One further aspect is missing. The inability of people to look around them and see the impact of their behaviour on others. Call it lack of courtesy? Lack of awareness? Insensitivity?
Not something you can legislate for, but maybe something to be picked up through education?
That was an important part of our discussion (hence my moaning about the jet-ski man) and why I found myself coming back to the 'golden rule'. If we don't want the law refereeing our lives, we need to regulate ourselves and each other - just in a way that is tolerant of minor stuff.
Yes, yes, agree with all this or most of it. But it sort of doesn't get to the crux of the problem. Basically, if people are not interested in freedom of thought and expression, there's really no way to convince them. Bertrand Russell wrote (in "Practice and Theory"), "If a more just economic system is only attainable by closing men's minds against free enquiry. the price is too high". You either agree with this or you don't. Russell was writing in the context of Stalinist communism endorsed by the quasi-totality of the Left, especially by the Fabian Society. Today, it seems that the majority of people in the world DO NOT AGREE with Russell. Only prosperity matters, a viewpoint understandable in very, very poor third world countries but not elsewhere. The Chinese are almost entirely convinced by their present system -- because it has brought wealth. What is alarming is that the younger generation in the West is totally unconcerned about freedom of thought and expression and not only in politics, even scientists dare not challenge the fashionable views of the moment -- because they are afraid for their tenure or simply because they couldn't care less. Truth is not a value any more, only economic success. No party ever campaigns in favour of freedom of thought and expression -- because they all basically agree. And no scientific or technical job advertisement EVER mentions 'job-satisfaction', only payment and perks like pensions. When I pointed this out in the New Scientist about the best reply I got was "If we scientists were so keen on money, why aren't we lawyers?" To which the answer is that the abilities required of a good scientist are quite different from those required of a 'good' lawyer. (You lot wouldn't make it as lawyers.) By ordinary people's standards all academics are doing very well for themselves and they feel no compunction to strive for freedom of expression and truth. .
I like that Rob is not an academic philosopher, I have written a piece on my substack (click photo on left) about autodidact-ism, freedom is central to everything I write, some of this may be of interest to AOI's discerning readers, I hope so.
I think that one of the most powerful ways to protect freedom is to show how far we have come already.
There is a tendency to forget history and to take for granted all of our modern freedoms. In a similar way we forget how much wealth, comfort and opportunity are available in modern society. It's the curse of the 'hedonic treadmill'.
It's only when we take stock of what has been achieved up til now and what people risked to get us there and how they fought to get us those freedoms that we realize their value. Document how hard life was before. We take them for granted.
By way of example, major freedoms like you mentioned could be freedom from a monarchy (we no longer fear them), from a feudal system, from poverty. What freedoms do we want to conserve and within what bounds (impact on others)....and what freedoms we would like to have next (if any). It's always good to have your own plan....rather than being part of somebody else's.
Freedom from government would be one of my current most sought freedoms but UK government certainly seems determined to want to 'do more' for us.
On the subject of freedom to pursue things that are no good for you, things like drink, drugs, alcohol. It's great we can pursue those freedoms but they may have consequences on others. Do we then rely on the NHS if/when we get into trouble.
If there was no NHS would we be less likely to experiment? But where do you draw the line? Extreme sports? Perhaps that’s where an insurance model gives more accountability. You pay for the risk you choose. e.g. you add 'winter sports' to your policy if you so choose. But we don't all have to add winter sports.
If conservatives would argue for and against things on the basis of morals as you say - perhaps we should do more of that again. Set out vales (consideration, respect, stoicism) and try to set out a way to live your life in that manner. Automatically you would self-regulate your own freedoms so as to limit the impact on others (consideration).
One further aspect is missing. The inability of people to look around them and see the impact of their behaviour on others. Call it lack of courtesy? Lack of awareness? Insensitivity?
Not something you can legislate for, but maybe something to be picked up through education?
That was an important part of our discussion (hence my moaning about the jet-ski man) and why I found myself coming back to the 'golden rule'. If we don't want the law refereeing our lives, we need to regulate ourselves and each other - just in a way that is tolerant of minor stuff.
Yes, yes, agree with all this or most of it. But it sort of doesn't get to the crux of the problem. Basically, if people are not interested in freedom of thought and expression, there's really no way to convince them. Bertrand Russell wrote (in "Practice and Theory"), "If a more just economic system is only attainable by closing men's minds against free enquiry. the price is too high". You either agree with this or you don't. Russell was writing in the context of Stalinist communism endorsed by the quasi-totality of the Left, especially by the Fabian Society. Today, it seems that the majority of people in the world DO NOT AGREE with Russell. Only prosperity matters, a viewpoint understandable in very, very poor third world countries but not elsewhere. The Chinese are almost entirely convinced by their present system -- because it has brought wealth. What is alarming is that the younger generation in the West is totally unconcerned about freedom of thought and expression and not only in politics, even scientists dare not challenge the fashionable views of the moment -- because they are afraid for their tenure or simply because they couldn't care less. Truth is not a value any more, only economic success. No party ever campaigns in favour of freedom of thought and expression -- because they all basically agree. And no scientific or technical job advertisement EVER mentions 'job-satisfaction', only payment and perks like pensions. When I pointed this out in the New Scientist about the best reply I got was "If we scientists were so keen on money, why aren't we lawyers?" To which the answer is that the abilities required of a good scientist are quite different from those required of a 'good' lawyer. (You lot wouldn't make it as lawyers.) By ordinary people's standards all academics are doing very well for themselves and they feel no compunction to strive for freedom of expression and truth. .
I like that Rob is not an academic philosopher, I have written a piece on my substack (click photo on left) about autodidact-ism, freedom is central to everything I write, some of this may be of interest to AOI's discerning readers, I hope so.
I think that one of the most powerful ways to protect freedom is to show how far we have come already.
There is a tendency to forget history and to take for granted all of our modern freedoms. In a similar way we forget how much wealth, comfort and opportunity are available in modern society. It's the curse of the 'hedonic treadmill'.
It's only when we take stock of what has been achieved up til now and what people risked to get us there and how they fought to get us those freedoms that we realize their value. Document how hard life was before. We take them for granted.
By way of example, major freedoms like you mentioned could be freedom from a monarchy (we no longer fear them), from a feudal system, from poverty. What freedoms do we want to conserve and within what bounds (impact on others)....and what freedoms we would like to have next (if any). It's always good to have your own plan....rather than being part of somebody else's.
Freedom from government would be one of my current most sought freedoms but UK government certainly seems determined to want to 'do more' for us.
On the subject of freedom to pursue things that are no good for you, things like drink, drugs, alcohol. It's great we can pursue those freedoms but they may have consequences on others. Do we then rely on the NHS if/when we get into trouble.
If there was no NHS would we be less likely to experiment? But where do you draw the line? Extreme sports? Perhaps that’s where an insurance model gives more accountability. You pay for the risk you choose. e.g. you add 'winter sports' to your policy if you so choose. But we don't all have to add winter sports.
If conservatives would argue for and against things on the basis of morals as you say - perhaps we should do more of that again. Set out vales (consideration, respect, stoicism) and try to set out a way to live your life in that manner. Automatically you would self-regulate your own freedoms so as to limit the impact on others (consideration).