Comment by shmulkey18 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmulkey18 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Different kinds of freedom". Whenever anyone says this, I get very nervous. It's pretty clear that these "different kinds" are not real freedom at all, and so don't include things like freedom of speech, the ability to truly determine who governs you, or even the freedom to water or not water the plants in front of your apartment (failing to do the latter in Singapore will result in a visit from the cops).

Here's a case of a man who was arrested for daring to write a book which criticised the use of the death penalty in Singapore: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/07/singapore-alan-shad.... I doubt he thinks the trade-off you propose for these (putative) "different kinds of freedom" is a good one.

Also: what you refer to as "freedom from" liberties seemed to inevitably involve infringing another's "freedom to". As such, it seems improper to term them "freedom".

The fact that some prefer a happy face dictatorship to a system which affords a large measure of actual liberty seems to me a very sad commentary on the human condition.

Classic essay on negative and positive liberty: http://jmaggio.typepad.com/no_call_me_jay/files/two_concepts...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Thanks for posting these links; they look very interesting.

Is an individual's freedom to do something more important than another individual's freedom from something? My country takes a rather paternalistic view on this but like I said, i am casually optimistic that things will change and we as a country are moving towards a more informed citizenry renegotiating the social compact between the govt and people and finding a balance in both positive and negative liberties.

Edited: I can't seen to reply the comment below, so adding the reply here. One of the things my country takes very seriously is both the perception and actual oppression of minorities. In this case, we want ethnic minorities to have the freedom from majority oppression. As an example, there are measures that are put in place that prevents some of our freedom to say certain stuff about the religion Islam in a certain way. To say the rules are like a cudgel instead of a scapel would be right but as a citizen I can see where my government is coming from.

Like the comment below said, generally yes to freedom to instead of freedom from. What is considered not a general case in Singapore differs; that does not make us wrong. Neither does it mean our system is right and perfect. What it does mean is my country is learning and hopefully maturing.

In other words, you're OK with the state forbidding forms of political speech it finds undesirable. Nice. Banning "freedom to say certain stuff about the religion Islam" is censorship, pure and simple.

Read "Brave New World" and see if any of the things depicted there ring a bell.

I think the point of BNW was that there was no censorship, but rather the population just didn't care.

Yeah right. Tell that to all the members of Jehova's Witnesses, who were imprisoned in 2004 for having the wrong religion.

"Is an individual's freedom to do something more important than another individual's freedom from something?"

Generally, yes, it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com