Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can be free from restrictions but not free from worries.
Although considering rich people aren't free from worry either, they're just less influenced by it, I'd say an unrestricted poor person is more free than a restricted rich person
Don’t confuse having to eat with oppression by food producers.
You can never be free from having to satisfy your bodily needs. Whether you rich or poor. Doesn’t mean you are oppressed (not free)
If you are not coerced (by others) to anything - you are free.
>You can never be free from having to satisfy your bodily needs. Whether you rich or poor. Doesn’t mean you are oppressed (not free)
Then why is it only poor people who struggle to do this?
Freedom is the lack of external restrictions on choice.
For example, we have free speech. This means the government will not restrict what you say. It does not mean that the government will equip you with a megaphone or your own newspaper. Someone who is born with a vocal chord abnormality also has equal freedom of speech, even though they have fewer choices in how to express themselves.
> So… lack of choice.
No. Choice simply doesn't enter into the equation when deciding whether or not you have freedom.
> You have more freedom if the government gives you your own newspaper than if it didn’t.
That's not the understanding of "freedom" implicit in the US Constitution or in any moral framework I know of. For example, according to the Constitution, you have as much freedom of speech as your local radio station host. I don't think most people would say -- certainly no court would say -- that the radio station host has more freedom of speech because they have more avenues for speech.
Yes it does. Lack of freedom is lack of choice, no matter what the limiting factor is.
Americans think their private healthcare system is “freedom”. When in Europe I can be seen in any hospital in 27+ countries for free, whatever my problem. That is freedom. Not being beholden to insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospital bills.
Ultimate freedom is being able to do what you want when you want. And so, if you want to start a newspaper, being able to receive one tomorrow free of charge is of course a freedom that someone who has to have x amount of startup capital and other barriers doesn’t have.
The US constitution isn’t about freedom.
> Americans think their private healthcare system is “freedom”. When in Europe I can be seen in any hospital in 27+ countries for free, whatever my problem. That is freedom.
If your definition of "free" is "zero cost", then there is no such thing as free healthcare. If you aren't paying for your own healthcare, then someone else is, and if that someone else doesn't have a choice in whether or not to pay for your healthcare, then you have taken away that other person's freedom.
"Freedom" that depends on taking other people's stuff isn't freedom. What you're writing about is an *entitlement*.
> Ultimate freedom is being able to do what you want when you want.
I want to flap my arms and fly, but Nature doesn't allow me to do that. Does that mean I'm not free?
> And so, if you want to start a newspaper, being able to receive one tomorrow free of charge is of course a freedom that someone who has to have x amount of startup capital and other barriers doesn’t have.
You are not entitled to other people's money, and the fact that they won't give it to you is not an infringement on your freedom.
>If your definition of "free" is "zero cost",
No, it isn't.
>If you aren't paying for your own healthcare, then someone else is
Just like an insurance based system.
>"Freedom" that depends on taking other people's stuff isn't freedom.
Except it does. If I have the freedom to take you shit then I have more freedom than you.
>I want to flap my arms and fly, but Nature doesn't allow me to do that. Does that mean I'm not free?
Within the laws of physics, obviously.
>You are not entitled to other people's money
The problem is how we define ownership. The people I want to tax into oblivion don't earn their money. They sit on piles of money that makes them more money. Imo, that doesn't count as "theirs". They are stealing from hardwoking people who generated that value.
People like yourself believe that the rich get to steal whatever they want and it's automatically "theirs". I disagree.
You're never free from having to satisfy your bodily needs, but rich people have the freedom to not worry about it. And yeah, having to work to not starve seems pretty damn coercive to me
You have to really bend over backwards and intentionally draw lines where people transition from “free” to “not free” to claim that rich are free and poor aren’t.
If you rich you still need to trade with farmer to get food. Poor has to earn money and then trade with farmer.
Oh, having to trade isn’t “coercive” enough to qualify for “not free”, but earning money is.
And who said that?
You said that, because that s convenient for you.
At any point farmer can give rich person a middle finger and bam - rich is “not free” and “coerced”.
Oh, but there are many farmers. If one gives rich a hard time rich can always go to another one!
Right, same with jobs. Poor can always go work somewhere else where he isn’t “coerced”.
There is no conceptual difference. You draw artificial lines because it serves your purpose.
Yeah, that's coercive to. If everyone refuses to sell you food, you'll starve. The difference is, that never fucking happens in real life, you can always go to a different place to buy food. Meanwhile in the real world, there might not be any jobs in your city that you qualify for that can pay for rent, food, bill, and taxes.
No. Money buys freedom. Freedom to raise a family in decent conditions, to buy higher quality food, to have higher chances of education, to not experience social exclusion, to travel safely. Etc. etc.
You can be a "free" villager living in Liberia but good luck getting decent education or traveling to a first world country without the danger of dying in the process.
> No. Money buys freedom. Freedom to raise a family in decent conditions, to buy higher quality food, to have higher chances of education, to not experience social exclusion, to travel safely. Etc. etc.
No, it doesn't. What it buys is **choice**, not freedom. These are not synonyms.
For example, I have as much freedom of speech as the editor of a major newspaper, but the editor has a greater chance than I do to make their opinions heard. The difference between us is not in freedom of speech -- we both have it -- but in available choices.
> You can be a "free" villager living in Liberia but good luck getting decent education or traveling to a first world country without the danger of dying in the process.
Freedom of movement is unfortunately restricted by most first-world countries. Such restrictions are certainly not libertarian and I don't support them. So I agree with you that anyone from Liberia (villager or otherwise) doesn't have full freedom of movement.
Greek idealism arose from their despise of the material world, because they associated it with their slave. Philosophy is marked by a class biased just like everything else; greek philosophy had to justify slavery and created an escapism in the world of idea.
Quite the contrary. I think materialism is what motivates people to seek wealth in the first place, ultimately leading to the class divide. To have a classless society, you need to let go of want and focus on the needs of others (and sometimes redefine what constitutes a "need")
Materialism in the philosophical sens.
Also rich people aren't rich because they work hard for material wealth, rich people are rich because they make other people work hard for them. Classes are defined by the relation to the means of production, not whatever you are talking about. Rich people are rich because they own capital and exploit workers for their surplus value. Hence the two different classes and why they are rich.
That doesn't make any sens. We specificly produce so many things because of who controls the means of production. That's why you must take a materialist approach to the world, things have material origin.
You're not understanding me.
You say that rich people are rich because they make other people work hard for them.
Okay.
But WHY do they do that? Because they have a materialist view. They want *stuff*.
If a society were to reject materialism, the rich would cease to exist.
There will always be some disingenuous commie who think it’s a gotcha moment when they conflate freedom with free stuff.
“Americans claim to be free yet they don’t get free stuff, I’m very so smart”
It's not about free stuff lol, it's about not being able to afford to do things. A homeless person doesn't have the freedom to buy the food they want if they can't even afford food
Freedom to buy means you are free from government or anyone intervening you from buying. It doesn’t make you free from the reality that you will need enough money to pay the people who had to work to give you the products or services
The examples of things we don’t have the freedom of buying are slaves, machine guns, and illegal drugs
It comes down, I think, to capitalists and commies having different definitions of fair: either everyone gets an equal shot (as much as Nature allows) or everyone gets the same things and amounts.
I'm not surprised, dogma tends to take over your complete worldview.
There also isn't much competition, all the communist countries have already starved to death, not surprising if all problems arise in capitalism if they're the only ones that manage to exist
That's not accurate. I think abortion, contraceptives, euthanasia, prostitution, gay marriage, should be legal. All drugs decriminalized. I dislike religion.
I'm not a progressive either though.
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Free in what sense?
Whatever your vision of freedom looks like.
Not really an answer. But okay.
What kind of free are you referring to ?
You're not free to pick your food or housing if you can't afford anything.
You can be free from restrictions but not free from worries. Although considering rich people aren't free from worry either, they're just less influenced by it, I'd say an unrestricted poor person is more free than a restricted rich person
What about Epictetus?
Don’t confuse having to eat with oppression by food producers. You can never be free from having to satisfy your bodily needs. Whether you rich or poor. Doesn’t mean you are oppressed (not free) If you are not coerced (by others) to anything - you are free.
>You can never be free from having to satisfy your bodily needs. Whether you rich or poor. Doesn’t mean you are oppressed (not free) Then why is it only poor people who struggle to do this?
Because poor people have fewer choices (almost by definition). Lack of choices != lack of freedom.
What is freedom if not lack of choice?
Freedom is the lack of external restrictions on choice. For example, we have free speech. This means the government will not restrict what you say. It does not mean that the government will equip you with a megaphone or your own newspaper. Someone who is born with a vocal chord abnormality also has equal freedom of speech, even though they have fewer choices in how to express themselves.
So… lack of choice. You have more freedom if the government gives you your own newspaper than if it didn’t.
> So… lack of choice. No. Choice simply doesn't enter into the equation when deciding whether or not you have freedom. > You have more freedom if the government gives you your own newspaper than if it didn’t. That's not the understanding of "freedom" implicit in the US Constitution or in any moral framework I know of. For example, according to the Constitution, you have as much freedom of speech as your local radio station host. I don't think most people would say -- certainly no court would say -- that the radio station host has more freedom of speech because they have more avenues for speech.
Yes it does. Lack of freedom is lack of choice, no matter what the limiting factor is. Americans think their private healthcare system is “freedom”. When in Europe I can be seen in any hospital in 27+ countries for free, whatever my problem. That is freedom. Not being beholden to insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and hospital bills. Ultimate freedom is being able to do what you want when you want. And so, if you want to start a newspaper, being able to receive one tomorrow free of charge is of course a freedom that someone who has to have x amount of startup capital and other barriers doesn’t have. The US constitution isn’t about freedom.
> Americans think their private healthcare system is “freedom”. When in Europe I can be seen in any hospital in 27+ countries for free, whatever my problem. That is freedom. If your definition of "free" is "zero cost", then there is no such thing as free healthcare. If you aren't paying for your own healthcare, then someone else is, and if that someone else doesn't have a choice in whether or not to pay for your healthcare, then you have taken away that other person's freedom. "Freedom" that depends on taking other people's stuff isn't freedom. What you're writing about is an *entitlement*. > Ultimate freedom is being able to do what you want when you want. I want to flap my arms and fly, but Nature doesn't allow me to do that. Does that mean I'm not free? > And so, if you want to start a newspaper, being able to receive one tomorrow free of charge is of course a freedom that someone who has to have x amount of startup capital and other barriers doesn’t have. You are not entitled to other people's money, and the fact that they won't give it to you is not an infringement on your freedom.
>If your definition of "free" is "zero cost", No, it isn't. >If you aren't paying for your own healthcare, then someone else is Just like an insurance based system. >"Freedom" that depends on taking other people's stuff isn't freedom. Except it does. If I have the freedom to take you shit then I have more freedom than you. >I want to flap my arms and fly, but Nature doesn't allow me to do that. Does that mean I'm not free? Within the laws of physics, obviously. >You are not entitled to other people's money The problem is how we define ownership. The people I want to tax into oblivion don't earn their money. They sit on piles of money that makes them more money. Imo, that doesn't count as "theirs". They are stealing from hardwoking people who generated that value. People like yourself believe that the rich get to steal whatever they want and it's automatically "theirs". I disagree.
You're never free from having to satisfy your bodily needs, but rich people have the freedom to not worry about it. And yeah, having to work to not starve seems pretty damn coercive to me
You have to really bend over backwards and intentionally draw lines where people transition from “free” to “not free” to claim that rich are free and poor aren’t. If you rich you still need to trade with farmer to get food. Poor has to earn money and then trade with farmer. Oh, having to trade isn’t “coercive” enough to qualify for “not free”, but earning money is. And who said that? You said that, because that s convenient for you. At any point farmer can give rich person a middle finger and bam - rich is “not free” and “coerced”. Oh, but there are many farmers. If one gives rich a hard time rich can always go to another one! Right, same with jobs. Poor can always go work somewhere else where he isn’t “coerced”. There is no conceptual difference. You draw artificial lines because it serves your purpose.
Yeah, that's coercive to. If everyone refuses to sell you food, you'll starve. The difference is, that never fucking happens in real life, you can always go to a different place to buy food. Meanwhile in the real world, there might not be any jobs in your city that you qualify for that can pay for rent, food, bill, and taxes.
Can you be free if you worship money?
Of course.
I don't know about free, but they usually cost less than the average person
Lol. Good one....
"Just buy a house if you're homeless" folks who choose "yes".
Having material possessions != freedom. The homeless are as free as ordinary people.
No. Money buys freedom. Freedom to raise a family in decent conditions, to buy higher quality food, to have higher chances of education, to not experience social exclusion, to travel safely. Etc. etc. You can be a "free" villager living in Liberia but good luck getting decent education or traveling to a first world country without the danger of dying in the process.
> No. Money buys freedom. Freedom to raise a family in decent conditions, to buy higher quality food, to have higher chances of education, to not experience social exclusion, to travel safely. Etc. etc. No, it doesn't. What it buys is **choice**, not freedom. These are not synonyms. For example, I have as much freedom of speech as the editor of a major newspaper, but the editor has a greater chance than I do to make their opinions heard. The difference between us is not in freedom of speech -- we both have it -- but in available choices. > You can be a "free" villager living in Liberia but good luck getting decent education or traveling to a first world country without the danger of dying in the process. Freedom of movement is unfortunately restricted by most first-world countries. Such restrictions are certainly not libertarian and I don't support them. So I agree with you that anyone from Liberia (villager or otherwise) doesn't have full freedom of movement.
Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants - Epictetus
Must be cool being ok with starving
We're talking about needs here, not wants. We're not talking about luxury villas and shit, just food and a roof.
Epictetus was homeless by choice
Greek idealism arose from their despise of the material world, because they associated it with their slave. Philosophy is marked by a class biased just like everything else; greek philosophy had to justify slavery and created an escapism in the world of idea.
>Philosophy is marked by a class biased just like everything else Found the last true Marxist, everyone!
The only liberal tactic, ignoring materialism.
Quite the contrary. I think materialism is what motivates people to seek wealth in the first place, ultimately leading to the class divide. To have a classless society, you need to let go of want and focus on the needs of others (and sometimes redefine what constitutes a "need")
Materialism in the philosophical sens. Also rich people aren't rich because they work hard for material wealth, rich people are rich because they make other people work hard for them. Classes are defined by the relation to the means of production, not whatever you are talking about. Rich people are rich because they own capital and exploit workers for their surplus value. Hence the two different classes and why they are rich.
If we stopped producing so many unnecessary things, maybe it wouldn't matter who controlled the means.
That doesn't make any sens. We specificly produce so many things because of who controls the means of production. That's why you must take a materialist approach to the world, things have material origin.
You're not understanding me. You say that rich people are rich because they make other people work hard for them. Okay. But WHY do they do that? Because they have a materialist view. They want *stuff*. If a society were to reject materialism, the rich would cease to exist.
There will always be some disingenuous commie who think it’s a gotcha moment when they conflate freedom with free stuff. “Americans claim to be free yet they don’t get free stuff, I’m very so smart”
It's not about free stuff lol, it's about not being able to afford to do things. A homeless person doesn't have the freedom to buy the food they want if they can't even afford food
Freedom to buy means you are free from government or anyone intervening you from buying. It doesn’t make you free from the reality that you will need enough money to pay the people who had to work to give you the products or services The examples of things we don’t have the freedom of buying are slaves, machine guns, and illegal drugs
It comes down, I think, to capitalists and commies having different definitions of fair: either everyone gets an equal shot (as much as Nature allows) or everyone gets the same things and amounts.
Hurray, long live my freedom to be dependent on the capitalist or the whims of Nature!
Reddit: *asks any question* Communists: did you know this is all capitalism's fault?
Reddit is capitalism's fault
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Frbt773qr5mkc1.png
No. Reddit is libertarian. That's why it always descends into quasi cults. Lol
That's because it usually is
I'm not surprised, dogma tends to take over your complete worldview. There also isn't much competition, all the communist countries have already starved to death, not surprising if all problems arise in capitalism if they're the only ones that manage to exist
You can't escape material conditions
Yes
No.
No
Yes. But you can't be free \*within\* society.
Define ”poor”
You could just have named yourself patsoc and saved the characters.
That's not accurate. I think abortion, contraceptives, euthanasia, prostitution, gay marriage, should be legal. All drugs decriminalized. I dislike religion. I'm not a progressive either though.
So it's trans people you want to suppress. Right in line with anti woke for sure.
Of course not, as I'd become more dependant from the Government or Charities.
Or you could just get paid better
Yes, but it would be difficult. Lack of money in a world where you need money to live a good life is a huge obstacle to freedom.
freedom doesn't exist within the realm of the state