Why thanks, appreciate your contributions too.
Socioeconomic freedom means we don’t touch an individual or their property without their consent.
Of course this is a simplification, what constitutes touching and property is sometimes ambiguous.
There are various customs and laws for determining when a person’s sovereignty over themselves and their property has been violated.
And I’m not saying there aren’t any other moral concerns, there are, for most of us, just I tend to prioritize freedom over other concerns.
For me, freedom has intrinsic, and extrinsic value.
Sacrificing freedom for the greater good is at best occasionally a necessary evil or the lesser of two evils, and at worst often evil, it’s never good.
Freedom is something we should cherish, be very reluctant to forego, for its intrinsic value, and because it’s dangerous and stifling to, in a world where TPTB often mean us harm, and society will never understand us and our needs as well as we understand ourselves, in many ways, even when its intensions are benign.
Freedom is natural, we all want it.
Grab any man or beast unfamiliar to you and they will struggle to break free.
For better or worse, we had to be conditioned from a young age to allow government to take our freedom under certain circumstances.
I find people’s faith in technocrats deeply disturbing.
I conceive of things a bit differently than you.
For me, there’s libertarians and two major kinds of authoritarians: progressives and conservatives.
Then there’s three major domains or spheres: society, government and economics, libertarianism, progressivism and conservatism can be applied to.
Social libertarianism, political libertarianism (republic) and fiscal libertarianism (capitalism).
Social progressivism, political progressivism (democracy) and fiscal progressivism (socialism).
Social conservatism, political conservatism (dictatorship) and fiscal conservatism (corporatism).
There’s also different kinds of libertarianism, but I don’t wish to overcomplicate things more than I perhaps already have.
There’s also scientific authoritarianism or technocracy, which I consider to be more conservative than progressive, because conservatism is all about hierarchy, and so is science (rationality>irrationality), whereas progressivism is all about overturning hierarchy.
Technocracy enforces things which’re thought to be more objective, matter of fact, like education, health and safety as opposed to religion, morals and values.
Technocracy is compulsory education, compulsory healthcare and compulsory environmental conservation.
Since progressivism is the inversion of conservative values, so what conservatives consider good becomes equal or inferior to what they consider bad, perhaps one day there’ll be an movement to invert scientific values.
There have been challenges to technocracy inside and outside academia here and there, but nothing on the level of progressivism’s challenge to conservatism.
I think people underestimate technocracy, in light of recent events, I’m predicting it’s going to really take off and come into its own in the coming decades.
I’m also suspecting both a libertarian and progressive backlash to technocracy after decades or centuries of its reign.
Some other important concepts to think about are globalism/nationalism, pacifism/militarism.
All of this is historical.
As humanity changes, for better or worse, new values and ways of conceptualizing and organizing things will arise.
If you want examples of Scientific Authoritarianism, based on ‘Rationality’, then you should watch the last huge Philosophy debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris.
Sam Harris basically represents Scientific Authoritarianism and Post-Enlightenment values, which are the platform of the new Technocrat self-proclaimed “Elites”.
It’s 4 parts at 2 hours each. Sam Harris basically lays out Post-Enlightenment-ism by the letter. It’s very informative and will stay relevant for at least a decade and probably much longer.
The issue that I see, more than anything, is that children in the US are taught Marxism in public schools, and they got rid of Civics and Ethics in the 1990s.
That is also why the Technocrats think they’re “elite” and better than everybody else. They’re out of touch with reality, which comes with the territory (plugged in Matrix style 24-7).
These can be rearranged in various ways.
For example, someone could be a fiscal libertarian, a capitalist, but a sociocultural progressive or conservative.
Someone could be a fiscal progressive, a socialist, but a sociocultural libertarian or conservative.
On the other hand, someone could be a fiscal conservative, a corporatist, but a sociocultural libertarian or progressive.
To further complicate things, you can add globalism or nationalism and pacifism or militarism to them.
Awesome, thanks, gonna check that debate out.
Yea sucks there’s no civics or ethics and hardly any conservative or libertarian perspectives in school.
The intelligentsia are totally out of touch with Joe and Jane average.
As humanity changes, his values, and authoritarianism changes too.
In the late 2nd millennium and early 1st millennium BC, European man was a pagan with conservative values and authoritarianism.
In the late 1st millennium BC and early 1st millennium AD, there were libertarian, progressive and monotheistic challenges to pagan conservatism.
In the late 1st millennium and early 2nd millennium AD, European man was a monotheist with conservative values and authoritarianism.
In the late 2nd millennium and early 3rd millennium AD, there were libertarian, progressive and scientific challenges to monotheistic conservatism.
In the late 3rd millennium and early 4th millennium AD, I think European man may be a scientismist, if you will, with conservative values and authoritarianism.
Eventually there’ll be libertarian and progressive challenges to scientism.
The Pagan age preceded the monotheistic age and the monotheistic age preceded the scientific age.
What will follow the scientific age, I’m not sure, but the overall trend appears to be away from spirituality and subjectivity towards materiality and objectivity.
Will something come along even more materialistic and objective than science, or will the pendulum swing back the other way, towards spirituality and subjectivity?
Will there ever be a philosophical age, where philosophy is more popular than religion and science?
Science has always been around in some form or another, but throughout much of man’s history, it was more in the background, or subconscious.
I believe science will increasingly come to the foreground, and our values and the way we structure society will increasingly reflect that.
Science is ultimately conservative, not progressive, progressive being a misnomer.
Science is both progressive and conservative.
We ought to start calling progressives subversives, because that’s what they really are.
It’s subversivism, not progressivism.
Appreciate the link, yea seems like I’m on a similar train of thought to Comte.
I believe the age we are approaching is the scientific age.
Unlike the pagan and monotheistic ages that preceded it, which were focused on spirituality, society and subjectivity, on morals and values, what ought to be, the scientific age will be focused on materiality, nature (or converting nature into the artificial and synthetic rather) and objectivity, on health and safety, what is.
The scientific age won’t be an individual libertarian or progressive i.e. subversive age, because science is progressive conservative, not individual libertarian or subversive.
It won’t be individual libertarian, nor democratic socialist, instead it’ll be characterized by dictatorship and techno-feudalism.
The age will fully begin sometime during the middle of the 3rd millennium and fully end sometime during the middle of the 4th millennium, if it ends.
For the first half of this thousand year age, it’ll be dark, because the current age, the post-monotheist, individual libertarian, subversive and proto-scientific age will partly collapse.
The second half of this thousand year age will be golden, at least for the patricians if not the plebs too, or whatever remains of them, if anything, if they haven’t been fully supplanted by robots.
Pagan and monotheistic conservatism on the one hand, and libertarianism and subversivism on the other, may never die, but they will have to go underground and outside.
Towards the end of the scientific age, if the plebs/undergrounders and outsiders survive with enough strength intact, there will be individual libertarian and subversive challenges to scientism, especially if frontiers open up in outer space, inner space or someplace else.
The scientific age could be followed by something even more materialistic and objective based on the latest advancements in Ai and cybernetics, or a philosophical age, or a pagan or monotheist revival, or something I can’t begin to imagine.
But for at least the next thousand years, I’m anticipating scientism will reign supreme.
Of course all of this is complete speculation, just toying around with some ideas for fun.
You seem to have answered your won question with your own brand of prejudice.
What is social progressivism??
This is what provided me with:
free schooling
affordable housing
freehealth care.
Town Planning
my cure for cancer
the road i drove in on.
the street lights
the policeman on the corner and
the guys in the fire station,
clean water.
Sanitation
transport infrstructure.
Sadly, especually in the last 40 years, it is the people who benefit the most, that pay the least for these things, namely the corporations as without these things they would be able to make zero profits. In the last 40 years the burden of provision for these things has been transfered to the poorest and the most hard working people in society.
As I mentioned before, freedom is paradoxical: it is not possible to have complete freedom, because having such would encroach on the freedom of others. If this isn’t factored into one’s equation, it is impossible to have an honest conversation about the limitations of freedom.
Well that’s what I mean by freedom, that we don’t touch each other or each other’s property without each other’s consent, not a free-for-all or might makes right.
And what of the freedom to smoke indoors? To pollute on one’s own property? You know, things that might have an indirect on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
In general I’m against prohibiting indirect harm.
I’m against government forcing private businesses to ban smoking indoors, altho if some private businesses take it upon themselves to ban smoking indoors, that’s up to them.
And how do you justify that ethically?
I thought people often cannot prove the exact cause of indirect harm since it’s indirect and could have come from anywhere, anyone, everywhere, everyone, multiple sources without specific proof.
^^^
Hmm…probably true sometimes. But not mostly, or always.