Hacker News Reader

Comment by klibertp | Hacker News Reader

> Society doesn't owe people anything besides freedom

That's one opinion, and it's far from universal even in your country, though it seems to be popular. From the outside perspective, the fact that it seems to be shared by a portion of population this large is deeply mistifying. Edit: I mean, if that's all, then that's a pretty bad deal - a society can tell you to go die in a war, hang you, starve you, make you work to pay for an ever-growing army of officials, and you get out of it just "freedom"?

> and paid for it.

Yes. That's what I said. The OP, though, wants to make him keep paying for it forever. Which is another seemingly popular, yet incredibly disturbing opinion that I can't identify with.

> self righteous people

Thank you, I'll take it as a compliment.

View on HN

> That's one opinion, and it's far from universal even in your country

Not american, so not my country even if I live in the US.

> the fact that it seems to be shared by a portion of population this large is deeply mistifying

That portion is shrinking, because we are being infected more and more by the european virus of equality rather than freedom unfortunately.

> The OP, though, wants to make him keep paying for it forever.

If you have killed someone maybe you shouldn't try to become famous and make money out of it, that's what I understood from OP's comment and I agree with that. If nothing else, for your victim and his family/friend.

> Thank you, I'll take it as a compliment.

From your profile I gather you are from Poland, a country that, if I'm not mistaken, has benefited from that american impulse towards freedom in the past. So, what happened here, was freedom ok when it was against communism but not ok anymore now that the USSR is gone? Real question, not trying to be a prick here.

> Not american, so not my country even if I live in the US.

That pretty much explains everything, thank you for your time.

> but not ok anymore

I never said it's not ok, I said it isn't the only thing that a society owes to the people. You failed to explain why do you think "freedom" should be the only such thing.

> Real question, not trying to be a prick here.

If you feel that such a disclaimer is necessary, it would be better to phrase the question differently in the first place.

> That pretty much explains everything, thank you for your time.

...

> If you feel that such a disclaimer is necessary, it would be better to phrase the question differently in the first place.

And waste even more time, no thanks.

...and you still didn't explain why the "freedom" should be the only thing guaranteed to the people by the society.

Freedom is not up to society to give or take, it's a natural right that we had before society even existed unlike healthcare, education or security for example. So, since those are provided by society, society can take them away, but not freedom.

Now of course, I'm talking in principle here, individual freedom is limited by other things, private property for example, or justice, like in this case with this guy in solitary confinement, but it's because we live in society with other people and we all need to get along, but the principle still remains, freedom is a natural right that precedes society itself.

This was the sense of my comment.

Could you explain how being put in jail for transgressions and being free are interrelated? Freedom means you are in control of your life, but in your scenario, you are no longer in control of your life because you transgressed. Who or what determines what is a severe enough transgression to lose your freedom?

I can try :)

> how being put in jail for transgressions and being free are interrelated?

Jail acts both as a deterrent, through fear of being punished, and it also incapacitates the offender to commit more crime to protect society.

> Who or what determines what is a severe enough transgression to lose your freedom?

It's the people, through laws, who determines what behavior is or is not acceptable in society.

Ok, but I don't understand what does any of that have to do with a case where the society failed to provide care for an (effectively) orphan, failed to provide security, failed to provide healthcare, and insisted on cruel and unusal punishment for 7 out of 19 years. You say that "society can take them away", and I agree, and I call it a failure of that society when it happens. What does "freedom as a natural right preceding society" have to do with any of this?

What is freedom? What is society? Why does society owe you freedom?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com