Text by Recycler
38/124,8466 words
Welcome to a new friend, and hello to an old one.
Closed for study, articles are mainly about stash.
Recently, I've been thinking about the issue of freedom, and my definition of freedom is non-coercive, as long as it's pursued on one's own initiative, and not imposed by others, it's free choice.
Freedom of choice subject to external interference
Is the freedom to be compelled free? A person goes to the supermarket to buy fruit, wanted to buy some apples, but ended up buying oranges under the guidance of the shopper. Originally we had the idea to go for apples. The shopper guide said a lot of things, and then the inner struggle began, the more I heard, the more I thought the orange was delicious, so I solemnly made my own choice. I think it's freeing. Because, before buying the fruit, we expected it to be apples that were delicious. No consideration was given to the newly released oranges. But at the supermarket, convinced by the shopper. The answer to one's choice changes. It's because freedom of choice i.e. includes choices as always, as well as ad hoc choices. All are personal freedom.
The shopper is one aspect of our lives, similar to the marketplace vegetable and rice, the government politicians, the newscasters. They instill their values in others. I wanted to buy some long and green celery, but I recognized the vendor's theory that small and short, pollution-free celery is good. I wanted to build a tarmac road in front of my house, but I was told to advocate natural living and that the old stone road was just fine. I thought that genetically modified corn could not be eaten, but I was repeatedly emphasized in television reports that genetically modified corn was harmless. Individual wisdom is limited. After all, when it comes to choices, we are not as good as the professionals, those with a big-picture view, those with a long-term vision, or any advertisement we see on television, who are more specialized. So we choose to believe their explanations and thus make our own free choices. But wherever there is a voice, a word, a symbol hovering around, it becomes an influence on free choice. It's not that we have low IQs, it's not that we can't withstand persuasion, it's not that we're not opinionated. What is the purpose of having an opinion? What is the purpose of free choice? It is not to gain more value. Where does this more value come from? Isn't it our wisdom that combines various factors and makes choices. With each additional external factor, we recalculate our gains and losses. Only at the moment when a deal is struck, a contract of some kind, do we stop worrying about external factors.
Freedom of choice interfered with by different values
Some people will complain that the oranges they are being sold by the shopper are not good. This is a very normal thing, the shopper put their own point of view to the customer, the shopper thinks that the sour orange is delicious, the customer does not necessarily love to eat. Although it is a failure of free choice, but at least, learned a few points, one is to stick to their own choice, just buy apples. Second, carefully ask each other think good judgment criteria. Third, if the other party deliberately lies to lose integrity, there will be no next transaction. This is all in the free choice of the road to face the problem, is we should accumulate experience.
The influence of external factors never stops, even after free choice is completed. External factors will continue to pour into the identified choice, which affects the mood after the free choice, happy or sad, according to the mood at this time, as the basis for judgment in the future choice. We are happy when we buy tasty oranges; we are sad when we buy unpalatable oranges. The idea of good or bad taste is more of a subjective impression of people. Some people think it is sweet and tasty, some think it is sour and tasty. If the shopper only summarizes his or her own feelings, this will affect the customer's choice. "Apples don't taste good, oranges do" and so the customer takes his opinion. Only afterwards did he realize that it was only the shopper's subjective opinion. This is still the good side. The shopper is also acting out of goodwill when he pushes what he thinks is the best type of fruit on the customer. The goodness of heart is one thing, but it's more about the businessman's desire to make a profit. Let's say that an apple will net you a dollar and an orange will net you two dollars. The shopper will recommend oranges. Because the benefit of the orange is the largest. If profit is the premise, the shopper will ignore the taste of the fruit and other issues, and even exaggerate. If, in fact, the happiness brought by apples is one hundred percent and oranges are eighty percent. A set of words from the shopper's guide makes the orange one hundred and twenty points, far greater than the actual effect. People will consciously choose the fruit with higher happiness. Very often, different fruits bring little difference in happiness, more is the language to bring the role of psychological implication.
Whether it's a well-intentioned guide or a malicious one, at least in the moment, the free trade of the moment is profitable for both sides. The joy and sorrow of the aftermath, that is the essence of the product problem. Joy, anger and sorrow is our life experience, we prefer to life tends to joy and happiness, we will attribute to the goodwill of the shopper guide, attributed to their own wisdom. As for anger and sadness, we will find certain factors that influence our decisions. Whether the shopper maliciously exaggerated the effect, or the values of each other are different, or their own intelligence is anxious. It is the nature of human existence to avoid harm.
The evil guide triggered a vicious circle
Free choice is in a fair environment, focusing on the survival of the individual, in line with the human nature of the factor is not constrained. Good and evil under free choice are moral issues, and good and evil are the basis for the next choice. If a supermarket is substandard. The supermarket is gaining, but the customer is losing, not getting the value he wants. So they refuse to trade with the supermarket again. As a result the supermarket struggles to stay afloat. The outcome of each of our choices is the main basis for the next one. Supermarkets eat the bad fruit they have sown, and to survive, they can only use good goods. But people are already defensive in their minds. The only way to attract customers and re-establish a system of trust is to reduce prices. The energy expended in building trust is far greater than the benefits gained from substituting good for bad in the first place. As always, guiding customers with good ideas is the basis for the survival of supermarkets. Judging the difference in values is really a matter of learning to recognize and judge. First to ensure that there is no bad intentions, and then to understand the values of consumers. This is the basis for the development of supermarkets.
Coercion is the antithesis of freedom
The purpose of guidance is good or evil, that is a moral issue, not the focus of free choice. The point is that the word "guide" means that the shopper can say anything good or bad, and his purpose is only to reach the moment of free choice, and to benefit each other. If the word "guide" is replaced by "force", force means not free choice. A customer thinks the apple is not good, its actual value should be four dollars, the shopper thinks the apple is worth five dollars, both sides recognize the value is not equal, and can not reach a free trade. But the appearance of "forced", equivalent to let the customer to pay a dollar more, so that both sides of the equation balance. The customer is forced to pay a dollar, which he could have chosen not to pay. But coercion forces him to pay. Why would they have to pay? The reason is complex, perhaps because of the singularity of the goods, obviously there can be a variety of fruits, but the supermarket only sells apples, the customer does not have a choice, and therefore do not feel free. This is still in the realm of freedom. Although it is single, it is not compulsory. I want to buy a catty of apples, but the supermarket says that it will sell at least five catty of apples, so if I don't buy them, I will not buy them, and I am free not to buy them. What is not freedom? "Apples are too expensive, don't want them." "Don't want them, don't want them, don't want them, don't want them, don't want them, don't want them, don't want them." My goodness, this isn't a black store. You're not buying apples, you're buying your freedom. The extra money we pay is for our freedom. The choice can be apples or oranges, the choice can be to make a deal or not to make a deal, the compulsion is to sell apples or oranges with a bundle of life or freedom. Buy our apples and you have life and freedom. If you don't buy our apples, you lose your freedom and your life. In the face of freedom and life and death. People will be forced to compromise and choose the only answer. Obviously there can be many answers, but only one answer is given, and people lose the right to freedom of choice. Those supermarkets that intentionally sell only a single product, doing the business of a dictatorship under the guise of freedom, are not coercive, but they are not selective either. Coercion is more often than not, not even the right to give up and sacrifice.
Unfreedom is felt in the heart, though, and is limited in action. But with the actual acquisition of value does not have any relationship, the cost price of ten dollars of apples, mandatory five dollars to sell to customers, perhaps customers like to eat. But not the customer's free choice, even if they take advantage of the great bargain, is not free. Many people think that they are not free because they have suffered a loss, but sometimes they are not free because they have benefited. Freedom and unfreedom have nothing to do with the amount of benefit gained, but depends on whether the two sides are equal, or one is active to force, and the other is passive to accept. The above is a little bit of opinion about freedom and unfreedom. The cliché is to clear the mind, freedom related issues are still thinking.
Freedom of choice
Freedom of choice lies in the unrestrained, in the supermarket, want to buy what to buy, no one forced you to stay, no one dares to force the sale. We are happy to enjoy the shopping life. The same is true in life, the freedom to choose what you want to do. The piano, chess, calligraphy and painting, and even, eating, drinking, whoring and gambling, are all free choices for ourselves. But in reality, we are not free at all.
Why not free, freedom is not a boundless world, but has certain limitations. The first is our laws. Can not be free of drugs and gambling, because this behavior violates the law. What do we need laws for when we are free to do as we please? The end result of people's freedom to be free is the free survival of the individual, but some freedoms are harmful to themselves. This harm is something that people cannot foresee or control when they make choices. We are free to make choices that are made by our own intelligence based on the various distractions around us. Because there are gains and losses, and an overall bias in favor of the good, a consensus is reached to make the choice. Some things are beyond our own intelligence, such as gambling and drugs. In the short term, it is a personal gain, a free choice. But in the long run, it is a loss, then want to give up the choice, is no longer their own control, only in the road of degradation more and more black. The law is the experience summarized by countless people who have experienced suffering, and clearly tells you that drugs and gambling will bear evil fruits in the future. Therefore we should make our own choices by making the law a well-intentioned distraction in our free choices. The law is not only good for the individual, it is also good for the human group, and we are not free to beat people up just because we feel like it. We should consider the group factor when making free choices, and hurting others means that others can hurt themselves as well. Free choice should be under the control of the law, so that people can take into account the limitations of personal wisdom and personal safety when making choices. Only then can a free space be created, where the essence of freedom is to be yourself, but not to harm others. There is a faint voice in the back of my mind that wants the law to relax the behavior of individuals who harm themselves, such as gambling or drug use. It is a matter of personal responsibility for one's own sins, and the willingness to accept the consequences of drugs and gambling belongs to the realm of freedom. But human beings have one virtue, the ability to imitate. This kind of behavior that is not self-loving soon becomes the object of free imitation, and the incremental increase in the number of people becomes a mass event. It makes social sense for the law to be strict about behavior that harms the self.
The boundaries of freedom are laws, which we can recognize. The boundaries of freedom involve not harming others, and we can understand that this is mutual. But the boundaries of freedom also include not harming oneself, which we have a hard time understanding. For the reasons stated above, it is still necessary to understand the role of behavior mimicking propagation in order to understand why the law restricts it. Without being able to understand the ability of behavior to propagate, the mind recognizes the law as a means of coercively restricting freedom. Do I alone not even have the right to commit self-inflicted suicide? This is a doubt that many people have. Self-inflicted suicide is not against the law, but it is a moral dimension. This brings us to the other boundary of our freedom, morality. Because of the fear that our behavior teaches others, we have to regulate ourselves. This is a broader standard than the law. But where there is a fear that one's behavior will affect other people, one disciplines one's behavior. We can't just self-harm because it will be imitated; we can't just spit because it will be imitated. One's own small vices or not-so-bad habits, amplified by the imitation of the majority, become social and moral problems. There is a problem in society, which acts directly on the state and thus on the individual. One's own freely chosen behavior that is not bounded by morality will ultimately feed back to the individual in terms of bad consequences. The scope of morality is too broad and too demanding on the individual. In particular, destructive moral behavior, which the individual is determined to resist, is another boundary of the individual's free choice.
Morality can actually be understood in terms of Confucius's concept of benevolence. Here are a few examples, leaving out the norms of the law and interpreting them purely in terms of benevolence and morality. If a factory emits polluting gases, the people feel unfree because they are forced to inhale the polluted air. Leaving aside the legal responsibility, if the factory says I have the freedom to emit exhaust gases. It is true that there is freedom, but this freedom harms the health of many people and destroys moral rules. A meat vendor, has the freedom to inject water, although not to the extent of harm to health, but damaged the interests of the people, this freedom to inject water, should be self-limiting. A group of square dancers, the right to dance in the public **** place, this is their freedom, but their music affects the rest of the residents around them, the freedom of this dance should be limited. It is common to see demonstrations in the U.S. empire, shouting slogans against something in favor of something. The tenants who live in the neighborhood can also march against their destruction of the living environment. You can march and hold up signs, but don't carry the sound to my house. Residents have a greater right to freedom because their homes cannot be moved and they are forced to accept a sound. The sound of demonstrations and marches destroys the freedom of the residents. The best way to do this, hold up signs and be silent. Before you do something, think, who will this hurt? Whose freedom is more important in this case? Freedom of one's self infringing on someone else's freedom is a conflict that we should learn from.
A big question comes to mind. Some people love dog meat and some people love dogs. Dog meat lovers and dog lovers are at each other's throats when they meet. Both think the other is destroying their free choice. If one bites the bullet, one has to make a distinction. I think eating dog meat is freedom, and dog lovers are interfering with other people's freedom. First of all, think about the extreme point, the two groups of people at home behind closed doors, do what they like to do, want to eat dog meat, eat dog meat, want to play with the dog and play with the dog, well water does not interfere with the river water. Why are they so incompatible when they come into contact with each other? Love to eat dog meat friends, just waiting for meat in the restaurant, a group of dog lovers organization, do not let them eat. This is not depriving them of the freedom to eat. But friends who love dog meat are not preventing dog lovers from the freedom to like dogs. The source of the dog meat is unclear, and even if the dogs were stolen from the dog lovers, it didn't eliminate the dog lovers' freedom to love dogs. The dog lovers have violated the freedom of their dog-loving friends. From a legal and moral point of view, no standard has been violated either. Eating a meal is just a meal. Eating pork, lamb, beef, dog meat, they are all meat, why haven't we seen pig, lamb and cow lovers stopping it? Eat what is free, against is free, speak their mind is also free, stop the destruction is forced not free. Animal advocates, there is freedom to love dogs, there is freedom to love cats, there is freedom to love the family dog, there is freedom to love the feral dog, and there is even freedom to love the dog that is about to be slaughtered. You just love, you don't have the right to rescue an animal that doesn't belong to you, much less stop a dog carrier. Because dog lovers overstep the boundaries of freedom of property rights. The rights dog lovers have are limited to their own dog, and they can only rescue their own dog that was stolen. Is that just stolen? A look-alike or a DNA test? An unsupported inference is an infringement on someone else's freedom.
Loving a dog and eating a dog are different definitions of freedom because of the difference in ownership. The reason for the furor is because dog lovers overstep the boundaries of their rights and have to fight with dog eaters for their rights. I have a house that I want to tear down and rebuild. Some people were not happy about it and kicked me out of the building, saying they wanted to protect the house. I'm baffled that other people have this right to decide on their own house. Isn't that a reason? If anything, it is only restricting your freedom when I put you under house arrest and prevent you from taking part in opposing the demolition of your house. To put it bluntly, fuck with what you shouldn't. Dog lovers, like square dance ladies, although they have the right to do whatever they want, infringe on other people's property rights, and their right to free opposition is weaker. But often, irrational people, have to get involved in other people's property rights, just grab a bowl of rice.
I like to eat Lanzhou ramen, Qing really, into the store I know the rules. But outside, I'm free to eat non-halal food. It's my freedom. Suggest that dog lovers should first separate their rights, the right to shout, the right to object, the right to create a space big enough to put up signs to ban dog eating. To put it simply, interfering with the law and banning the eating of dog meat. This is the only way to put an end to dog eating. But think clearly, if dogs are on the statute book, the next one will be cows, it will be pigs, sheep, horses. Or even cabbages, potatoes and groundnuts. All of which will have their favorite people fighting for their legal rights. By that time, there will be nothing to eat under the law, and people will be praying that there will be no "water" lovers. The human race is really being destroyed by its own radical ideas.
The reasoning is simple: the border of freedom does not include other people's property rights, and in fact, property rights are the rights given to people by the law. Is there still a border to freedom, yes. This one is a bit complicated. There is a house, the man wants to decorate European and American style, the woman wants to decorate Chinese style. Meet the free choice of one party, after all, to sacrifice the free choice of one party, the other party can only be enforced. Family conflict breaking point is here, listen to who? You can't make the house half Western style and half Chinese style. Both parties are equally dissatisfied. I don't have a good solution either, two stubborn people get together, neither one of them will let the other take a step. But we can look at the universal standard of happiness, tolerance. If one party is stubborn and the other party is casual, it's a good idea. Casual people, not no opinion, because in this case, for the sake of the family's interests, sacrificing their own interests, is the result of his free choice. The value that comes from the family's interests far outweighs the value of the loss of giving up one's own viewpoint and the value of the negativity gained by accepting the other person's outcome. Giving up one's own point of view requires courage, and accepting the other's point of view requires tolerance and self-discipline. This is true of family life as well as social life. Square dancing does not affect the same old man playing chess in the square, there is the freedom to dance, there is the freedom to play chess, "too noisy to go elsewhere to play" "want to dance to go elsewhere to dance" in the end, who is restricting the freedom of who? It is not clear, public **** place, all have the right to do what they want to do, playing ball students still want to get involved. Either the formation of acquiescence rules, who came first to listen to who. Either one party for the sake of neighborhood harmony temporarily rest tolerate each other's obstinacy. Two fights, square battle, common right, is because they do not want to put down their own views, which is the freedom of consciousness, the true reflection of the heart. Trivial matters of life want to distinguish between high and low are so troublesome, when it comes to political advocacy is even more troublesome, the United States held demonstrations, in order to the same thing for and against the two points of view, the division of confrontation. Freedom! Everyone is equal and votes on who to vote for. Of course, the more the merrier. Don't get too excited, there may just be a few more people. The opinions are evenly divided. It's logical to follow the majority, but in the interest of freedom of choice, one must disagree with the majority. Objection! Objection! Objection!
A person's free choice, weighing the pros and cons to make a choice. And the free choice of a group of people, it is often the advantage of many people. As a whole, a few people's opinions, whether right or wrong, but in the moment, as opposed to personal choice in the value of the weight of a smaller amount of reference. A person has the freedom to choose the wrong time, let alone a whole, there will be the truth did not bury the situation, this is a very normal thing, the value of the truth in the present very small. A beautiful family, one party has to give up their own point of view, accept to recognize the other's point of view. A family are relatives, in order to maintain their own interests inevitably bump into each other. In a country where people are not related to each other, it is a bit difficult to put aside one's own views to accommodate the other. Although difficult, this is the best way to make a collective choice. It requires a minority to recognize the idea of a nation and give up their personal interests to accommodate the interests of the majority. Acting on the individual, the individual in the minority also has to endorse the national idea and give up their personal interests. There is a right to defend one's beliefs and to defend the values one recognizes, but before the collective, it is far more important to endorse the state than the individual. This criterion makes sense for minority individuals as well as for majority individuals. For today there can be a fight over a dog, and tomorrow there will be a fight over a cat. A majority today may be a minority tomorrow. Tolerance is a quality that every freedom-loving person should possess. It does not contradict standing up for what you believe in. You can choose the majority's oranges and not eat and hold on to your dream of eating apples. It's hard to give up your ideals, especially if you give up what you believe to be the truth, and Copernicus wouldn't have burned to death by sticking to heliocentrism. The choice is only temporary; the true value of one's ideals is everlasting, just not accepted by all. Accept the present result for the time being, put your ideals farther away, don't rush to realize them at once, it will take some time to change the minds of the multitudes. This is one of the drawbacks of free choice, the truth is buried by the multitude.
Why rush to recognize the majority opinion, I just want to fight for the minority opinion. Can! Squares are fought over heavily, not to mention political opinions. Both sides have different values and say the right things. A protracted argument is rewarded with a fruitless debate. Especially when it comes to the survival of the country, are we in favor of war or peace? Listening to the free voice of the majority of the people, main peace. The small minority of the main war faction is not happy about it, and is adamantly opposed to it and determined to wreak havoc. When the peace talks didn't work out and the troops weren't ready, the minority angered the enemy. The result was obvious. A collective, a minority that does not understand the meaning of freedom, that has different opinions, that is not united, is negative for the development of a nation. The willingness to sacrifice oneself and to take into account the big picture is a quality that everyone should have. Thus it is said that another boundary of free choice recognizes the collective recognition of tolerance. Only on this basis can we talk about freedom.
There is no collective concept, do not know how to tolerate, do not recognize the freedom of the collective is controlled by the majority. Eventually freedom goes too far, and both sides fight endlessly for their interests. More than one day on the streets to march, more than one day delay in production and business, in other people's quarrel, know how to obey the collective people have gradually narrowed the gap with it, until beyond. Before people have changed from selfishness to collectivism, freedom is a bomb ready to explode. Appropriate dictatorship in the early stages of development can have the effect of rapid economic growth. But not fostering collectivism and not moderately liberalizing dictatorship is a kind of coercive unfreedom. Our future ultimately tends towards a free market economy, which is consistent with human nature's desire for freedom. The collectivist ideology is the basis for future control of individual free choice.
Then again, it is because of the very few scholars who insisted on freedom, on truth, and on no compromise, that some valuable knowledge has been passed down, and if it was compromised at the time, the later the truth was discovered. That's the way the social system is, there will always be some extremists under the mainstream thinking, it's inevitable. Idealized freedom exists only in an ideal state, and putting aside one's own views is quite difficult. Just as there will always be a few grandpas in the square who are against the grandmothers.
Respect for the law, clear their rights, do not harm the rights of others. Respect for morality, to fill the gap in the law. Cultivate the spirit of collectivism, know tolerance, know self-discipline. Under these three points, we can achieve true freedom. If you want to be free, you have to learn not to be free.
Afterword:
Freedom is a beautiful word, no one is too much, only too little. Human nature needs to advocate more freedom, but collective wisdom needs us to let go of human nature and collect more freedom. Wisdom and humanity are always contradictory and difficult to reconcile.
To be born human is to constantly realize freedom and create trouble. Every grain of rice eaten means robbing others of a grain of rice. Every step of walking means occupying someone else's space. Even sleeping and snoring affects the harmony of neighbors. Realizing one's own freedom, encroaching on or destroying the freedom of others. Since one is afraid of causing trouble to others, life is trouble everywhere. How can there be any meaning in life? Since food, clothing, housing, and transportation are all the same, one should understand each other's behavior and should be self-disciplined in one's own behavior. To put it simply, they are afraid of causing trouble for everyone and can tolerate each other's shortcomings. If everyone thinks this way, how can society not be harmonious? The freedom under this premise can be considered real freedom, the freedom of belonging to the collective.
People understand that freedom is to do what I do, regardless of whether or not it causes trouble for others. It is unforgiving to be reasonable, not to give up a little of one's own rights, not to tolerate the other side of the wrong committed against oneself. This kind of freedom is only individual freedom, not collective freedom.
Individual freedom is more casual, more in line with the nature of the individual. Collective freedom focuses on the collective, more favorable to the development of human beings. People are so contradictory, the choice between individual and collective, both human nature and civilization, will always be debated.
Since there is more than one debate, it is important to understand this phenomenon, the extreme point of individual freedom, nearly selfish; extreme point of collective freedom, nearly selfless. Most of us go back and forth between the two extremes as we go along with our personal preferences. Sometimes we think of ourselves, sometimes we think of others. Those who think the former have more time, those who think the latter have less time. Often, society progresses by the few who think for the collective, creating more social value in the little time they have to think for the collective. If there is a collective idea of people with a little more time, or the world more collective idea of people, any ideal is not reachable.
What will the future of freedom look like? Freedom dominated by extreme individualism? All fighting for their own recognized rights to freedom, it will be a society of constant strife. Freedom in small collectives organized in families? Self-discipline and tolerance within the family, but externally it would manifest itself in defense of the rights of the family and its members, unrestrained freedom, and an inability to tolerate the shortcomings of others. Or is it a collective freedom organized in communities, in cities, in races, in nations? It's a mess on the inside and a mess on the outside. Or is the whole world one? The realization of freedom without borders, without discrimination, without hierarchy. Which future freedom do people now aspire to more? It is still a matter of choice. The more one aspires to the freedom of a large collective, the more one needs more people to recognize the view of freedom, and the more difficult it will be to realize. Nowadays, people's wisdom is still limited, and they have not completely rejected barbarism, and have not recognized the significance of selflessness. It will take a long time to move towards civilization and to walk the world free. When education is sufficiently widespread, and barbarism is replaced by wisdom, and selfishness is replaced by wisdom, then true civilization, true freedom, can be achieved.
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ too long not to read ~~~~~~~~~
Short version: the road to freedom, let yourself live and let others live.
~~~~~~~~~~ statement ~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to the exchange of ideas.
Thank you for your tolerance.