21 Dec 22
@athousandyoung saidFreedom is a word that captures a mindset that people are to be free to make their own choices and face their own consequences. There is no simple paradigm that gives workable answers for all questions of governance.
To your edit:
Depends if you are in favor of low taxes on property owners and Reagan shutting down State housing and mental hospitals. If so you are contributing to the problem.
“Freedom” is a sneaky weasel word many on the right like to use but never want to define. It’s useful to keep in mind the Civil War was fought over the “freedom” of capitalists to own slaves without Federal government interference.
One can imagine advocating for the freedom to own investment property or the freedom to collect rain-water without also being in favor of owning nor trafficking other human beings. Is that too complicated?
Let's say I was in favor of allowing people to own investment property but I was not in favor of any claim to the right to own, purchase, or sell other human beings. Would you consider that hypocrisy on my part?
What if someone else who is NOT me in some other time that is not now has made the argument that the government should allow people to own slaves. Does that obligate us to consider "freedom" a poisoned concept forevermore? Since people have made that argument, are we stuck from now on never having any legitimate claim to base our world view on a inclination toward freedom?
@techsouth said
Freedom is a word that captures a mindset that people are to be free to make their own choices and face their own consequences. There is no simple paradigm that gives workable answers for all questions of governance.
One can imagine advocating for the freedom to own investment property or the freedom to collect rain-water without also being in favor of owning nor traffi ...[text shortened]... rom now on never having any legitimate claim to base our world view on a inclination toward freedom?
Let's say I was in favor of allowing people to own investment property but I was not in favor of any claim to the right to own, purchase, or sell other human beings. Would you consider that hypocrisy on my part?
Not at all. But it does mean the use of the word “freedom” is empty because it is used in so many contexts that it becomes meaningless - just an appeal to vague emotions that is well known to often hide sinister intent.
I never called the Confederates hypocrites. It was well known that “freedom” and “liberty” in the USA only applied to the economic decisions of white male landowning capitalists to be free from Federal interference and religious authority. Puritans seeking freedom from the Anglican Church were not interested in the personal freedom of black slaves and AmerIndian “savages”.
21 Dec 22
What are your thoughts on freedom of movement across borders, freedom to do drugs, or freedom from landlords charging rent? Or do those freedoms not count in the same way you think rich people should be free to own other peoples homes and use government men with guns to extract tribute (rent) by government force?
What if someone else who is NOT me in some other time that is not now has made the argument that the government should allow people to own slaves. Does that obligate us to consider "freedom" a poisoned concept forevermore?
Yes, that word is thoroughly tainted and should be viewed with suspicion and a critical mind particularly when used in this context, just like otherwise seemingly innocuous words and phrases like “lebensraum”, “East Asian Co-Prosperity”, “comfort women”, “comradeship” etc
21 Dec 22
@athousandyoung saidEvery economic and political system ever embraced has an attractive narrative that falls short of perfectly capturing the reality. Marxism, when presented by its proponents will sound like an attractive idea, but because humans are so complicated nothing is going to play out cleanly in real life.
What are your thoughts on freedom of movement across borders, freedom to do drugs, or freedom from landlords charging rent? Or do those freedoms not count in the same way you think rich people should be free to own other peoples homes and use government men with guns to extract tribute (rent) by government force?
For example, as a proponent of more of a capitalist view, I would have by default not had a problem with the monopolies. If an oil company wants to lower prices in one region that happens to be the place where there is an emerging competitor, I'd have by default been okay with that. But as the practices got to be more and more troublesome, leading up to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, I'd have eventually seen that this has become an extreme case. I'm inclined toward erring on the side of freedom, but I am experience enough to know that no simple paradigm for governance is going to be perfect or even viable through out all time and civilization.
Had I been born in 200BC, I might have somehow been in favor of a form of capitalism, but there is no chance I would have conceived of the danger of monopolies without them first emerging on the scene.
You are really convinced that "rent" is a bad thing. Do you realize that because it is legal to charge rent that more houses and apartments get built? There are some apartment buildings that hold 1000 people in around 1 acre of land. If we were to go back to "homesteading", the best you could hope for is a disease infested slum with raw sewage in the street with that density.
If I have savings, I might use that to buy land, build a house and provide a home for a family that may soon move to the area. And the person moving in does not need to have much savings nor borrow a time to make that happen. And that person can freely leave the area whenever the lease expires (or beforehand with a small penalty). These all seems useful for a fast changing society. If I can't charge rent, I do none of that.
21 Dec 22
@athousandyoung saidCurious. Do you feel that "socialism" or "communism" area words that are tainted too?What if someone else who is NOT me in some other time that is not now has made the argument that the government should allow people to own slaves. Does that obligate us to consider "freedom" a poisoned concept forevermore?
Yes, that word is thoroughly tainted and should be viewed with suspicion and a critical mind particularly when used in this cont ...[text shortened]... words and phrases like “lebensraum”, “East Asian Co-Prosperity”, “comfort women”, “comradeship” etc
21 Dec 22
@AThousandYoung
I will add, I lived abroad in Africa for one year. I was SO glad I could rent a place to live there and didn't have to build my own nor buy a home.
21 Dec 22
@techsouth saidOf course. Whether those terms are used by naive Utopian leftists like Shav or MB or by frothing at the mouth right wingers who want to imply any tax increase is equivalent to Stalinism those words have lost most of their value as anything but propagandistic buzzwords.
Curious. Do you feel that "socialism" or "communism" area words that are tainted too?
I rarely use them for this reason.
21 Dec 22
@techsouth saidI never said investment rental properties should be banned I just think they need to be taxed and the money used to pay for housing and treatment of the homeless and mentally ill.
@AThousandYoung
I will add, I lived abroad in Africa for one year. I was SO glad I could rent a place to live there and didn't have to build my own nor buy a home.
Nothing wrong with you having “living space” available to you in Africa to use the German phrase but if it comes at the cost of forcing citizens of the country in question into homelessness then there is a problem.
@techsouth saidIf you have an inheritance (more common than savings among capitalists) it would be more cost effective to buy houses that already exist and suppress new house construction so as to decrease housing supply and thereby drive up property values and rent. This latter scenario is more realistic and profitable than some lower middle class person saving enough money to build a house on an empty lot for investment purposes. Ever see those “cash for your house” ads?
Every economic and political system ever embraced has an attractive narrative that falls short of perfectly capturing the reality. Marxism, when presented by its proponents will sound like an attractive idea, but because humans are so complicated nothing is going to play out cleanly in real life.
For example, as a proponent of more of a capitalist view, I would have by ...[text shortened]... ). These all seems useful for a fast changing society. If I can't charge rent, I do none of that.
21 Dec 22
@athousandyoung saidBut you do seemingly have a strong opinion that governance can be done excellently and fairly by applying a very simplistic narrative. Is that true or not?
Of course. Whether those terms are used by naive Utopian leftists like Shav or MB or by frothing at the mouth right wingers who want to imply any tax increase is equivalent to Stalinism those words have lost most of their value as anything but propagandistic buzzwords.
I rarely use them for this reason.
The fact that others may sully the words that might have been easier to use is hardly a reason for you or I do dumb down our conversation.
Could we agree that virtually no one speaking of "freedom" in 2022 is advocating involuntary servitude? Or if not, can we at least agree that once it has been established within the scope of discussion or debate that "freedom" does not mean freedom to own slaves that we could proceed among at least the people that have established that without going back and saying, "yeah, but 100 years ago someone used that word to support owning slaves".
This is a voluntary forum. I've said that I incline toward freedom, and I have also freely admitted that even with that general narrative that I don't have and can't produce a perfect system. Do you find it entertaining to repeat several times that someone somewhere else used the word "freedom" to support owning slaves. Can't we proceed to a greater level of understanding?
If we eliminate all words that someone else have soiled in the past, what language can we even use to converse?
21 Dec 22
@athousandyoung saidLet me see if I understand. The country I was living in was Somalia.
I never said investment rental properties should be banned I just think they need to be taxed and the money used to pay for housing and treatment of the homeless and mentally ill.
Nothing wrong with you having “living space” available to you in Africa to use the German phrase but if it comes at the cost of forcing citizens of the country in question into homelessness then there is a problem.
Is it your contention that all drug addicts should have a roof over their heads in Somalia before a foreigner should be able to rent a house there?
As far as I know, all homeowners in the US have to pay property tax.
This may sound noble and attractive, but to me it seems like it will be more likely to increase homelessness in the country.
21 Dec 22
There are some apartment buildings that hold 1000 people in around 1 acre of land.
These buildings are bitterly opposed by local homeowners who fear the presence of such buildings will drive down their property values.
Such buildings can function equally well as condominiums owned by the residents as they can as some rich person’s passive income stream. No need for the horrific apocalypse scenario you are painting.
@techsouth saidThe homeless problem began in CA just after Prop 13 was passed cutting property taxes to the bone.
Let me see if I understand. The country I was living in was Somalia.
Is it your contention that all drug addicts should have a roof over their heads in Somalia before a foreigner should be able to rent a house there?
As far as I know, all homeowners in the US have to pay property tax.
This may sound noble and attractive, but to me it seems like it will be more likely to increase homelessness in the country.
When and why were you living in a failed state experiencing a civil war and piracy? Why are you more concerned with a foreigner’s ability to rent a capitalist’s investment property than the plight of the Somalian people?
I’m starting to suspect you’re lying like Average Joe does simply to make a point.
21 Dec 22
@techsouth saidEvidence from the past in the USA very strongly implies it is true. As taxes have gone down since the neocon/Reagan “revolution” homelessness and poverty have increased.
But you do seemingly have a strong opinion that governance can be done excellently and fairly by applying a very simplistic narrative. Is that true or not?
The fact that others may sully the words that might have been easier to use is hardly a reason for you or I do dumb down our conversation.
Could we agree that virtually no one speaking of "freedom" in 2022 is ad ...[text shortened]... nate all words that someone else have soiled in the past, what language can we even use to converse?
Using vague words like “freedom” is not how people keep a conversation intelligent it’s how they talk when they are trying to avoid saying anything but want to evoke an emotional response in the audience while maintaining deniability.
I can agree that people speaking of “freedom” in 2022 clearly don’t mean the common sense meaning of the word when they want to restrict so many actual freedoms for the economic benefit of the upper classes.
“We’re not free until a man can smoke what he wants” - Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers (I think).
We can use words with clear meanings instead of vague weasel words like “freedom”, “property rights” or “equality”. The point is that in common American conservative use the word “freedom” is fully consistent with violating the rights of others and has always been.