''Conservatives'' conceptualize freedom as synonymous with dominance, power or control over the other. This is not a perfect concept in which a behavior is conceptually centered on the individual but on the individual in interaction with another. Crudely speaking, freedom, for them, is the power to do whatever they want ... including or especially in relation to others. But freedom is the redundant self-autonomy or power to do what is reachable and is desired from the perspective of the individual, in relation to himself, because when the individual extrapolates his actions with other individuals, including non-humans, he enters in territories of individuality and therefore of freedom of others and there it is up to negotiate and / or understand the demands of the other so that they can enter into agreements. In fact, freedom begins in the original or primitive conception of individuality, of belonging only to oneself. This mistaken concept of freedom also hides the hypocrisy of wanting to have the power to do what you want without considering consequences, but not tolerating the same when suffering the same irresponsible/selfish action. Morality for me, not for you.
There certainly are these different kinds of freedom. Freedom as reaching your potential or as not being held back by internal obstacles, and freedom in society (not being held back by external ones).
Conservatives focus on the latter and ignore the former, because they speak mainly for the wealthy and the strong who happen not to have many internal barriers. In so far as power corrupts, they're speaking, for example, for subcriminal sociopaths who lack a conscience, that being a powerful internal constraint on freedom.
''Conservatives'' conceptualize freedom as synonymous with dominance, power or control over the other. This is not a perfect concept in which a behavior is conceptually centered on the individual but on the individual in interaction with another. Crudely speaking, freedom, for them, is the power to do whatever they want ... including or especially in relation to others. But freedom is the redundant self-autonomy or power to do what is reachable and is desired from the perspective of the individual, in relation to himself, because when the individual extrapolates his actions with other individuals, including non-humans, he enters in territories of individuality and therefore of freedom of others and there it is up to negotiate and / or understand the demands of the other so that they can enter into agreements. In fact, freedom begins in the original or primitive conception of individuality, of belonging only to oneself. This mistaken concept of freedom also hides the hypocrisy of wanting to have the power to do what you want without considering consequences, but not tolerating the same when suffering the same irresponsible/selfish action. Morality for me, not for you.
ReplyDeleteThere certainly are these different kinds of freedom. Freedom as reaching your potential or as not being held back by internal obstacles, and freedom in society (not being held back by external ones).
DeleteConservatives focus on the latter and ignore the former, because they speak mainly for the wealthy and the strong who happen not to have many internal barriers. In so far as power corrupts, they're speaking, for example, for subcriminal sociopaths who lack a conscience, that being a powerful internal constraint on freedom.