this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
9 points (90.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

29869 readers
1375 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Today I was attending a lecture about blockchain and cryptocurrencies and the lecturer said that freedom and safety don't go together. You can have more freedom by abandoning safety. Would you agree?

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] venotic@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 37 minutes ago

I don't know. I think security today, has been awfully abused because I really don't see for example, why the fuck Google needs my street address to "feel secure". It's small things like that, that really make you question.

There's something about this lecture that doesn't sit right with me and I think it's because they're bringing into irrelevant things that don't mesh with the idea of freedom or security.

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 hour ago

If you pay attention to politics, you'll start seeing a pattern of "we're keeping you safe" as an excuse to rob you of your freedoms. This really ramped up in the USA after 9/11. It's when spying on Americans by our own government became legalized. We were afraid, and we gave up some freedoms for the idea of safety.

...and now we know we're no more safe than we were before.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 hour ago

I think there can sometimes be tension between these two ideals, as with any two disparate goals but I think they are often more aligned than people think. Freedom from terror and violence is an important freedom as well.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 10 points 3 hours ago

Not technically, because there are scenarios where you can give up some freedom or safety without improving the other in return (and therefore restore freedom/safety afterwards without diminishing the other)… but it’s a close enough approximation to be useful, kinda like classical physics vs general relativity.

If you want to be more detailed, you can look at “freedom to” vs “freedom from”. This has its own limitations, but it’s precise enough while still being useful.

For example, assuming everyone involved is constrained by the same rules:

You can’t have the freedom to fire a gun in the air, and have freedom from your neighbor’s falling bullets.

You can’t have the freedom to drive a tank down the street, and have freedom from fear of being squashed as a pedestrian.

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 4 hours ago

Read my mind.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 10 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It's possible to have neither freedom nor safety

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago

gestures around broadly

[–] cattywampas@lemm.ee 8 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, that's the entire basis for the idea of the social contract. That you give up a little bit of freedom in exchange for security from living in a society.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago

Social contract theory is statist propaganda. Even before I knew anything about politics or political theory I was so confused by this idea.

It’s just there to create an illusion of consent for state oppression. Even though there’s no realistic way to opt out, and we never even decided to opt in in the first place.

What kind of crazy contract is that?

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You're talking about trade offs and maximization.

That's not reality yet. In reality, we have less freedom AND less safety than we could. There's plenty of room to increase both.

Once we get to a maximized state, then tradeoffs are necessary. But we're very far from that at the moment.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

They're not mutually exclusive. Some issues would increase one of those factors without decreasing the other, while other issues result in a slight lessening of one in exchange for an increase in the other. Different agencies and parts of society handle different issues, and it's not reasonable to expect optimal progression, much as it would be appreciated.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Oh, definitely not optimal progression. But there's some basic things we could easily do that improve both safety and freedom.

Getting rid of racist cops, for example. Increased safety and freedom for black people. Costs us literally nothing.

[–] artificialfish@programming.dev 2 points 3 hours ago

You can be free and safe with the right weapon arsenal. 🦅🇺🇸

[–] SpikesOtherDog@ani.social 5 points 4 hours ago

If you assume freedom is the ability to move about the world as you wish, then you may need to abandon complete safety, take risks, to accomplish your goals.

Some risks will limit your freedoms. Natural consequences, such as injuries, will literally limit your physical ability. Logical consequences may be exclusion from society or loss of assets. Freedom may be to pursue those risks despite the consequences to yourself or others.

In the context of crypto, my understanding is that the intent was to provide both freedom and safety through anonymity. If we look at freedoms looked at as illegal, there is an implied safety through obfuscation. There have been instances where people have been traced through crypto, so I do not completely trust it.

If you are referring to financial safety and security, it sounds as if the speaker is trying to mash words together to make it sound like people should take risks with their money to pursue their freedom. If people are using metaphors instead of solid language to sell you something, RUN.