Ask Lemmy

It's technically true in absolutes. Absolute freedom, without giving up humanity, gives no guarantee of safety provided by anything outside of yourself. Absolute safety exists only in a providential void, where needs are seen to magically, as by a benevolent god. If you seek safety in the absolute freedom, you lose the freedom in one way or another. Walls to keep out enemies keep the builders in. Tools to provide for survival require production and maintenance, taking away your freedom to choose to do things that you enjoy. If you seek freedom in the absolute safety, you have to risk giving external forces access. Those forces always carry risk of harm, whether by malicious action or indifference. However, while it's necessary to sacrifice one for the other in the absolute, it's not sufficient. Nothing about the relationship says being less of one necessarily makes you more of the other. The easy example is prison. In most prisons your freedom is severely curtailed, but you certainly aren't safe. You might even be imprisoned for the purpose of being harmed.

This blogger has previously had some interesting thoughts on the matter. For example https://blenderdumbass.org/articles/Paternalistic_Laws_Make_Very_Little_Sense but I remember some others too, though can't easily find them now.

That sounds an awful lot like its the setup for some authoritarian talking point. The whole point of restricting freedom within a society is so that the total amount of freedom is increased. For instance ur freedom to murder people is being restricted because killing someone denies that person of their own freedom to live. Ur night out murdering is less units of freedom than an entire lifetime of freewill.

The only possible way to interpret the lecturers statement that is logically congruent is to claim that your freedoms are being restricted so that your safety can be increased by reducing the risk you pose to yourself. Its literally you being told that someone else will be making your decisions on your behalf because your too dumb to decide for yourself. Pure authoritarian bootlicking.

Its the same argument used by extremists to deny women's rights to get an abortion.

I don't agree because it is too simplistic. Its not necessarily wrong, but it is misleading because reality is a whole lot more complicated.

When certain people have the freedom to hurt others, no one is safe.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's possible to have neither freedom nor safety

they are probably using the modern interpretation of this those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

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.

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.

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