
At this point, anyone who believes that people should be free to say what’s on their mind is an ally and anyone who believes that only certain people should be allowed to speak, and only certain things should be allowed to be said, is an enemy. Bonus points if they’re willing to recognize the existence of the Cathedral and want to oppose it.
Left-right is becoming an increasingly pointless distinction as we get oppressed by the center.
^This, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
This!!
Freedom of speech is on the verge of disappearing. Anyone who supports free speech is a friend, regardless of whatever other political positions they might hold. We can worry about those later.
No love for Ron Paul in these parts anymore?
There is here.
I have no objections to the exercise of government authority
whatsoever. Where we (not you RS, a sort of general ‘we’) seem to disagree
is on what the government actually has the authority to do.
What happens on 4/30? Do we all get raptured so we’re no longer a problem or what?
Well, 4/15 is Tax Day, and add two weeks for late filers gets you to around 4/30. That’s all I got.
Basically a lot of people get their interest free loans back. I mean tax refunds back so may be less inclined to be anti-government. Bread and circuses.
I’m glad they have finally come out and said aloud about me what they have always been thinking. It’s the cathedral vs. the whole lot of us.
What about the freedom to get all kinds of free stuff from the government?
I was told there would be freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom from people who disagree with me.
I’m not truly free as long as somebody is doing something I don’t like.
Are you really free if you can’t have everything you want as soon as you want it?
/ Communist
Are you really free if you can’t have everything you want as soon as you want it [at the expense of someone else being relieved of their excess]?
/ Communist
Freedom from responsibility.
It’s not true freedom unless my neighbor is forced to give me stuff.
Thanks for this.
You’re welcome!
Seconded.
Thirded.
First!
That’s how its done, right?
I like the article, but I would have to put economic freedom in there somewhere. If you aren’t free to trade with who you wish and to keep the fruits of your labor, then you are not free.
Yep. The fundamental reason most people desire to be “rich” is that the ambit of your freedom is larger as a rich person than as a poor person. People intuitively recognize that wealth that they control gives them greater control over the totality of their lives.
In my mind, “freedom of defense” covers the keeping the fruits of your labor part, and “freedom of conscience” covers the “trade with who you wish” part.
I absolutely think that “freedom of defense” covers keeping the fruits of your labor (as it includes defending yourself from theft), and while “freedom of conscience” should cover the freedom to trade, it is less explicit and perhaps should have been made more-so by adding another freedom.
Does freedom of defense cover shooting tax collectors.
Asking for a friend.
If taxation were considered theft, then tax collectors would be considered thieves and could be treated like any other thief.
Let’s just say that while I don’t consider all forms of taxation to be theft, I’m not unsympathetic to the Whiskey Rebellion folks either.
Taxation is theft in the NH House.
That’s a good point. Perhaps “freedom of exchange/trade” should be considered the fourth. It would also cover Pie’s objections from upthread.
Self ownership. All freedom is founded on that simple principle. One’s mind, body and conscious is exclusively their own property. All freedom grows from that. The NAP grows from that.
Trespassing is the greatest sin.
I enjoyed this very much, Gadfly. Thanks for sharing it.
You’ve further convinced me that any State whatsoever is antithetical to liberty.
AMEN! (and awomen)
I’ve likely said it before, but the type of freedom for which I pine is really only practicable in a frontier society. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for those lucrative asteroid wildcating/mining positions.
You filthy Ancap!
*Shakes your hand bro hugs you*
Until we beat the others, we’re brothers…
You and all the potential land mine clearers from West Virginia.
/fist bumps tundra.
Unfortunately, you are going to get a State whether you want one or not.
I enjoyed this very much, Gadfly. Thanks for sharing it.
You’re welcome. Glad you like it.
You’ve further convinced me that any State whatsoever is antithetical to liberty.
Well, I didn’t mean to go that far, as I’m not an anarchist. Perhaps I should try to write an article on that? That might be difficult, though, as while I do think a state is necessary I view it more as a necessary evil than a necessary good.
I would say that a ruler of some kind is inevitable in any human society larger than the Dunbar Number. In a large enough society, that ruler will of necessity have staff, who are the “state”. My quarrel with the various flavors of anarchism is that “necessary” and “inevitable” are not the same thing, and while the anarchists are right that you can certainly posit a society without a ruler, meaning they aren’t “necessary”, that doesn’t mean they aren’t inevitable in some form or another. The real question isn’t “do we need a ruler?”, its “what kind of ruler do we want?” Because its inevitable that you will get one.
Minarchy accepts that a ruler is inevitable, and tries to put the ruler in a box. Rulers don’t like being put in boxes, and when enough of the society is happy with/indifferent to a ruler without constraints, well, here we are – in that difficult transition stage where a chunk of society wants the ruler in some kind of box, and a chunk of society demands a totipotent state.
In my opinion-
Anarchy may or may not be attainable or sustainable, but it is always the goal to be moving towards.
This. You have to have ideals to work toward.
“…ruler in a box…”
They never stay in the fucking box though.
Always figuring on biggering
Well said. In addition to all that, though, I personally find two aspects of government to be necessary, as I cannot conceptualize how they could be practically obtained outside of government (although I conceded it is possibly due to lack of imagination on my part, but as I can imagine alternative methods for almost everything else the government does I doubt it): a justice system and a military for defense. For any justice system to achieve justice it has to be empowered to coerce people, as criminals have no incentive to voluntarily submit, and once you have that you have government. And experience has shown that the most effective militaries have some sort of hierarchy, so even if your military is just militias raised as needed you’ll need some sort of way to coordinate them, which will in effect be a government.
How about cooperative efforts between tribes/city states/whatever to provide for defense?
As far as a justice system, couldn’t that too be hammered out contractually, with representatives from each tribe acting as judges?
I mean we’re being fucking crushed by Leviathan right now. Are you telling me that you would be fine with dismantling the FedGov except for the Defense and Justice departments? Because we’d still be crushed.
How are these tribes/city states/whatever not a government?
“government” is not the same as “the United States federal government”
Well, presumably they are voluntary. I don’t care if you want to call it a government, I just don’t want to be forced to play along.
How about cooperative efforts between tribes/city states/whatever to provide for defense?
As far as a justice system, couldn’t that too be hammered out contractually, with representatives from each tribe acting as judges?
To me this sounds like there is still a state, albeit a minarchist state (which is what I’m fine with).
Are you telling me that you would be fine with dismantling the FedGov except for the Defense and Justice departments?
Yes, with the caveat that the law being enforced by the Justice Department should be radically reduced. On the topic of law I’m an old-school conservative: if the totality of the law cannot be inscribed legibly on a stone pillar set up in the marketplace (or in front of the courthouse) the law is too long and should be pruned until it can fit. Make it so the entirety of the federal code can be read in an afternoon and everything complies with the Constitution and I’d be fine with it.
Yeah, I’m not sure it qualifies as a state, but it’s probably not that important.
And I could live with a Justice department as you describe.
Out of curiosity, I downloaded the entirety of the United States Code and the Code
of Federal Regulations. There’s a bunch of non-words, probably 20-40% based on a
brief eye-check, so the following numbers are a bit inflated. Anyway…
USC: 48 million words
CFR: 108 million words.
At a reading speed of 100 words per minute (figuring the code and regulations
to be somewhat technical), that works out to a reading time of:
USC: 8000 hours
CFR: 18000 hours
Or, four years of a full time job to read the USC, and nine years of a full time job
to read the CFR.
Slightly longer than an afternoon. I could be off by an order of magnitude either way.
Still slightly longer than an afternoon.
Where’s the freedom to be left well enough alone? Seems to be waning fast and loose nowadays. I don’t take a dump in your yard and you stop bitching about the color of my siding.
A good read. I’ll be mulling it over while I do repetitive manual tasks. That’s usuall good thinkin’ time second only to standing in the shower until the water turns cold.
I’ll re-read tomorrow. I’m a little het up at the moment. Good morning/evening Glibs!
Take a puff on my peace pipe, brother.
*Passes the Choctaw dutchie to Festus*
Seriously, whatever calms your tits, in a good way. I’m stressing out right now trying to organise a project and associated notes to present tomorrow (education, not work). I don’t so much mind doing the work, it’s making it all organized and finished and squared away that always seems to take just as long.
Jerking it to a good read…so meta-nerd.
SpaceX engineers/command have some balls or extreme confidence keeping SN10 on the pad for when they test SN9
I saw an SN95 recently, pulled up at the side of the road with two guys wrenching on it in the freezing cold. I like them but I don’t think I’d go that route for a project car.
What, you got snow in the UK!? Snowmagedden!
Fortunately it was pre-snow. I would have seen more snow on my travels out west but we’re in forever lockdown now so I’ll make do with pictures. Seriously this country kind of falls apart when it snows. You really can’t expect the UK to deal with an inch of snow and the worst, most deadly pandemic evaaahhhh.
+ 1 “wrong kind of snow”
The Black Unity Apple Watch color scheme and iPad and iPhone wallpaper collection:
https://www.apple.com/watch/
We care, my homey, we really do (to be discontinued on March 1st).
Welcome to February.
Oh fuck off
I want a Melungeon/Appalachian/Backwater Hick Unity color scheme.
You know, something that communicates inbreeding and genetic defects.
Maybe watch hands holding snakes.
Black Unity. Like Hutus and Tutsis?
Tucker on point again.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
They tied themselves in knots to keep from saying “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of property.”
Death and taxes.
I can no longer see comments on YouTube. Anyone has any idea why?
firefox not loading edge seems to
Pie, I’ve been having trouble with YouTube comments for months now on my iPad (they just never load — I get the eternal spinning wheel), but my PC running the Brave browser sees ’em just fine. I have no idea what the differences are between the two setups.
my problem is like the comment section does not exist. not that they don’t load. there is nothing there. I have a youtube I opened yesterday and I still se comments but the ones from today nada
Google has been known to bork with youtube so that it doesn’t work on non-chromium browsers… This is in part why the Microsft Edge team had to trash their work and rework it based off of Chromium.
All I get is the video window. No comments, no links to other videos.
Because YooTube is shit?
That sounds like the perfect result.
God loves us, and wants us to be happy?
You WIN THE INTERNET TODAY, SIR!
Wow, what a tragedy.
i like the comments
Is it possibly a political thing, like actually an externally imposed block by your gov’t?
no because they work in other browsers just not firefox
Hah! David Luiz: red card/concedes penalty. Wonder if sports writers have a macro for that?
Ha – saw that, smiled, and thought something similar.
I can’t laugh considering the form Spurs have been in recently 🙁
Yeah, I’m disappointed with Spurs but Luiz is just so, I don’t know, predictable?
Just another smooth operator.
Joe Biden just made his first big mistake as president
There’s a golden rule in politics: Don’t mess with a member in his or her home state unless you want trouble.
Which is why it’s more than a little perplexing that Vice President Kamala Harris gave an interview to a local West Virginia TV station late last week expressly designed to put pressure on West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) to support the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion Covid-19 stimulus plan.
. . . . .
“I saw [the interview], I couldn’t believe it. No one called me [about it],” Manchin told WSAZ over the weekend. “We’re going to try to find a bipartisan pathway forward, but we need to work together. That’s not a way of working together.”
(Harris, it’s worth noting, also did an interview with a local station in Arizona to pressure Sen. Kyrsten Sinema on the same bill, according to Punchbowl News.)
This is Harris’s first trip outside the California hothouse. She has zero experience with, not only national politics, but any kind of politics other than intra-party squabbling in a one-party state.
She is also one of the worst interviewers ever. Even with an adoring media she comes off as the slimiest, scummiest politician you ever met, and that she doesn’t understand how to make herself relatable.
I know i’m biased because i don’t like her, but i think I can give complments to people when they deserve it. She is truly terrible at giving an interview. And debating.
?
She’s a god-awful interview subject. Probably the primary reason she couldn’t a single percentage point in the primaries.
Unity, when you can’t even get your own party to be united.
This looks to be interesting. Obama was at least able to marshal congress together to get obamacare passed, and Pelosi was a bit more sound of mind then than she is now (it was a decade ago). It will be interesting to see if Biden can pull it off. I think Obama saving him in the primary was the last thing he was going to do for Joe.
To pass Obamacare, they somehow convinced some Dems to sacrifice their careers. I can’t imagine that would happen today.
I can no longer see comments on YouTube. Anyone has any idea why?
It’s your lucky day?
I want them back
Does freedom of defense cover shooting tax collectors.
Or anybody from the bank.
I want them back
You can’t be trusted to take care of them properly. You’ll leave them out in the yard, to get rained on.
All privilegey and shit
A San Francisco high school teacher wrote an op-ed claiming Sen. Bernie Sanders “manifests privilege” for wearing his meme-evoking inauguration outfit.
Ingrid Seyer-Ochi, a former UC Berkeley professor, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that the Vermont senator’s choice of recycled wool mittens was integrated into her class discussion on US diversity and discrimination.
Initially, on Inauguration Day, Seyer-Ochi said her class talked about the deeper meanings of the historic day — including “the vulnerability of democracy” and “the power of ritual” and gender.
Sanders, the teacher said, was not even on their radar until he became an instant internet sensation for his mittens and brown parka.
“I puzzled and fumed as an individual as I strove to be my best possible teacher. What did I see? What did I think my students should see?” Seyer-Ochi wrote.
“A wealthy, incredibly well-educated and -privileged white man, showing up for perhaps the most important ritual of the decade, in a puffy jacket and huge mittens.”
I guess he should have been in his best Mandarinista finery.
They wouldn’t even have let a black man in dressed like that, right?
The preening navel-gazing is intolerable.
Everything is to be measured against the impossibly fluid standard.
Everything is to be measured against the impossibly fluid standard.
. . . which itself is essentially incomprehensible.
showing up for perhaps the most important ritual of the decade
I fail to see how this inauguration is any more important than any other.
Of course, showing up in expensive bespoke clothing is a sign of privilege. Showing up in everyman clothes is a sign of privilege.
Having your incoherent gibberish published in major newspaper – not privilege at all!
These are the people teaching your children.
As it is, DC is cold, i would dress warm to Fuck you bitch.
too*
Gosh damnit
Fuck you.
HE GETS MORE ATTENTION THAN ME!!!
Anyone want to guess the ethnicity of Ms. Seyer-Ochi?
White witling.
Er, “whiteling”?
A member of the Lunatic-American community?
Those are some cuh-razy eyes, set in a face of perpetual aggrievement.
It must suck to be her.
The fundamental freedom is the freedom to be wrong.
^^^
This guy is…not wrong.
Criminal negligence! Depraved indifference! Capitalism is MURDER!
A U.S. House subcommittee is investigating coronavirus outbreaks at meatpacking plants, citing the deaths of more than 250 employees nationwide and accusing the Trump administration of failing to enforce worker safety laws.
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, announced the probe in a press release on Monday. He said he sent letters requesting documents from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Department of Labor, as well as three of the country’s largest meatpacking companies: Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods and JBS USA.
“Public reports indicate that under the Trump Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) failed to adequately carry out its responsibility for enforcing worker safety laws at meatpacking plants across the country, resulting in preventable infections and deaths,” Chairman Clyburn wrote to the agency. “It is imperative that the previous Administration’s shortcomings are swiftly identified and rectified to save lives in the months before coronavirus vaccinations are available for all Americans.”
Clyburn said that despite thousands of confirmed infections at meatpacking plants across the country, OSHA under the Trump administration issued only eight citations and less than $80,000 in penalties for coronavirus-related violations.
What is the point of having OSHA around if they won’t shake down the companies they regulate? The SEC would never let those guys off so easy.
So starvation of the masses would have been more equitable?
According to them, there have been nearly half a million deaths from Covid in the US. They are citing 250 from one occupation as some proof of negligence on the part of of the Trump administration. What would the acceptable number of deaths have been, given the circumstances?
I would figure these aren’t union employees, so I’m curious as to what the impetuous would be. I’m pretty sure a hell of a lot more than 250 retail workers have died.
Go go go!
and booom……
Nearly 54,000 workers at 569 plants have tested positive for COVID-19, and at least 270 have died, according to the Food and Environment Reporting Network. Many meatpacking employees are Black, Hispanic and/or from low-income households, the release notes, meaning they come from vulnerable communities that have been hit disproportionately hard by the pandemic.
I wonder how many people are employed, overall, in those processing plants? I’m surprised NPR forgot to include that.
That’s an approx. 0.5% CFR for the meatpacking industry. I’m not sure I believe those numbers; that’s almost the same CFR as the over-60 crowd here in Alberta (0.8%), which has been exacerbated because nearly four-fifths of those fatalities have been in extended care facilities of various types, which means the residents are not only crowded together, but they typically have several co-morbidities, not the least of which is old age. The average Albertan lives to the age of 80; the average age of a person dying with COVID in Alberta is 82, so they’ve already beaten the odds in that respect.
A nice little Philadelphia hustle.
Arrogant little shit dazzles credulous pols. Film at 11.
And Musk, slying enjoying the fruits of federal lucre.
Former OSHA official Deborah Berkowitz, who served during the Obama administration, told NPR’s Morning Edition last month that the agency under the Trump administration failed to protect workers at meatpacking plants and other workplaces, noting its lack of standardized, nationwide requirements for businesses.
Berkowitz said by her count, OSHA should have done 10,000 to 20,000 safety inspections since March, but that the number was closer to just a few hundred.
I can’t wait for the coming influx of backseat drivers from the Trump administration into the NPR newsrooms.
That’s how this stuff works, right?
OSHA lacks “standardized, nationwide requirements for businesses”?
*falls over laughing*
Nice try, spaceX. At least you didn’t take out the next vehicle…
That’s like when they tested Falcon 9 with Zuckie’s payload aboard. At least this time the damage seems minor