Hacker News Reader

> A person living alone in the world can be free, but two cannot. Either they have the freedom to curtail the other's freedom, or they do not.

I mean, even a person living alone in the world would lack the "freedom to curtail another's freedom" in that sense. Furthermore, he would still be bound to the laws of physics, for example, and would never achieve your definition of freedom. I think the freedom the author is discussing is something deeper than "capability to do x", more like the specific liberty of being heterogenous to the culture you live in (hence his lionizing of tolerance).

I think you're absolutely right that there is a scarcity of this freedom that is precipitated by a scarcity of resources, as in your example. I think history has proven that it's not a zero-sum game, however, and that certain cultures have managed to produce a higher degree of this "freedom" than others. A culture that values and protects open scientific inquiry, for example, would perhaps discover advancements that reduced the aforementioned scarcity of resources which should have the effect of increasing the freedom that was previously diminished.

Perhaps why freedom should not be regarded as a goal is because, as you have pointed out, it cannot be absolutely attained, neither by an individual or much less a plurality of them. To instead orient a culture in the direction of increased freedom seems more achievable and fruitful.

> So whenever people speak of more freedom, the question is, more freedom for whom and at the expense of whom.

This only applies at the very boundary of freedom. I would argue we are not frequently at that boundary - often freedom is curtailed for reasons other than preserving the freedom of others.

A silly example: Suppose the government outlawed wearing red shirts. Regaining that freedom would not impede the freedom of others in any way.

A real life example: It is illegal for me to buy raw milk from my local farmer. Allowing two consenting adults to make a transaction would not affect anyone else's freedom.

You can view laws on a spectrum from "strictly exists to protect other's freedoms" on the left to "strictly exists to curtail individual freedom" on the right. I would argue that making raw milk illegal is a law on the far right side of that spectrum. It is up for debate where current political issues fall on that spectrum. Gun control advocates say that the existence of easy access to guns restricts their freedoms, and so put gun control laws on the left side of the spectrum. Gun rights advocates disagree, and put gun control on the right side of the spectrum.

Regardless, nobody would argue that all current laws are at the far left. If we wanted to maximize freedom as a society, we have some easy gains before we have to start worrying balancing the conflicting freedoms of others. The problem is that most people don't want to maximize freedom - they want just enough freedom to do what they want to do, but enough regulation to stop others from doing things they don't like.

To nitpick your framing a little bit, while it may illegal to sell raw milk, I doubt it's illegal to buy it, which is a distinction that has to do with scale (one could sell raw milk at scale, but not consume it at scale).

I haven't researched raw milk and I have no idea how dangerous or safe it may be, but the motivation is to prevent sale of [dangerous thing] to people who may not be aware of the dangers of [dangerous thing]. To use another silly example, let's say there's an entrepreneur who sells a toxic mixture of chemicals as a "health drink"; you could argue about whether that should be legal or illegal, but I don't think anyone would say it's a no-brainer that a law prohibiting the sale of that health drink exists on the right, strictly-exists-to-curtail-individual-freedom side of of your spectrum.

To your point, I can think of a few laws that do belong on the right, "I just don't like it so it should be banned" side of that spectrum, and things that come primarily to mind are puritanical laws banning transactional sex, consumption of certain media, prohibition of selling alcohol on Sundays (which is a religious, not health, concern), decency laws; things like that. I don't think FDA regulations belong in this category.

> but I don't think anyone would say it's a no-brainer that a law prohibiting the sale of that health drink exists on the right, strictly-exists-to-curtail-individual-freedom side of of your spectrum.

If I understand your double negative correctly, then I am nobody. A law like that does strictly restrict freedom - it makes it illegal to do something which does does not itself restrict other's freedoms. It trades freedom for safety, instead of balancing the freedoms of different individuals.

Whether such a law is good or bad is besides the point - such a law would strictly reduce freedom.

Well, a couple of things:

You're changing the framing from "strictly exists to curtail individual freedom" to "strictly reduces freedom", which are two different things. The first means the intent of the law is to reduce freedom for the sake of reducing freedom, and the second means it's a strictly enforced law. Those aren't the same, but from what I can understand of your argument it seems like you're saying the reason for rules preventing sale of toxic chemicals is strictly to curtail individual freedom? Do I have that right?

Second, if I understand you correctly, not only would you be ok with a company selling a mixture of toxic chemicals labeled as a health drink, but you think it's a no-brainer that they should be allowed to do so? Lead-based paint, asbestos insulation, salmonella-laced produce; the company is free to make them, and the consumer is free to choose to buy them, so what's the problem? Do I have it right?

I can't get my head around that, if that is what you're saying, so I guess the no-brainer is me.

That assumes that second person necessarily takes away something from the first person by the nature of her existence. In reality, this is not the case. Two persons can cooperate and kill a mammoth together, so both now have more spare time - a measure of freedom. A tribe can capture more territory - a measure of freedom.

> That assumes that second person necessarily takes away something from the first person by the nature of her existence.

No, it does not. It just asks whether the second person has the freedom to do something that will restrict the first's freedom. Either way, the two are no longer fully free. My point is that the very nature of freedom requires allocating and restricting it in certain ways. There is no such thing as not restricting anyone's freedom.

Well, looks like we are arguing about different things, because precise definition of "freedom" does not exist.

> A person living alone in the world can be free, but two cannot.

This seems to say that the opposite of freedom is impact. That is, freedom is lost when one person impacts another. I feel restraint is a more effective antonym.

+1

"with freedom comes responsibility" (Eleanor Roosevelt's context was different, but the phrase is important)