1. The conflicting definitions of freedom
Today's culture wars partially stem from the different definitions of freedom. There are seemingly four most common definitions of freedom. My commentary on this will be based on The Academic Agent's Why Rousseau is the Problem [to Sargon of Akkad].
Definition 1. Self-actualization. This is the Ancient, Aristocratic, and often right-wing/social conservative definition of freedom. You are freest when you are "your best self". For example, "if you studied hard, worked out at the gym, watched your diet, cultivated good and virtuous habits. This is you achieving self-actualization." This definition of freedom can be traced back to Aristotle and Fredrich Nietzsche. Many social conservatives argue that vices, such as pornography, prostitution, gambling, and drugs, prevent self-actualization.
Definition 2. Freedom from coercion. This is the classical liberal definition of freedom. You are free to walk down the street, but not to make anyone else carry you down the street. Your freedom to throw punches ends where someone else's face begins. This definition of freedom can be traced back to John Locke, Herbert Spencer, and F.A. Hayek. This definition seems to be more popular among parts of the United States of America and maybe even the Czech Republic and Estonia.
Definition 3. Convenience, lack of personal responsibility, and/or lack of boundaries. I am free to do whatever I want without boundaries. I am free to make you carry me down the street. In the words of YouTube user MAD Robot, "freedom is being unconstrained by responsibility... not having to worry about food, housing, education, transportation, healthcare, etc. not having to suffer the consequences of their own actions, playing the victim and blaming society or others for their own inadequacies." This definition of freedom is promoted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, and Jaques Derrida. This is the leftist definition of freedom.
Definition 4. Group self-determination. My tribe or my nation is free to govern itself. This is probably the definition of freedom outside the western world, though is a definition of freedom in the west.
I do support localism, local autonomy, self-governance and decentralized government, but only if the rights of the individual are respected. For example, should a group of people be free to beat their children for no reason at all or for minor offenses, or even worse, perform animal and human sacrifices? For a less family-friendly example, should people be allowed to commit marital rape, mutilate the genitals of their tribe's members for being members of the tribe, or torture animals, or kill endangered or threatened animals when doing so is not absolutely necessary just because it's part of their culture? Real examples of this would be the Plymouth Colony, which was a totalitarian theocracy, and even better examples would be Afghanistan, North Pakistan, rural Yemen, and parts of Northeast Africa, with totalitarian fundamentalism, genital mutilation, and honor killings.
Here is an excerpt from the Thomas Sowell book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy;
Thomas Sowell - Human Livestock
"Overcoming adversity is one of our great desires and one of our great sources of pride. But it is something that our anointed deep thinkers strive to eliminate from our lives, through everything from grade inflation to the welfare state.
The anointed want to eliminate stress, challenge, striving, and competition. They want the necessities of life to be supplied as "rights" -- which is to say, at the taxpayers expense, without anyone's being forced to work for those necessities, except of course the taxpayers.
Nothing is to be earned. "Self-esteem" is to be dispensed to the children as largess from the teacher. Adults are to have their medical care and other necessities dispensed as largess from the government. People are to be mixed and matched by race and sex and whatever else the anointed want to take into account, in order to present whatever kind of picture the anointed think should be presented.
This is a vision of human beings as livestock to be fed by the government and herded and tended by the anointed. All the things that make us human beings are to be removed from our lives and we are to live as denatured creatures controlled and directed by our betters.
Those things that help human beings be independent and self-reliant -- whether automobiles, guns, the free market, or vouchers -- provoke instant hostility from the anointed.
Automobiles enable you to come and go as you wish, without so much as a "by your leave" to your betters. The very idea that other people will go where they want, live where they want, how they want, and send their children to whatever schools they choose, is galling to the anointed, for it denies the very specialness that is at the heart of their picture of themselves.
Guns are completely inappropriate for the kind of sheep-like people the anointed envision or the orderly, prepackaged world in which they are to live. When you are in mortal danger, you are supposed to dial 911, so that the police can arrive on the scene some time later, identify your body, and file reports in triplicate.
The free market is a daily assault on the vision of the anointed. Just think of all those millions of people out there buying whatever they want, whenever they want, whether or not the anointed think it is good for them.
Think of those people earning whatever incomes they happen to get from producing goods or services for other people, at prices resulting from supply and demand, with the anointed cut out of the loop entirely and standing on the sidelines in helpless rage, unable to impose their particular vision of "social justice."
The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.
One of the most dangerous things about the welfare state is that it breaks the connection between what people have produced and what they consume, at least in many people's minds. For the society as a whole, that connection remains as fixed as ever, but the welfare state makes it possible for individuals to think of money or goods as just arbitrary dispensations.
Thus those who have less can feel a grievance against "society" and are less inhibited about stealing or vandalizing. And the very concept of gratitude or obligation disappears -- even the obligation of common decency out of respect for other people."
Thomas Sowell has a theory, in which there are two main visions of human nature and possibilities in our world. In the Unconstrained vision, human nature and the world are perfectible. In the Constrained vision, human nature is limited, selfish, and unable to change, and the world will always have problems.
The first 2 definitions of freedom are highly correlated with subscribing to the Constrained vision, and the 3rd definition of freedom, Rousseau's definition, is highly correlated with subscribing to the Unconstrained vision.
Ep. 1823 Our Irreconcilable Division, and What Should Happen Next
The popularity of Rousseau's philosophy is probably a major reason, and possibly the main reason why French people are unhappy and constantly complain;
Les Misérables: Why are the French, who seem to have much, so quick to protest? - Los Angeles Times
Glad to Be Unhappy: The French Case - The New Yorker
Maybe French people need to read "A Conflict Of Visions". French people are always complaining and protesting about pensions and the welfare state. If they read the book, it could influence them to have more realistic expectations both from government and from life in general.
To end this part about John Locke's Negative Rights definition of freedom versus the welfare state Positive Rights definition of freedom, I have what I call The Prisoner and The Bird Analogy. Most people don't think that The Prisoner is free because he is given a bed, toilet, food, water, and shelter. Most people don't think that the Bird is unfree because the bird needs to build his or her own nest and find his or her own mate, food and water. But if we purely use the Positive Rights definition of freedom, The Prisoner is freer than The Bird, and if we purely use the Negative Rights definition of freedom, The Bird is freer than The Prisoner.
Also according to the positive rights definition of freedom, in its pure form, a prisoner in solitary confinement has more freedom than his hunter-gatherer ancestors or primitive people like the Trobriand Islanders, as that the prisoner does not need to work to have a roof over his head and water and food on his table unlike his hunter-gatherer ancestors or primitive peoples.
I think that it would be accurate to say that Americans view themselves as a bunch of people living under a flag, while Europeans, by comparison, see themselves a part of one big happy family, of which the nation is an extension of, and view government almost like parents.
When it comes to individualism and collectivism, I do ask that you either listen to these videos or read their transcripts:
Freedom vs. Force – The Individual and the State
Collectivism and Individualism
How the “Greater Good” is Used as a Tool of Social Control
Some people still want the U.S. to be more like Europe, rather it be with a generous, high-tax welfare state, more centralized government, or stricter weapon laws. I differ on this from both a philosophical (liberty before security) and even a pragmatic standpoint.
Here's an excerpt from Twelve Lies about Reality by Whatifalthist;
-
"Humans are Purely Material."
"Culture really matters. Anyone whose worked with people from different countries or even different subcultures of the same country knows this. We can even quantify how much culture does matter.
For example in the 1970's the, Italian central government gave equal amounts of money different regional governments and we saw the results with the south scoring far higher than the north on measures that demonstrate corruption, wastage, ineffectiveness, and inefficiency. This was also correlated with the measures above with the north having higher amounts of people in social clubs, people working in larger companies, and having more friends, or to say it differently, a more cohesive and trusting society.
We find this in wars, with the historian Dupree having made the calculations on troop and weapons levels came to the conclusion that the Germans in World War II were 45% more effective due to intangible cultural and leadership variables than the British. This would mean that for the British to beat the Germans, they'd have to bring an additional 50% more men at the same technological level as the Germans."
The reason for this myth:
"The Enlightenment and Scientific Method are all about focusing on variables we can document and prove. Culture, emotion, and human relationships however, are very intangible, messy and difficult to measure. Thus we ignore it since we don't know how to deal with it."
Suggested books:
War and Peace and War by Peter Turchin, "A fabulous book about the science of culture".
Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott, "A very good book about how bureaucratic organisations often fail since they fail to deal with the intangibles mentioned above".
"What's good for one is good for the rest."
"It's foolish that the U.S. set up democracy in Iraq. Anyone who would have looked at the situation from a non-ideological lens would see that this wouldn't work. The main thing you need for democracy to work is public trust, that people will accept losing the election and peacefully step down from power, and also a national identity that's stronger than the tribal so the largest tribe doesn't just use a democracy as a tool to oppress the rest. Iraq has neither of these.
The Iraqi government became a tool for the Shia plurality to oppress the Sunnis, which resulted in the Sunnis rebelling and forming ISIS as a theocratic state. The government that came out of it was extremely corrupt, inefficient, and an Iranian puppet. If anyone was asking me, I would have setup a constitutional monarchy in Iraq. Monarchy is the form of government with the best track record in the Middle East, with Jordan, the Arab states and Morocco all having histories of stability, and with the exception of the Saudis, less repression.
Confucius was known for giving different advice to different people asking him the exact same question since their personalities and situations were different and thus demanded different solutions. I'm a huge fan of stoicism for example but I wouldn't recommend stoicism for everyone since if you're naturally wired to be really high in extroversion or derive a lot of pleasure in your life from having strong emotions, stoicism will just appear insane to you.
We have to be nimble thinkers. Try not to make everyone in the world be exactly like you. You have flaws and having people who aren't you exist lets you balance out your own flaws."
Reasons for this myth:
"1. We would like to believe that our way of doing things is inherently better rather than just working for us.
2. It's easier."
-
A suggested book is, again, Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott.
-
This crosses over with the points I've made on 6. Unitary state/centralism vs federalism and localism.
-
The 6 Most Extreme Societies Ever(We’re One).:
"The society most concerned about harm is the modern west.
How often do you end up tying up your words to prevent yourself from saying something that everyone in the room would know to be true for fear that someone who wasn't in the right frame of mind might get offended? How many of you grew up in a world in which you couldn't play outside for fear of being kidnapped? How many of you would have to sign miles of paperwork to do the most basic activity like white water rafting for fear on the company's part of being sued for someone getting hurt?
These are the signs of society that's deathly afraid of people getting hurt so much so that society ends up getting hurt on a much greater scale from lack of strength.
This is the story of the west since World War II. Harm is obviously a belief that hurting others is bad and comes from the biological need to keep children safe. Christianity starts the moral assumption that hurting other people is bad. Similarly, the enlightenment strengthened this by prioritizing things that can be measured like people getting hurt rather than things that can't like a nation's honor.
The World Wars meanwhile were so horrifying that it destroyed all faith and belief in things that existed beforehand like religion, honor, and progress, and these are the things that have made pain tolerable. Without them, pain had no meaning.
The death toll of the World Wars was so horrifying that it caused a knee-jerk reaction that all war and causing others suffering, even if rationally justified, was wrong. The west was also wealthy enough that it could afford to care about helping and protecting other people.
The culture of fear and harm can be seen everywhere. Look at Vietnam and Algeria, where the French and Americans would have won if they kept fighting but had their populations lose the heart to fight which in turn caused downwards of 5 million deaths in Southeast Asia.
The culture that was scared of the infinitesimally small chances of a kidnapping and preventing children from playing outside and experiencing the world unchaperoned has caused massive depression and psychological issues among Gen Z as they try to face the world but have no experience of doing so. Over-regulation has slowed down technological progress and tremendously neutered Europe's economic and technological growth.
Social justice philosophy is a bizarre manifestation of this in which our culture is so terrified of hurting others emotions that it makes it taboo to mention disagreeable subjects and will fire people for saying things that are factually true but members of various oppressed groups wouldn't want to hear. You can see the child origin of the harm function clearly in the modern left's treatment of oppressed groups as veritable children that aren't responsible for their own actions and are purely held down by systemic issues. Look at how rappers are never held accountable for the misogynistic statements they make that would get pop or country stars cancelled, or even discussing the gender pay gap might be due to inherent characteristics as taboo.
This creates real issues. Fear of harm isn't a coherent ideology to motivate people and is terrible at making priorities. Harm doesn't unite people but divides them into countless little groups. Harm's a negative motivator against achievement rather than a positive one towards doing something. If America was to ever fight a war with China, it would likely have to pull on the whole western world to survive but the harm function basically neuters most of Europe, Canada and parts of America from waging war. Effectively, this ignores the beauty of harm and why once called the social justice movement in orchid in it's a beautiful hot house plant that demonstrates an already empathetic and successful society, but must exist in the good times."
Freedom in American states.
What is great about America is that if you do not like the policies of one place, you do not need to move to another country. You can simply move to another state, another city within a state, & in most states, to another county.
Don’t like county governments? Alaska, Connecticut & Rhode Island.
Want to drive before you're 17? South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, & Idaho. Many other states allow 16-year olds to drive.
Want to use cannabis? Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, & Washington.
Don’t want to pay sales taxes? Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, & Oregon.
Don’t want to pay income taxes? Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, & Wyoming. New Hampshire only has income taxes on dividends & interest.
(Are There Any States with No Property Tax in 2021?)
Want legal prostitution & brothels? Nevada.
Conficted felon & want to vote? There are dozens of states where you can do that.
Want to own & carry knives? Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, & Wisconsin.
Want a license to carry a gun? Idaho.
Want to own guns? Alaska.
Want to have sex with a 16 year old? The South, & New England .
Want to be perfectly alone, smoke weed, have guns & pay few taxes with your 16 year old girlfriend (but don't mind the frigid arctic tundra?) Alaska. (I got that from a Quora user.)
-
Freedom in European countries:
Want to drink at or even before you're 18? No problem in most of Europe.
Want to buy/sell sex? Plenty of countries where it's legal.
Want no corporate income tax? Latvia, & the United Kingdom Channel Islands of Isle of Man, Gurnsey, Jersey & Sark.
Dislike government school uniforms, speed limits on highways, or restrictions on advertising, eating, drinking, vaping or smoking? Germany.
Want to drive a moped before you're 18? You can be 14 & drive a moped in Estonia, Switzerland, Poland & Latvia, 15 in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Spain & Germany, & 16 in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Belgium, Norway, & Sweden.
Want to drive before you're 18? Kosovo, Isle of Man, Gurnsey, Jersey, Iceland & the United Kingdom, with runner-ups being France, Estonia, Slovenia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Gibraltar, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany & Slovakia.
Want to be an adult at 16? Scotland (though you still need to wait 2 more years to get a gun license).
Prefer a flat tax? Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Gurnsey, Hungary, Jersey, Moldova, & Romania.
Want to use medical marijuana? Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, & Switzerland.
Want to use cannabis without being prosecuted like a criminal? Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, & Switzerland.
Want recreational cannabis? Georgia & the Netherlands.
Want to home-educate? Ireland.
Want firecrackers? The Czech Republic is the best country for that.
Want to own & use suppressors? Norway, France & Finland.
Want unlimited capacity firearms magazines? Poland & Serbia.
Want black powder guns with no license? France, Poland, & Croatia are the best countries to be in, allowing both newly-manufactured blackpowder guns & revolvers.
Want airguns with no license? Bulgaria, the United Kingdom & the Netherlands are the best countries to be in.
Want modern long guns with no permit? Andorra, Austria, Greenland, Monaco, & Switzerland.
Want a shall-issue firearms license? 20 countries have you covered. 15 of them have shall-issue licenses for semi-automatic center-fire rifles, 16 of them have shall-issue licenses for handguns, & 14 of them have shall-issue licenses for both.
Want to conceal carry? Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, & Poland are all shall-issue jurisdictions for concealed carry licenses.
(If you're curious about carrying weapons on board of ships & boats, read COMPARISON OF FLAG STATE LAWS ON ARMED GUARDS AND ARMS ON BOARD.)
Want the most personal freedom, most business freedom, & low taxes all combined? Try Estonia, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Poland, Monaco, & Andorra, almost exactly in that order.
Whatifalthist also mentioned in his video Twelve Lies about Reality., "if you look at the modern world, we are terrified of death and pain".
Which brings me to my next point.