Comment by dylan604
1 year ago
There's the old saying that "we are free only as much as we don't have guns in our face telling us we're not". The reigns placed on our freedom are just unrecognized by the vast majority of people so they feel they have more freedom than what they might appreciate.
Do you have some concrete examples of these reigns placed on our freedoms that most people apparently aren't intelligent enough to realize?
Most of it these days is less about being intelligent enough and more about whether you're positioned to encounter or hear about a "chilling effect" [1]. Historians will probably only ever be able to debate order-of-magnitude estimates of how many students gave up protesting because of the Kent State shootings, or how many writers "self-censored" because of PRISM/XKeyscore [2], or how many people decide not to exercise their Second Amendment rights because they don't want to risk being categorized as "armed" in a police encounter [3] [4].
One example that's a bit more concrete is the combination of pre-trial detention and plea bargains. These form, in effect, a punishment for exercising one's right to a fair trial, a punishment that exists because our court system is quite far from having the capacity to properly handle the sheer volume of prosecutions that occur [5].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
[2] https://pen.org/report/chilling-effects/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver
[5] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/26/plea-bargainin...
As an attorney, I find your plea bargain argument unpersuasive. Major themes in the criminal justice system are acknowledgment of guilt and acceptance of responsibility. These are going to work against you after spending a year claiming you didn’t do it if the jury decides you did.
Well... I think the NSA should be abolished!
If you're a heterosexual white male, you probably won't notice them. You'll also probably not care for that any non-heterosexual white male might feel differently. For everyone else, we have loads of examples of how not free they are at times. Heaven help you if you "fit the description".
So… no?
Just race and sex baiting with vague allusions, but not actually a specific example when asked…?
4 replies →
> we are free only as much as we don't have guns in our face telling us we're not.
Is this actually an old saying?
It's at least thirty minutes old.
i might have butchered the actual saying, but the gist is there
I’m not entirely sure if I understand the point you’re making, but let me try an analogy.
We are all forced to buy a car. There is no one with a gun to our head forcing such a purchase, or a law specifically requiring you to buy a car. But nevertheless the laws are structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car, whether they want to or not.
If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement.
So while you are technically free to not buy a car, realistically you are forced to do so.
Is that approximately what you mean?
> If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement.
That depends where you live. In Chicago, for example, your life will be simpler and less expensive if you don't own a car.
I don't understand this as a blanket rule either. My life is dramatically less expensive because of not having a car. I don't have to fill it with gas. I don't have to carry insurance. I choose not to have a car, and while somethings are less convenient it does not prevent me from existing. I have an ebike and it suffices for everything thing that is a necessity for me. For the other things, rental for a weekend away is very much a thing.
Now, for people that choose to live in the further reaches of suburbia where things are not nearly as close, then cars become more of a need. But that is a decision when location to suburbia or further was made.
6 replies →
Ironically, outside the US I managed to live until the age of 41, before I caved in and got a driver's license. Instead, I got around by train, tram, bus, bicycle, feet and taxi. I would argue, that in a society not designed to require a car, you are not really forced to.
> But nevertheless the laws are structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car, whether they want to or not.
Do you mean lack of government subsidies supporting better public transportation? Or something else?
The car industry has been lobbying congress and locales for 50+ years. Laws like jaywalking were at the behest of car companies, and that alone makes walking legally very difficult in nearly any area with a downtown.
The lack of subsidies certainly don't help. Neither does the insatiable appetite for new cars.
1 reply →
It's extremely possible to live in Boston (or some surrounding areas like Cambridge or Brookline) without a car. I did for 6 years.
The emphasis should be on Boston not extremely, there are few cities in America you can live without a car or be considered an outcast without one
And that is an incredibly expensive place to live.
I still remember the Alewife and Braintree...
It's more like, you think you are free, because from birth society and CorpGov condition you to operate within an accepted status quo, and incentives are structured in order to support that.
But the moment you question the status quo, or try to go against it, you find yourself targeted by corporate and social violence. You might lose your job, the respect of your peers, your family, house, car or more.
Here is an easy example:
A portion of your tax money is funding genocide and anti-democratic military coups in Israel and other countries.
If you decide (as any rational citizen should) to no longer pay income tax knowing that you lack any discretion over how it is spent, and you decide to demand a more transparent and restricted tax system, then the government will threaten you with economic hardship and even prison. They will surveil and discredit you if you receive any modicum of notoriety, just as they do to sociopolitical activists and protestors.
You won't be able to operate a business while opposing income tax laws, and thus conscious political action is relegated to the elite, who don't need to work, and the poor, who already don't significantly benefit from the system. The rest of the working class is forced to play ball, or lose everything.
That's not freedom, even if it looks like Freedom™ to a certain class of bootlickers who are conditioned to maintain the status quo, even if it means turning on their neighbor.
[flagged]
10 replies →
laws are structured? or just the cumulative impact of societies decisions.
humans are social creatures, of course if everyone else has a car it is going to be inconvenient for you to not have one. this is not a solvable problem
The problem is that corporate interests pushed for a car-centric society. You can't point to consumer choice as a justification for the current system, when we were given little choice to begin with.
It might seem like a moot point in San Francisco where there is free public transit, but in cities like mine, there is an intentional lack of alternatives, in order for cars to be leveraged as a self-reinforcing socioeconomic class boundary.
6 replies →
[dead]