Today I was attending a lecture about blockchain and cryptocurrencies and the lecturer said that freedom and safety don’t go together. You can have more freedom by abandoning safety. Would you agree?

  • cattywampas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yes, that’s the entire basis for the idea of the social contract. That you give up a little bit of freedom in exchange for security from living in a society.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      You’re talking about trade offs and maximization.

      That’s not reality yet. In reality, we have less freedom AND less safety than we could. There’s plenty of room to increase both.

      Once we get to a maximized state, then tradeoffs are necessary. But we’re very far from that at the moment.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        They’re not mutually exclusive. Some issues would increase one of those factors without decreasing the other, while other issues result in a slight lessening of one in exchange for an increase in the other. Different agencies and parts of society handle different issues, and it’s not reasonable to expect optimal progression, much as it would be appreciated.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Oh, definitely not optimal progression. But there’s some basic things we could easily do that improve both safety and freedom.

          Getting rid of racist cops, for example. Increased safety and freedom for black people. Costs us literally nothing.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Social contract theory is statist propaganda. Even before I knew anything about politics or political theory I was so confused by this idea.

      It’s just there to create an illusion of consent for state oppression. Even though there’s no realistic way to opt out, and we never even decided to opt in in the first place.

      What kind of crazy contract is that?

      • cattywampas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s not propaganda, it’s a basic logical conclusion. If you and a group of people decide to follow a set of rules together, i.e. create a society, you are surrendering a little of your freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want in exchange for some protection from others from doing the same.

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          But that never happened. We never decided that. No one even asked me. Again, I never opted in and there’s no realistic way to opt out. I’m far more afraid of the state than I am from my neighbors, and if I had a real choice, I would opt out immediately.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            You can mostly opt out by bugging out to the woods to homestead. Taking advantage of the many amenities of society is opting in. “The state” is just your neighbors, and their neighbors, etc, extrapolated out to the whole country. Despotic governments don’t just appear from the aether, they are established and staffed by someone’s neighbors.