Historic Quotations Post II:

[underlankers]

In terms of a defense of democracy and its virtues, I can think of no greater summation than the Four Freedoms speech made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in January of 1941:

Comments

[sandwichwarrior]

Roosevelt's "4 freedoms" always made me uncomfortable for some reason. Something about them struck me as looking and sounding moral/correct and yet somehow profoundly wrong. An intellectual analog to "the uncanny valley" if you will.

I stumbled across this blog post durring the most recent gun control push and it perfectly articulates the objection that I have always felt, but never quite been able to put my finger on.

The only real place where Roosevelt's four freedoms are relaibly met is prison.

[ddstory]

Your linked blog post leads right back to this post.

[sandwichwarrior]

Opps, copy/paste clipboard fail

http://www.seraphicpress.com/welcome-to-sing-sing/

[sophia_sadek]

That reminds me of the guy who committed a petty theft hoping to be incarcerated. When the cop was about to let him off with a warning, he advised the cop to arrest him before he commits a more serious crime. There are some guys in stir who fear for their lives if let out on the street. They have enemies on the outside who will rub them out. In El Salvador there is a prison full of witnesses who have testified against Mara members. There is something to be said about the limits of governance when the people on the side of the government have to be kept behind bars for fear of being killed by those who are against the government.

[oslo]

The "uncanny valley" moment comes, for me, when someone claims that Obama's vision is to effectively turn it into a prison.

No libertarian shies away from the observation that real life is hard. Given this, it shouldn't come as surprising to anyone that some people might view the "freedom from want" - being a freedom from the constant struggle to get the next meal, to avoid serious injury and to treat serious diseases, to keep a roof over their own head, etc. - as a genuine relief. It is precisely that constant struggle we are trying to ameliorate, when we enter into society with one another.

Is it right to speak of a "freedom from want?" I don't know. But it's not wrong to say that not "wanting" is freeing. In my own life, I have transitioned from a paycheck-to-paycheck existence to one where I don't really have to think about the bills unless I want to. That is freeing, it feels free. Am I in some sense "entitled" to this experience except as the fruit of my own efforts? I am not sure I would say that. But it's wrong to pretend

[oslo]

It's trading liberty for security. It's the illusion of freedom.

What's the difference between the "illusion of freedom" and "freedom," if I feel more free under the former?

And if you want to create that zone, leave those of us who don't want it out of it. At the end of the day, that's what's being asked by the more freedom-minded.

And all we're asking, of the more "freedom-minded," is not to be stopped from creating those zones, when we otherwise choose through our democratically-elected representatives to create a "more perfect union," etc., etc.

[oslo]

You still haven't explained the difference between the "illusion of freedom" and "freedom." Saying that the difference is "actual freedom" is just to append an adjective to the latter. You also seem to think that "false freedom" is something that has to "give" eventually, but I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, either, nor is it clear what your basis for saying so is. Arguably, a society where people are free but fully exposed to life's arbitrary capriciousness is no less vulnerable to the same kind of "give" - just witness the entire modern era.

And who's forcing you to be included? Again your notion of freedom seems to rule out the possibility of political society. If what you're saying is that your freedom is more important than the will of the governed - how would you justify this extraordinary view?

[oslo]

You still need more to describe the difference. Here's why:

Let's say that you have three options - X, Y, Z - "in front of you," in the sense that no one's stopping you from pursuing any of them. Practically speaking, however, Y and Z are effectively out of reach - say they require the use of resources you don't have and can't hope to accumulate in time for them to be of any use. They aren't really options, to you. And then suppose that someone comes along and says, "If you give up your 'Option Z,' I'll provide you with the resources you need to practically pursue 'Option Y

[kylinrouge]

It's a view that advocates for a society and a government that doesn't attempt to mitigate externality. In a libertarian's world, the company that produces moldy ketchup will get beaten by companies that make safe ketchup because of an informed populace that knows the health risks, but this view is not held up in any known history in the world. Moldy ketchup overwhelmingly outsold safe ketchup, and it wasn't until government intervention that safety standards were enforced.

Libertarians assume people will in general make the best choice given their circumstances, but this never, ever holds up in history. Hell, I bet they're even willing to incur massive negative externalities and go back to a time of high mortality and illness just so their society is ideologically pure in their eyes. I would go so far to say that libertarians are a malevolent force in the world.

[oslo]

Well, I can be more specific about why I think my view on the nature of freedom is more plausible and consistent with usage than yours is. I suppose I understood my response to be designed to elicit some further explanation from you as to why your view of what constitutes "freedom" is to be preferred to mine.

Basically, while I think people might find something intuitively obvious about describing "freedom" like you've described it (as the mere multiplicity of options, the lack of constraint on action, etc.), I think that in real terms the sort of freedom that people actually care about - that is, that actually makes their lives more or less worth living - is more like the freedom that I've described. It does not reject your description of "freedom," but places it into context. It seems to me that people feel more "free," if they are actually able to do what they want to do, than if they are unable to do all of those things but are instead theoretically able to do things they don't want to do

[oslo]

I get that, but the usage is almost Orwellian in nature.

Again, you're not really seriously entertaining the possibility that you're wrong about what "freedom" is. Because you're not willing to suspend that initial, intuitive assumption, any attempt to think about what people actually say and feel and do about "freedom" apart from that assumption reads as "Orwellian" to you. If they feel differently than you do about what "freedom" is, they're just wrong, and they're deluding themselves - this is all the explanation you seem to feel compelled to offer for their accounts.

But the view of freedom I've described is not "Orwellian." Indeed, it accepts as initially plausible your account. I'm not saying that the lack of freedom is itself freedom, for example