= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Research interests I don't currently have time to develop alone - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (57)
Is that a yes or a no?
It's a no -- these laws do not reduce your autonomy in a significant way.
If you want to split hairs, technically speaking any restriction of any kind reduces your autonomy, but that doesn't sound like a useful direction for a discussion.
Do you think that UK style gap order laws that prevent defamation do reduce the autonomy of journalists?
Would you consider a government that forbids me from running an ad that tells people to smoke to reduce my autonomy?
Do you consider a government that forbids me to perform medicine without license to reduce my autonomy?
It's been already mentioned in this thread, but I'll repeat and expand a bit.
Autonomy is predominantly a negative right -- a right to be free from interference and coercion. Freedom is both a negative and a positive right -- not only it's a right to be free from restrictions, but it's also a right to have the capability to do something.
Moreover, although there is no sharp boundary, autonomy mostly refers to the freedom of your mind. It's a freedom from coercion in making choices. Freedom itself concerns itself more with the ability to act in the "external" physical world. They are connected, of course.
Given this distinction, your questions are about freedom, not about autonomy.
And yes, of course all and any kind of laws reduce your freedom. So what? I don't think there are many full-blown anarchists here.
Now that makes it sound like only things like mind control and enforcing thought crimes can be restrictions of autonomy. Being under surveillance doesn't interfere with someone's ability to make rational decisions.
That a copout. How about just answering the question as posed? A clear yes/no to the question would still help to be more clear about your position.
The extend to which I can safe information to have it accessible in the future is very near to freedom of mind.
Take someone with a hearing aid. Do you really consider that hearing aid to be irrelevant to someone freedom of mind? In a feature in which computer costs and storage get really cheap you could expect a hearing aid to safe audio of the enviroment to get better at distinguishing speech in a particular moment from other sounds.
How does surveiling your communication reduces your freedom of mind or autonomy when a secret gap order that disallows you from talking about something doesn't reduce your freedom of mind or autonomy?
I believe a yes/no answer will mislead you further, but be my guest: I am not sure what "gap order laws" are, but for libel/defamation laws the answer is no. The answer is no for the second and the third questions as well.
No, I don't think so. Frankly the claim that the ability to record other people's activities is a matter of the freedom of your mind looks ridiculous to me.
Yes, I do.
Sorry for the typo. I meant gag order laws. A libel suit where you are not allowed to say that you are being sued for libel.
Then why isn't scanning someone email also irrelevant to someone freedom of mind?
Laws restricting your freedom are mostly like fences: they separate certain areas of behavior and post signs "Do not go there or bad things will happen to you".
Surveillance isn't like a fence. It is like living in an aquarium with no place to hide.