Listened to this the other day. You were spot on mate - you were the only practical one in the room. I enjoyed the philosophical thought process, but it felt entirely academic.
It’s clear that Sarkar doesn’t understand rights. Rights/freedoms don’t require anybody else’s participation for you to use them. Food isn’t a right because it requires somebody else to provide it unless you grow it yourself. It’s as if she doesn’t think a person has agency to find their own food through shelters, charities, working in exchange for food/shelter, etc. I find most people who want to use the force of government take something from one person to give another person, when it’s broken down for them, don’t believe in agency OR freedom.
Interesting how the question of freedom always comes down, quite rightly, to property rights. The first property, of course, is my right to allocate my labour as I see fit, subject always to the Harm Principle. Thus, slavery in all its forms is always inadmissible; as are the presumptions of the state, or some ideology, to take away from me the accumulated fruits of my labour.
In a democracy, of course, we may agree that giving up some portion of that accumulated property for some agreed purpose is justified: the judicial system, defence, support for the indigent etc. But this is a matter for us to agree upon as a community; not to be dictated to us by some ideology.
Listened to this the other day. You were spot on mate - you were the only practical one in the room. I enjoyed the philosophical thought process, but it felt entirely academic.
As it so often (and seemingly more and more often) turns out, is that the concept of freedom is being presented (as was done by this woman whom I know nothing about) as something that only wealthy or economically comfortable people are able to enjoy because they can *buy* it. You can buy a house, buy a fridge and buy food to stock it with, hence: you have freedom. On the other hand, there are poor, homeless, and food-depraved people who cannot afford this “freedom”. It’s not only annoying, but a little scary to me too, that this is exactly what turns the perception of (the meaning of) freedom into a battle between people who can afford it, and the “victims” of society who cannot, because other people ate it all, with their stuffed fridges and safeguarding the leftovers behind their locked doors and all.
It’s a worrying take on the concept of freedom because wherever you turn, you hear this argument. I see it in the USA (where a BLM spokesperson recently compared looting stores to simply collecting “reparations” for the historic unfreedoms of slavery), I read it in the Dutch (corporate) media, where victimhood is almost celebrated, as it is in so many western elite circles, and you see it now of course again very sharply and bloody in Israel and in the responses to the horrors of last week: that people who are described as freedom-seekers (but have an actual agenda of just killing all Jews) have a certain “right”, or at least get a free moral passage from many (western) commenters, to to do whatever it takes to take their share of so-called “freedom”. I mean, what can be more liberating than killing old people at bus stops, or slaughtering babies, right?
Yeah, freedom itself is not the problem. It’s the amount of people that are losing their understanding of what freedom actually is. Like you said, you can be poor and hungry, AND free. You can, on the other hand, not have a full fridge and a front door while knowing that this fact of earned property comes with the fear that someone might want to take it. That is the opposite of freedom.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Even in discussions about food in your fridge.
Listened to this the other day. You were spot on mate - you were the only practical one in the room. I enjoyed the philosophical thought process, but it felt entirely academic.
Ash is a fantasist.
It’s clear that Sarkar doesn’t understand rights. Rights/freedoms don’t require anybody else’s participation for you to use them. Food isn’t a right because it requires somebody else to provide it unless you grow it yourself. It’s as if she doesn’t think a person has agency to find their own food through shelters, charities, working in exchange for food/shelter, etc. I find most people who want to use the force of government take something from one person to give another person, when it’s broken down for them, don’t believe in agency OR freedom.
So good, I said it twice. Apparently.
Interesting how the question of freedom always comes down, quite rightly, to property rights. The first property, of course, is my right to allocate my labour as I see fit, subject always to the Harm Principle. Thus, slavery in all its forms is always inadmissible; as are the presumptions of the state, or some ideology, to take away from me the accumulated fruits of my labour.
In a democracy, of course, we may agree that giving up some portion of that accumulated property for some agreed purpose is justified: the judicial system, defence, support for the indigent etc. But this is a matter for us to agree upon as a community; not to be dictated to us by some ideology.
Good interview but cut short - is there any more?
Thank you for your clarity Konstantin.
Listened to this the other day. You were spot on mate - you were the only practical one in the room. I enjoyed the philosophical thought process, but it felt entirely academic.
Ash is a fantasist.
Where is it possible to find the whole debate? I've googled but could only find the clip and the usual voice-over commentaries.
Bravissimo, mate. I do appreciate your dispassionate dismantling of her strawman arguments.
Cucumber cool Kisin.
As it so often (and seemingly more and more often) turns out, is that the concept of freedom is being presented (as was done by this woman whom I know nothing about) as something that only wealthy or economically comfortable people are able to enjoy because they can *buy* it. You can buy a house, buy a fridge and buy food to stock it with, hence: you have freedom. On the other hand, there are poor, homeless, and food-depraved people who cannot afford this “freedom”. It’s not only annoying, but a little scary to me too, that this is exactly what turns the perception of (the meaning of) freedom into a battle between people who can afford it, and the “victims” of society who cannot, because other people ate it all, with their stuffed fridges and safeguarding the leftovers behind their locked doors and all.
It’s a worrying take on the concept of freedom because wherever you turn, you hear this argument. I see it in the USA (where a BLM spokesperson recently compared looting stores to simply collecting “reparations” for the historic unfreedoms of slavery), I read it in the Dutch (corporate) media, where victimhood is almost celebrated, as it is in so many western elite circles, and you see it now of course again very sharply and bloody in Israel and in the responses to the horrors of last week: that people who are described as freedom-seekers (but have an actual agenda of just killing all Jews) have a certain “right”, or at least get a free moral passage from many (western) commenters, to to do whatever it takes to take their share of so-called “freedom”. I mean, what can be more liberating than killing old people at bus stops, or slaughtering babies, right?
Yeah, freedom itself is not the problem. It’s the amount of people that are losing their understanding of what freedom actually is. Like you said, you can be poor and hungry, AND free. You can, on the other hand, not have a full fridge and a front door while knowing that this fact of earned property comes with the fear that someone might want to take it. That is the opposite of freedom.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Even in discussions about food in your fridge.