> 'Freedom of movement' isn't some crazy lunatic idea. It is an important part of living for many people.
Your being able to drive for free comes at the expense of my being able to walk about town freely. I have to worry about being struck by vehicles and about all the soot I breathe in, and I have to take less favorable routes because some road crossings are just too dangerous. You're arguing your own peculiar interests here rather than what's good for everybody, or what's good for our country overall.
> I have a right to travel and a right to privacy. Saying that I can only use one of these rights at a time is absurd.
You are so fixated on the car in this mindeset.
Do you have the right to fly an airplane and have privacy at the same time? If you don't have it in the air, why do you think you should have it on the roads?
> I still want my vehicle to start regardless of the governments opinions on whether I should be traveling :)
No government was involved here, just a private company, who has the freedom to do as they please with their property and the responsibility to protect their assets.
> People that live in Chicago or New York choose to give up their ability to travel without the need for the government that is their choice.
What you're implying here is that city dwellers are government-dependent babies, which is very condescending to them. Choosing to drive your car on the public roads of your suburb or rural town doesn't make you any less dependent on society or the government.
Yes, transit systems had cuts due to ridership and revenue issues, and shut down at certain stations during unrest. Do you think a bank should keep its doors unlocked when there's unrest going on outside? These city transit systems were exercising their personal responsibility to protect public property, right?
> Again I believe in personal responsibility and freedom, I choose not to have that level of reliance on others.
Like it or not, you rely on others. There is little choice involved. There is almost no way to end that relationship entirely.
You probably drink from water that was managed by a government, and your poop is taken away either in a public sewer or on a septic truck driving on a public road. Unless you literally live out in the woods off of the land and never leave, you are a part of society, and libertarian hyper-individualist rhetoric can't change that. "Freedom" doesn't mean you're just allowed to do whatever you want at all times regardless of how it affects other people, but a lot of Americans have misconstrued the concept of freedom to mean just that.
Freedom as in democratic freedom has a lot more to do with freedom of speech, press, and elections. It doesn't mean you're free to drive on a road that is closed.
I was very clear in stating that I believe we need laws to prevent technology from becoming dystopian, but also I don't believe technology reaching the most dystopian version of its theoretical capabilities is inevitable or even particularly common. We can blame the technology all we want but it is rules of society that protects us from its abuse, not "personal freedom and responsibility."
The irony of your messaging is that your belief in freedom and responsibility would have to be applied to corporations as well as individuals. If you're free to make any choice, so are companies. Again, Tesla is, allegedly, exercising its own freedom and responsibility to protect its asset by repossessing its car.
Self-driving, interconnected cars could be an incredible boon to public safety, as car crashes are one of the top causes of premature death. Cars that can talk to each other and basically never crash into each other would be a dream world. We can talk about how technology would turn that into a surveillance dystopia, or we can build systems, laws, and checks on power that would make that technology enhance everyone's lives without significant downside or encroachment on "freedom."
The fact that Tesla cars are connected to a central server isn't the cause of abuses, it's the present legality of their harmful business practices. A great example: the car dealer system that Tesla lobbies against was put in place to protect consumers against overbearing manufacturers. Has that worked? In some cases, yes, in some cases, no.
In our present and most definitely not-libertarian society, the government has at least curbed unchecked corporate power by enacting laws like HIPAA that protect consumer rights and enforce interoperability. We need similar legislation and enforcement for non-healthcare technology. We need our own GDPR, but better, more comprehensive, and better designed. That will be difficult to achieve given the corporate influence on politics, but I do think we'll eventually get something, because even the elites in our society need protection from companies who want to exercise their freedom.
>You can argue against freedom under any context with that kind of argument.
The context I am talking about is a logistical issue that kills between 35,000-40,000 Americans every year. Nearly twice as many annual deaths as all forms of murder combined. It's the leading cause of accidental death.
There aren't that many "freedoms" that have such a staggering human cost. There are already laws that exist that prohibit you from driving at unsafe speeds, so it isn't even a freedom to begin with. You don't have the freedom to break the law. I see no issue with enforcing those laws proactively rather than reactively when that many lives are on the line.
> Having basics is a good thing (clean drinking water, police/fire). Too many of these things means there is less freedom for the people putting money into the system and less incentive for the people utilizing these services to get a job. There needs to be a balance. Too little or too much is a bad thing.
I agree with you 100%. I also think that it's an area that people (and countries) can and do have reasonable disagreements regarding where that balance point should be.
> I also enjoy the freedom. It's something you seem to have trouble understanding.
No, believe me, I understand; I think that you and I place different value on that level of freedom. For me, the freedom isn't necessarily an end in and of itself- it's one of many different means to an end. In other words, the freedom isn't valuable; it's what that freedom allows us to do, and how it allows us to live our lives, that's important.
Furthermore, I think of freedom as a vector, not a scalar- there are multiple dimensions to it. Simply talking about "more" or "less" freedom isn't very meaningful. Sometimes, trading one kind of freedom for another makes sense. For example, I generally try and follow traffic laws when driving. This is a constraint on my freedom to drive as fast as I want, wherever I want. However, by accepting this constraint, I experience a net gain in total freedom (i.e., the magnitude of my freedom vector increases overall), since by buying into the system of traffic laws, I get to enjoy a traffic and road system that lets us all have cars and use them to go wherever we want to go without having to worry (too much) about somebody driving the wrong way down our lane of traffic, and so on. I value that quite a bit- enough to follow rules that are sometimes suboptimal, or downright annoying.
Personally, I would feel a lot more free and happy if I knew that my friends all had health insurance, and there have been times in my life when it would have been very nice to be able to find a different job without worrying about what the effects would be on my partner's access to health care. I also feel like the overall societal benefits to everybody's friends having health insurance and what-not would result in a net increase in the magnitude of my personal freedom vector, to the extent that I'm willing to accept a hit to one or another of my vector's dimensions in terms of paying higher taxes, etc.. Obviously, you disagree with me on this count, and that's fine- but let's make sure we understand precisely what it is that we're disagreeing about.
It seems to me that one way to think about our difference of opinion is that, when you and I calculate the magnitude our freedom vector, we're placing different weights on the various dimensions--- in other words, some dimensions are more important to you than others. Heck, we might even be calculating our freedom vectors in entirely different spaces- our dimensions themselves might be different, which would make it very hard to compare how you think about and value these things to how I think about and value them. Can you tell I'm in the final throes of dissertation writing? :-)
> Why does it matter to you? It's my money. 5 or 6 million per year really isn't that much anymore.
Well, it actually doesn't matter to me personally; I just have a hard time getting my head around the concept that, past that point, another million would have any net effect on my personal happiness level. However, as I said before, this could totally be an artifact of the fact that I'm not in that position. Maybe if I were, I'd feel differently. Note that the exact amount isn't really so important- just the idea that there's a point past which it doesn't matter. Maybe the real point is 10 million, maybe it's only 1 or 2. Obviously, it'll be different for everybody, but I don't think it'll differ by all that much, once all is said and done.
BTW, I disagree that 5 or 6 million/year "isn't that much anymore." First of all, in most of the world, that's such a fantastical amount that you might as well as be talking about being paid in unicorn horns; however, we're not talking about living in Botswana- we're talking about living somewhere like the US. So, here in the US, 5/6 m/year is way more than enough to live in incredibly decadent luxury in any city in the country. I suppose it might not enough to actually own and operate a private jet, but it's certainly enough for NetJets; it's probably not enough to buy one's own island, but short of that sort of thing, I'm having a hard time imagining something I'd like to do that I couldn't do easily on that kind of income.[1] Again, maybe my imagination is too limited, here, but I kind of don't think so- I've certainly got a taste for creature comforts, and enjoy luxuries as much as anybody else. Remember, I'm not saying that people shouldn't earn tons of money- just that, after a point, what does it matter? And, if it doesn't matter, why not use it supporting a system that efficiently makes life comfortable for people that don't have as much as you do?
> The US already has Medicade and Medicare. Over 70% of people are covered in some way or another by their employer.
First of all, that still leaves 30% of the country that isn't covered, which is way too damn many. Second of all, what most people call "Medicaid" is actually a patchwork of different programs that vary widely in terms of coverage requirements and services from state to state, and is far from an ideal system, although it is better than nothing. As to the fact that most people who are covered are covered through their employers, doesn't that strike you as a major dent in their freedom? How many potential entrepreneurs do you think don't bother simply because they can't risk losing their (or their family's) health insurance? In my mind, this represents a major hit to personal liberty, and as such seems like exactly the sort of thing that a system intent on maximizing individual freedom would be attempting to fix.
> You haven't talked about the negative effects of a socialized healthcare system and you are trying to use sympathy to get me to agree with you.
Well, I haven't talked about it, because I didn't see it as relevant to the discussion- most of the rest of the world's countries employ some form of government-funded universal healthcare, and even though there certainly are negatives, I gotta say- I've traveled a fair bit, and due to my work, wherever I go I end up talking to people about healthcare. I've never- not once- heard somebody tell me that they'd rather have the US's system than their own country's, even if they've spent the last half-hour enumerating their system's problems. That says something, in my mind. Furthermore, there are a lot of different kinds of "socialized healthcare systems." Some of them have usage limits, etc.; some are surprisingly market-driven (e.g., Switzerland). That's not really what we're talking about, though. No system is going to be perfect; the question is whether a government-run system that guarantees a certain level of coverage to all citizens would be better or worse than our current system (or lack of system).
> Healthcare is a finite resource. We need some way to limit usage. There needs to be a hybrid system in place that limits total visits per year (and charges fees after that) or it will eventually collapse. Unlimited anything is a bad idea.
All 100% true points. "Rationing" is a really dirty word when it comes to health care, but it's an absolute necessity, if for no other reason than resources are ultimately finite. Right now, one of the ways we limit usage is by limiting access, which I personally view as unjust. If everybody had equal access, maybe we could figure out a better way (not bloody likely, IMHO, but it can't be worse than what we've got now). Note that I'm personally extremely pessimistic about health care in the US, even if we somehow were able to get a better system into place, but I don't think that means that we shouldn't try.
At any rate, this is all kind of off-topic from our original discussion.
[1]: Exception: massive-scale philanthropy, along the lines of the Gates Foundation.
> But if they choose to exercise their freedom in ways that limit my freedom (via resulting lockdowns, mandatory masking, banned social gatherings, preventing businesses from operating normally, etc.), then that doesn't feel very fair.
You can easily make that argument for plenty of things though. Didn't care for education and wanted to party instead? No welfare for you! Overweight? Sorry, you're limiting my freedom via increased healthcare costs. Broke your leg while skiing? Sorry, you knew the risk, now live with it, insurance is for real accidents only.
> but all of those things differ from an all-encompassing restriction on the freedom to travel into a region by mandatory choke points on roads into that region.
>but people reacted quite strongly. what on earth am i missing here?
try driving through the panhandle of Texas while brown or black. It's not exactly a choke point because I could go a few hundred miles out of my way or fly, but, at the time, I believed the same thing you do. I learned the hard way that often times the written law has no bearing on reality. You can say it's unconstitutional all you want, but that doesn't change what millions of people face. The reality on the ground matters more so than some dusty old document written a few hundred years ago, especially since, like a religious text, people interpret it in wildly different ways.
>yes there is even racial profiling by local police forces (which is not constitutional), but all of those things differ from an all-encompassing restriction on the freedom
There is the America as it likes to see itself and the America that truly exists. Just because there is a document written a few hundred years ago that expressly forbids the restriction on freedom of movement doesn't mean that it meshes with reality.
> Do people generally want more freedom or less freedom choice?
I'd quite like the freedom to be able to commute to work, go out for drinks with people after work and come home again at the time of my choosing without relying upon someone else to cart me around, paid driver or otherwise.
> Unfortunately, freedom includes the freedom to do dumb shit.
You are not legally free to do all dumb shit. For example, you are not free in many states to ride around without a seatbelt on. Car makers are not free to make cars without seatbelts.
> This isn't some web-app whose terms of service you don't like, it's a nation state. People throughout history took to the streets to win freedom/voting right/etc.
Historically, it was much harder and more expensive to move your entire life to another country (and maintain your social and economic ties). People were vastly better off staying put.
Today, that's simply not the case. I moved across an ocean to avoid participating in the US economy in a positive way (insofar as that is practically possible being a denizen of the Internet) for under $1500 and all while maintaining my personal and professional connections to those still resident there.
Perhaps this antique notion of "taking to the streets to win freedom" was the appropriate choice, then.
I know for a fact that today it is not only demonstrably ineffective, but also entirely unnecessary.
> Endangering the lives of others has never been an inalienable right
That's simply wrong. I am allowed to drive a car, which is inherently dangerous to pedestrians (140,000 accidents per year in the US). I am allowed to have a lot of (or all?) contagious deseases in public, which is dangerous to the elderly and immune-compromised. I am sure there are many more examples. Small dangers are everywhere. I am all for wearing masks but let's not make up stuff.
>Being in a civilized society however means taking on responsibilities in exchange for freedoms like freedom to move.
According to whom? I can support your freedom to travel without being in any way responsible for your welfare. Responsibility, just like freedom, lies with the individual.
> First off, as we have seen "settled law" is never really settled
Sure. I naturally await the day that any of our 50 beautiful states, much less the federal government, decides that driving is a fundamental right!
Insofar as law can be settled, the absence of a right to drive is settled.
> However if instead the public can put reasonable limits for public safety on both gun ownership and driving, both driving and gun ownership would be rights... as they should be considered.
This is affirming the consequent: the fact we put reasonable limits on a government-recognized right and a non-right does not imply that the non-right is somehow a right. The government puts limits on hunting on federal lands; that does not imply a right to hunt (either on those lands or at all).
You have a right to free movement. The government is not required to respect any particular instantiation of your movement as a pure right in itself. Put another way: you right to travel does not give you a free pass to fly a plane without licensing and safety training.
Your being able to drive for free comes at the expense of my being able to walk about town freely. I have to worry about being struck by vehicles and about all the soot I breathe in, and I have to take less favorable routes because some road crossings are just too dangerous. You're arguing your own peculiar interests here rather than what's good for everybody, or what's good for our country overall.
reply