Hacker News Reader

That "libertarianesque" definicion of freedom commonly used in America is not shared or understood by many countries (not that it matters to americans, of course)

View on HN

The definition of freedom in about a third of those countries is that you have the freedom to surrender your independence to God and the state, and if you step out of line they will kill you in public as an example to everyone else. The definition of freedom in another large chunk of the world is that the single-party state is the sole legitimate representative of the people and has the sole power to decide what freedom is, and people who obey the party line have plenty of freedom but if you step out of line they will seize your property "for the people" and throw you in jail on false charges.

I will take the American definition of freedom, thanks.

And why should those be the only options?

Of course our options needn't keep state and citizenry separate - in fact, "quite a few" states do place themselves in the middle of the continuum: democratic systems, in theory, join the state and citizenry at the hip and provide the luxury of dealing in a pragmatic manner with the problem of making something so abstract as "freedom" manifest - as-you-go, considerate of subtly different definitions of freedom. Real life doesn't necessarily live up to this ideal; but some of the heights of American legislation do show what is possible.

The definition of freedom in catholic countries is that men are free to choose between good and evil, but precisely because they are able to make a choice, they often choose evil, so true freedom can only be achieved repressing evil. It's hard to sell them the idea that letting everyone have guns (or letting investors do whatever they want) can create a virtuous society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com