On freedom

To continue from earlier post, I think any discussion on freedom is essentially framed around two propositions, one the extent to which freedom can be restricted, and more importantly the rationale behind freedom.


Now using libertarianism as the reference point, as I pointed out (rather obviously) that libertarianism (or to be more precise mainstream libertarianism distinct from anarcho-libertarianism or similar crazy stuff) doesn't guarantee unrestricted personal freedom, but this is not inconsistent because the restriction is only to extent of imposing institution(s) whose only mandate is (or should be) to safeguard the rights. Hence even libertarianism aims to optimize the extent of freedom.

Now comes the rationale, one point of view is of right theorists, essentially holding freedom as an end in itself, or to put in other words, starting point of any discourse. Now this sort of axiomatic position is bound to pass unchallenged in polite society, considering how any disputation to notion of inviolability of freedom will be considered scandalous. Being impolite I hold this position to be more or less worthless, and entirely based on contemporary sentimentalism.

The second position, of consequentalism, holds more appeal for me. Briefly, this position supports freedom as the means with overall social prosperity as the end. However in this case to determine the extent of freedom is a very difficult question and determined by prevailing definition of social good, and also broadly by the social conditions. The nature of rights have a profound effect on civilization.

Now personally speaking, I have yet to arrive at any concrete conclusion of my own. Meanwhile the premises (or the guidelines) that I favour for my orientation are

1. Any constructive work, any innovation is only possible out of a man's own volition. If I were to elaborate, explanation would be something like this.

2. People, generally speaking, are idiots. Therefore it follows a vast majority will use freedom to do something idiotic, with some able to accomplish acts stupendously idiotic in nature.

3. State, by virtue of having monopoly on use of force, is inherently evil.

Just in case

To those who may want to comment how altruism is determined by genes on previous post,

I have read "The Selfish Gene".

Thank you

Aphorism: Insanity and revolution

George Bernard Shaw couldn't have been more truthful than when he said,
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. " *

For the truth is only those who are crazy enough, and also audacious enough to tilt at windmills *, can and will tilt at world.

Whenever one beholds a revolutionary, one is also witness to a phenomenon which defies reason. Self preservation of life is the strongest instinct and choosing death for sake of others or ideals is insanity.

We should thank God for such insanity, for this preserves the civilization.

Intervention - (Of nuance)

(Most of this is speculation, it may be correct, or it may be way off the mark)

The previous intervention was rhetorical. However the purpose of rhetoric was not to imply any contradiction and hence invalidate libertarianism, but to emphasize the nuance involved in the personal freedom argument. Now at risk of repeating, I am not well versed with libertarianism and hence this is speculation.

Now taxation as a rule involves coercion by state, with many people paying taxes only to avoid punishment by state, some of course even risking the punishment by evading tax. Hence taxation as policy does suppress and restrict personal freedom. Even then taxation doesn't introduce contradiction in libertarianism.

Now libertarianism comes in hazaar flavours (which is one of the reasons that I am not committing), however following statements holds true for most of the case.

"State will not restrict personal freedom of individual(s), (which includes transaction between two individuals) unless any non-consenting party is affected adversely as result of action of the concerned individual. "

From the above definition one may be tempted to conclude that taxation is unreasonable restriction of freedom by state. However this is not true, and not very hard to see why.

State collects tax to fund its activities and organization, without tax state can not exist.

But existence of state is assumed as given in the above definition of libertarianism.

This essentially implies that even with libertarianism while individual can not be stopped by state from exercising his freedom, his submitting to the authority of state is not subject to his agreement, he is coerced to accept the authority .

This means that personal freedom is circumscribed. This of course follows from definition of state and social contract.

I do admit that I am being Captain Obvious. Unfortunately people seem to miss obvious nowadays and increasingly consider Personal freedom to be either axiom to be used in deductive logic or holy grail of induhvidualism. It is nothing of sort.

A tangled web

For some reason I made a claim in earlier post that Spiderman - 3 was the best of the franchise. I have no idea what made me say this. It isn't

Now as far as the idea behind movie, portrayal of a darker Spiderman, is concerned, it certainly had potential. However one suspects that Sam Raimi was overwhelmed by the complexity of the plot and lost his way.

In terms of characterization Spiderman never had much of a meaner side as opposed to Batman, who, let's say, had issues. This is the reason why historically Spiderman has held more appeal for adolescent readers, with the character etched over the years to reflect its demographics.

Spiderman in addition to dealing with scum of the earth and space, also grapples with issues like insecurity and fear, and therefore strikes a cord with young. He is a typical silver age hero contending with the modern age.

Now the previous movies were thematically similar in that they dealt with Peter Parker, a weakling coming to terms with his new found powers and subsequent transformation to a somewhat reluctant super hero responsible for protection of others on the way dealing with his insecurity and angst, the latest movie was intended to project a darker Spiderman.

The idea was to show Spiderman dealing with his own ego. The idea is not novel, having been dealt with in literature since times immemorial and in works as diverse as Shakespearean drama to juvenile literature.

However to project this idea on screen was problematic. The portrayal could either be that of a teenager with bad attitude or that of fallen angel although redeemed in the end. Director tried to incorporate elements of both, but the genres are so disparate that there was never a coherent narrative, which was the strength of previous two movies (and special effects of course).

To make the matter worse, plot was further muddled by first unnecessarily including love triangle between Mary Jane, Harry Osborne and Peter Parker, and then treating it half hearted. But for me the biggest let down were the villains. Now even in the previous movies Green goblin and Doc ock were essentially grey characters, not inherently evil but rather transformed due to sleight of fate, propelled by their ego and ambition to their demise.
However there the internal conflict and the succumbing to evil did not hamper the flow of narrative.

Unfortunately the latest film is for most part tedious and banal, a story most contrived.

Every character in this movie except for the Peter Parker's aunt is conflicted. The development of multiple back stories and attempt to explore the struggle take too much time and distract from the action, the ambiguity which pervades through out the film throttles the narrative. The villains are also a puppet of their fates, petty jealousy and insecurities. This might have worked in previous movies, but when already the protagonist and antagonist are grey, one questions the wisdom of painting the whole canvas in same colour.

It would have helped if the villains were presented as evil and larger than life, somewhat like Mephistopheles of Goethe's Faust.

The moral of the story, "Too many hamlets screw a comic book adaptation."

Intervention - (Another anti libertarian one)

I am against tax evasion.
I don't care about US or France.
I also don't care what people do with their money after they have paid taxes.

PS Was Al Capone being a libertarian hero ?

Freudian Slip ?