| Posted: 18 May 2008 at 8:17am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Wow, Michael. That's a very long and involved argument.
Yet you keep reading me as if I'm trying to argue in favor of limiting rights (even if it's just in theory.) I don't. I'm saying that sometimes economic circumstances limit freedom.
Maybe my argument was a little rushed, and my initial post, in response to a casual question was probably too conversational.
"You condescendingly state that while greater freedom in theory is all well and fine, it is ultimately of far less worth than fewer freedoms in practice."
No, my argument is that great theoretical freedom that can't be enjoyed in practice is of less practical value than less theoretical freedom that can be enjoyed in practice (to a greater extent than the former.)
And yes, I agree that freedom is something we're entitled to, not something we're granted or given . In theory. In practice, government protects, safeguards and assures those rights. If government does not, you have the choice of either suffering tyranny, fleeing or changing the government (in the case of an oppressive regime probably by armed revolution.)
"Your 'I knew a guy who was a commercial fisherman' anecdote serves to illustrate my point regarding my metaphorical Philosophy major, despite the best intentions of Norway's welfare state. "
Okay, so studying to be a lawyer in the field of Maritime Law (a major field in Norway) with guaranteed employment and postponing graduation for a few terms because you're making a lot of money in your side job is the same as being a philosophy major and working in a coffee shop?
"the Government Pension Fund of a proudly socialist nation invested offshore as far from the vagaries of socialism as it can possibly get "
No. Rather the opposite. Placed offshore due to some unfortunate side-effects of the capitalist system of supply and demand.
Sure, we could use that money to improve infrastructure and services. But using too much at the time "overheats" the economy, creating a demand on the already strained workforce that significantly outstrips supply, pushing prices through the roof, increasing interest rates and mortgage rates, causing high inflation of the currency and damaging export businesses. Resulting in bankrupcies, strikes and a significant economic downturn.
All this according to leading non-socialist economists.
"In other words, under your exact definition, it is necessarily of less consequence that man possess the ability to make a genuine choice regarding his or her life's direction".
No, it is necessarily of far greater consequence that man posses the ability to make a genuine choice regarding his life's direction. That's my point.
"if your viewpoint were capable of prevailing in any substantive manner--then there would simply be no reason for Norway to NOT abandon its capitalistic components and now-traditional allegiance to the concept of representative democracy in order to more completely pursue your specious indicators of "practical" freedom to the exclusion of any other considersation. But, there is a very real rationale for not doing so, isn't there? " (emphasis mine -krk)
Yup. That's the argument Social Democrats have been making for a hundred years. There are very good reasons for keeping the political and democratic structures of society in place. If you don't see Norway as communist, you must surely see me as one. Your argument makes no sense otherwise. And I've told you : I'm a Social Democrat.
Yes, we have capitalism, but capitalism is not the same as freedom. Nor is socialism. Democracy is a requirement for freedom.
And you're right. No party is running on a 50 percent freedom platform. But we tolerate the bad laws, we ignore them and exercise those freedoms we want to have. While working to increase our theoretical freedoms as well. We make the best out of what we've got, we're not clamoring to give up the rights we already have. That would be stupid. That would be like voting for the Patriot act.
What freedoms do you have that cannot be curtailed by corporations, moneyed interests or just a general lack of funds?
Every media you have is subject to privatized censorship services. (The MPAA, the CCA, The FCC, Standards and Practices divisions etc. ) That's when they're not given "Editorial guidelines" to determine appropriate content by their corporate owners. Free press. In theory.
Any run for public office is dependant on lots of money.
A lot of familes are destroyed by illness or injury, not because somebody dies or is crippled, but because health care costs ruin them. If they even have access to the health care they need.
In some communities eminent domain is used by businesses to avoid that pesky supply and demand rule of economics when acquiring prime land.
Any large corporation that violates your rights does so with impunity when you can't afford a lawyer.
How many innocent people are unfree and in prison because they couldn't afford qualified legal counsel?
How much life, liberty and pursuit of happiness can a man afford if he spends 16 hours a day just trying to put a roof over his head and feed his family?
Historically, even after the abolition of slavery, unethical business practices were employed in american mining towns to make workers slaves (in practice, not by law). The phrase "I owe my soul to the company store" in "Sixteen Tons" sums that policy up perfectly. In theory they were free men, in practice they were slaves. Boy, they must have been so glad to know that they were free.
Similar policies are still found in third world countries, on factory "farms" catering to western businesses farming out their work. But in theory, I'm sure they're free.
My point is not that comfortable economic conditions are a substitute for freedom but that adverse economic conditions often are an impediment to it. Clear?
Edited by Knut Robert Knutsen on 18 May 2008 at 8:18am
|
Topic Closed)
