NationStates Jolt Archive

After looking over the "my ideals are shattered" thread(something like that) it got me thinking. You can look at freedom in two very distinct ways. Freedom from want or freedom from coercion. Freedom of want is in line with not being hungry, needing shelter, etc. Freedom from coercion would be along the lines of freedom of speech, freedom to own property, etc. So I thought I'd ask the question which one do people think is more important? I tend to fall along the line so freedom from coercion because I'm more individualist. I've seen the abuses that governments can do when they have the ability to use unrestricted coercion and it is far worse then any of the positives that freedom of want offers, at least in my opinion.

Coercion, no question. Mark Twain said it best: "Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."

...And quite frankly, if you can't see why this doesn't apply to "freedom from want," you probably don't belong in this discussion. I sugggest the Paradise Beach threads.

The poll question can be interpreted in more than one way. For example, in a biological sense freedom from want is more important since all organisms can survive coersion within limits for longer than they can survive deprivation of sustenance.

However, I took the question as a related to governmental preference. I choose "freedom from coersion" because I think protecting liberty is a higher priority for government than ensuring material well-being.

Of course, one can imagine emergency situations, like a natural disaster, when government priorities might have to be temporarily reversed.

...I choose "freedom from coersion" because I think protecting liberty is a higher priority for government than ensuring material well-being.
It's funny that you should choose to phrase it like this, because I catch a lot of shit from people for being "too materialistic" and they seem to like giving me a hard time for "only caring about money" while in the next breath daring to suggest that providing people with the very material resources that I'm chastised for liking so much is more important than me being permitted to keep what I earn.

There's an inherent hypocrisy to suggesting that money is a "trivial concern" in morality while demanding that everyone be given a certain share of it. It never ceases to amaze me that these people are hell-bent on not facing up to this blatant contradiction.

After looking over the "my ideals are shattered" thread(something like that) it got me thinking. You can look at freedom in two very distinct ways. Freedom from want or freedom from coercion. Freedom of want is in line with not being hungry, needing shelter, etc. Freedom from coercion would be along the lines of freedom of speech, freedom to own property, etc.

I've usually heard these ideas expressed in terms of "positive" and "negative" rights. Those who support the concept of "positive rights" believe that rights should be oriented around the question of what the government must do or provide (healthcare, income, etc). On the other hand, those who support the concept of "negative rights" believe that rights should be oriented around the question of what the government must not do (deprive people of property, prevent free speech, etc.)

I would side with "freedom from coercion"/"negative rights." I would also suggest that these are vital to gaining and maintaining freedom from want.

I dont see how you could be free from want. I'm always hungry when I wake up, for example... and theres always stuff I want anyway. IMO if you want absolutely nothing, you are most likely dead or severely depressed.

No one likes to be overly wanting, but coercion is far worse.

I dont see how you could be free from want. I'm always hungry when I wake up, for example... and theres always stuff I want anyway. IMO if you want absolutely nothing, you are most likely dead or severely depressed.

No one likes to be overly wanting, but coercion is far worse.

Well when you are talking about wants you are talking about needs. Welfare would be an example of a government program that espouses the freedom from want ideal. Another would be the government making sure everybody who wanted a job had one.

Watch, I bet "Freedom from Coercion" wins but the people who voted thusly will still continue to blather about 'equality' and 'an end to suffering' anyway. You really should have made this poll public :(

Watch, I bet "Freedom from Coercion" wins but the people who voted thusly will still continue to blather about 'equality' and 'an end to suffering' anyway. You really should have made this poll public :(

I voted for "freedom from coercion" and I like to blather about "equality" and "an end to suffering." But, the difference between me and the people that you are refering to is that I know that individual initiative and liberty are vital to those goals.

Watch, I bet "Freedom from Coercion" wins but the people who voted thusly will still continue to blather about 'equality' and 'an end to suffering' anyway. You really should have made this poll public :(

Thats pretty much the reason why I didn't make it public. I didn't want any name calling or fights to start up in the thread melk.

Thats pretty much the reason why I didn't make it public. I didn't want any name calling or fights to start up in the thread melk.
Contrary to apparently popular beleif, making a poll public doesn't actually guarantee name-calling and nastiness. Genreally it takes abortion and/or God threads to do that :p

I hate to godwin the thread, but the Nazis had a slogan, "freedom to starve is no freedom."

They were wrong of course. That's exactly what freedom is. If it wasn't we'd all still be living with our parents.

Contrary to apparently popular beleif, making a poll public doesn't actually guarantee name-calling and nastiness. Genreally it takes abortion and/or God threads to do that :p

Note to self if ever I make a thread about god/abortion make it public so I can watch the fireworks. :D

I hate to godwin the thread, but the Nazis had a slogan, "freedom to starve is no freedom."

They were wrong of course. That's exactly what freedom is. If it wasn't we'd all still be living with our parents.
Well since there is no arguement going on and its just telling people your pov I don't think its possible to godwin the thread yet. But along those lines Nazi germany was incredibly interesting in the medical aspect. You had a duty to be healthy and your body was not yours rather your body was germanies.

It's funny that you should choose to phrase it like this, because I catch a lot of shit from people for being "too materialistic" and they seem to like giving me a hard time for "only caring about money" while in the next breath daring to suggest that providing people with the very material resources that I'm chastised for liking so much is more important than me being permitted to keep what I earn.

There's an inherent hypocrisy to suggesting that money is a "trivial concern" in morality while demanding that everyone be given a certain share of it. It never ceases to amaze me that these people are hell-bent on not facing up to this blatant contradiction.

There is a difference between being materialistic and desiring people to have their very basic needs met. If a person desires food, basic shelter and clean water then they are hardly materialistic, just wanting to survive. A materialistic person simply cares more about the pursuit of money and worldly possessions than anything else.

Oh, and as I understand it 'Freedom from want' isn't best put in those terms. There are two types of freedom - negative and positive freedom. Negative freedoms are freedoms from something, which positive freedoms are freedoms to something. For example, the freedom to not be assaulted is a negative freedom, whilst the freedom to vote is a positive freedom. Those who would argue that 'freedom from want' is an important freedom would argue it in terms of a positive freedom - the freedom to live with at least a bare minimum standard of living.

Neither is more important. Freedom from want is not going to do me much good if I can't do express myself and do something with the life I have, but freedom from coercion benefits me little if I starve to death or die from not having other basic needs taken care of.

I voted for "Freedom from Coercion" for the same reasons Augustino did- if it comes down to the line, I'd rather have free speech than free lunch. However, my thought is that this need not be an either-or choice. What prevents us from having a government that DOESN'T infringe on free speech, but DOES provide basic health care? Last I heard, Sweden was doing pretty well- hardly an autocracy, yet a very strongly liberal country (by American standards, at least).

We have freedom of speech, religion, and such fairly secured, and can keep it secured by electing the right officials and running for office ourselves in no decent officials are running. Why, then, can't we move on to freedom from unfulfilled needs, like food and shelter?

Any coercion, would be nullified by the ability to free oneself from want, wouldn't it? You could never be starved in the concentration camp, if you never be deprived of choosing your own partner, maybe it would be better reworded 'freedom from need', as many wants go beyond necessities.

I voted for "Freedom from Coercion" for the same reasons Augustino did- if it comes down to the line, I'd rather have free speech than free lunch. However, my thought is that this need not be an either-or choice. What prevents us from having a government that DOESN'T infringe on free speech, but DOES provide basic health care? Last I heard, Sweden was doing pretty well- hardly an autocracy, yet a very strongly liberal country (by American standards, at least).

We have freedom of speech, religion, and such fairly secured, and can keep it secured by electing the right officials and running for office ourselves in no decent officials are running. Why, then, can't we move on to freedom from unfulfilled needs, like food and shelter?

Well lets put this in an example. Lets look at it in the sense that there are two lines the rich and the poor and that the rich line is far above to poor. Now in order to make sure that the poors wants are met the government is going to have to take money from the rich. And if the rich don't want to give that money the government coerces it from them. To have freedom from want will involve some form of coercion.

I would say that freedom from coercion is more important, but I would point out that this isn't limited to coercion from governments - coercion from individuals or groups is also something that I think it's important to be free of.

Well lets put this in an example. Lets look at it in the sense that there are two lines the rich and the poor and that the rich line is far above to poor. Now in order to make sure that the poors wants are met the government is going to have to take money from the rich. And if the rich don't want to give that money the government coerces it from them. To have freedom from want will involve some form of coercion.

Thing is, that money also goes to services for the rich. The role of the military in defending our freedoms is often played up; that military has to be paid for somehow. The role of the police is to protect us from coercion at knifepoint- they need to be paid.

There needs to be a balance between the two sets of rights. You could easily say that having any type of law at all is coercion. Most people choose not to interpret that way; they feel that some limits on their behavior are necessary to ensure general security. In the same way, I think that some limits on fiscal freedom is necessary to ensure everyone's well-being.

In your lines, who is more important? The rich and their right to the fruits of their labor, or the poor and their right to live? The answer is that both are important, and a balance between the two needs must be met.

There's a reason that I'm right in the middle of the leftist side of the Political Compass.