Notion of the day

[nancylebov]

If It Can't Be Abused, It's Not Freedom

I think it's a sound principle, but I'm not completely sure I'm right. What do you think?

From Flow, an idealist libertarian blog.

Comments

[madfilkentist]

Is there anything that can't be abused?

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I thought about this a little, and I decided that laws and freedoms generally are, maybe only can be, abused in different ways. Laws try to spell out any possible application, so that they can't be abused by being applied too widely. In practice, that's not possible, and court cases spell out some details, but that's the goal. The way to abuse them is by adhering to them in an overly legalistic way, following every letter of the law but none of its spirit, close or identical to what Shea & Wilson call "the robot's revenge." You abuse the system but by adhering to it. I don't think many people do this consciously, although a lot of people may do it unconsciously.

Freedom, on the other hand, by nature is open to being applied too widely, and it's almost impossible to abuse freedom by adhering to the letter rather than the spirit.

I don't know howmany people think of the former as "abuse" of the law; my guess is that the latter is more what people think of when they use the term "abuse."

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

You might be interested in a book called _The Death of Common Sense_. IIRC, the argument was that in the 1970's, there was a shift in judicial philosophy in the US toward assuming that judges couldn't be trusted with discretion, so laws had to be made more and more specific, leading to odd outcomes because the real world is much more complex than any effort to describe or control it can be.

I'm not sure how much thoughtless application of the law is malice, how much is laziness, and how much is fear of being blamed for dong the wrong thing.

[kressel.livejournal.com]

Is there anything that can't be abused?

My thoughts precisely. Fascinating article, though.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

H'mmmm. Like many libertarian slogans, it sounds good, but I'm not sure it means anything - as madfilkentist pointed out, it's hard to come up with anything that can't be abused.

I abandoned libertarianism years ago because (to me) it misses the point - the same point every other standard political position misses (and one that Heinlein, of all people, actually came within inches of): Freedom and responsibility are two words for the same thing.

Completely apart from any human laws, you are free to do anything, provided you accept responsibility for the consequences. Those consequences may include the response of other human beings, including legal action. And you are always responsible for the consequences of any freely chosen action, whether or not you accept that responsibility. Not merely "two sides of the same coin," but each a name for the whole coin.

Libertarianism fails to recognize the radical relationship between freedom and responsibility - treats freedom as an absolute good; when the freer you are, the more responsibility you have. This is why Sartre whined about being "condemned" to be free: once you recognize this fact, there is no turning back. You cannot help but be free and responsible for every choice; the only constraints on you are physical law and your own will. No society can change this.

(Oh, about Heinlein? It was the words he put in the mouth of Bernardo "Prof" de la Paz in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I'm not going to go and look up the exact quote right now, but basically he says, "Make any laws you feel you need for your own protection. If I can't live with them I'll break them and accept the consequences." Something like that.)

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I think the relevence of "if it can't be abused, it isn't freedom" is in the context of people who oppose a freedom on the grounds that it could be abused.

If you're responsible for how people react to what you do, where's their responsibility?

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

Seen in that context, OK - that a thing can be abused is no reason to limit its legitimate use.

If you're responsible for how people react to what you do, where's their responsibility?

Why, on them, of course.

Or rather, in their subjective universe. I am the only demonstrable "free will" in my subjective universe, as you are in yours. We can talk about your freedom/responsibility and my freedom/responsibility, but I can't do anything about yours, and you can't do anything about mine. But we can make reasonable predictions about how others will respond/react to our behavior, and choose our behavior accordingly. (I reasonably predict that if I were to shoot someone who pisses me off, others would treat me in a manner I would not like, in excess of any pleasure shooting him would bring me; so I choose not to do it.)

This works out in various ways. If I insult you and you slap me, I am responsible for your reaction to the extent that I could reasonably expect that you would react that way. If I do you a favor and you reward me, ditto. If I do you a favor and you slap me, or I insult you and you reward me, I find myself in a realm where I can't predict your behavior.

To put it differently: If I sell a gun to someone whom I know (or have cause to believe) to be a homicidal maniac, I bear responsibility for the murders he commits with that gun.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I don't believe in absolute separate free will--people affect each other, sometimes rather a lot. What's more, I even suspect this is frequently a good thing.

Maybe people would be more independent if they were more enlightened, but we aren't generally dealing with people who are like that.

[madfilkentist]

That expresses a stoical spirit, but doesn't actually provide any guidance on societal principles. Yes, we are always free to make choices and always responsible for their consequences. This is true even in a maximum-security cell. But freedom to make choices and freedom in the political sense -- i.e., freedom from forcible constraint by others -- aren't the same thing.

The political question of freedom is what constraints, if any, people acting in a social context should place on the actions of people in the society. What constraints people will decide to impose depends on the sum of their choices, but simply saying that they'll choose what constraints to place, and we'll individually decide what to do about them, doesn't address the question in any substantive way.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

I don't believe there is a "right" answer to the question of what constraints, if any, people acting in a social context should place on the actions of people in the society, for two reasons.

First, because I don't believe there are constraints, only ground rules. Laws and police don't prevent "crimes," they only punish them. Ground rules don't constrain my behavior; they tell me what consequences certain choices might entail, and I am free - unconstrained - to make those choices if I accept the consequences.

Second, because I don't believe there is a "right" set of ground rules. The ground rules will be a product of the group of people setting them and the situation for which they are set. Like ferexample: capital punishment probably makes sense for a nomadic culture, that doesn't have a lot of options for restraining people, but maybe not so much for an industrial society.

(I do believe that there are real moral imperatives, but they cannot be imposed, only followed.)

So I can't address your question in any way you will perceive as substantive. The semi-useful fiction called "society" sets ground rules based on a sort of averaging function of perceived needs. I choose to follow or not follow those ground rules and accept the consequences either way.