Rosa Luxemburg’s famous statement “Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden” is outstanding. It translates to “Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently.”
Originally I understood it ironically: that Rosa Luxemburg defined freedom in such a way that I could be free from those who think differently. No, on the contrary, it is that everyone has the freedom to think differently.
Therefore, there is a necessary addition in the English translation: “Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.”
Well… I often think that Marx and Hayek aren’t always totally in opposition; that it is possible to be in some sense a “Hayekian Marxist” even though that sounds kind of insane.
Hayek says that top-down implementation of things often leads to ruin, and as someone with an evolution background I very much agree. Freedom in the sense he talks about is important because a lot of human innovation is effectively evolutionary; it involves making lots of mistakes, iterating on what works, and slowly arriving on a solution. Saying “I’ll intelligently design a solution” in that kind of area is often, in my view, very hubristic!
Except. What if Marx is right about what happens to a system like this over time? Everyone might be free to make mistakes at one level of a system… but over time, that system itself might effectively force their actions at a higher level. I don’t think Hayek satisfactorily answers “what happens in a distributed tyranny?”— if the rules of a system themselves effectively demand freedom is eradicated at a human level.
Hence the nightmare position that both sides are right in their critiques, and wrong in their solutions. From individual freedom over time, a tyranny emerges that’s worse than the one you got rid of. From a desire to build something better than what we have, we undermine the complex things that prevented stuff getting even worse!
This is, more or less, my own political position. It has the disadvantages of being depressing, and being unclear as to what one should do in the world. I’m not surprised it’s quite unpopular
Or perhaps particularly the direction where Martin Krygier takes it in "Conservative-Liberal-Socialism Revisited" (2002): https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/2/article/12232
Freedom is one of the most abused concepts in political philosophy. For most people it simply means being able to do what I want. It's linked to a particular self-centred view - what is often called "entitlement". There is a tension between being a member of a society made up of diverse (in old fashioned and modern senses) people and an individual who experiences the world from within their unique mind and body. We may intellectually grasp that we have to accomodate our wishes to others, but often emotionally we resist. Those with less empathy or understanding are prone to following the emotional side. Their personal desires over-rule the need to integrate or adapt to others. Rather than accept that they are doing this, they try to turn it into a contest between their imagined 'legitimate' freedom and some outside force trying to impose restrictions, unfairly, upon them. It's all to avoid having to admit their self-regard trumps their regard for others, and what they are really doing is indulging themselves at others expense.
The label Libertarian is really a declaration that self-indulgence is their priority. They may convince themselves that its about ensuring 'others' have 'rights' but it is usually rooted in desires thay want to indulge. Voltaires alleged saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" has always rung hollow. Most people who say it you know almost certainly would never risk their life in defence of something they strongly disagreed with. They just think it makes them sound impressive. But really we all think "yeah, right - b*ll*cks you would!".
Rosa Luxemburg’s famous statement “Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden” is outstanding. It translates to “Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently.”
Originally I understood it ironically: that Rosa Luxemburg defined freedom in such a way that I could be free from those who think differently. No, on the contrary, it is that everyone has the freedom to think differently.
Therefore, there is a necessary addition in the English translation: “Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.”
Well… I often think that Marx and Hayek aren’t always totally in opposition; that it is possible to be in some sense a “Hayekian Marxist” even though that sounds kind of insane.
Hayek says that top-down implementation of things often leads to ruin, and as someone with an evolution background I very much agree. Freedom in the sense he talks about is important because a lot of human innovation is effectively evolutionary; it involves making lots of mistakes, iterating on what works, and slowly arriving on a solution. Saying “I’ll intelligently design a solution” in that kind of area is often, in my view, very hubristic!
Except. What if Marx is right about what happens to a system like this over time? Everyone might be free to make mistakes at one level of a system… but over time, that system itself might effectively force their actions at a higher level. I don’t think Hayek satisfactorily answers “what happens in a distributed tyranny?”— if the rules of a system themselves effectively demand freedom is eradicated at a human level.
Hence the nightmare position that both sides are right in their critiques, and wrong in their solutions. From individual freedom over time, a tyranny emerges that’s worse than the one you got rid of. From a desire to build something better than what we have, we undermine the complex things that prevented stuff getting even worse!
This is, more or less, my own political position. It has the disadvantages of being depressing, and being unclear as to what one should do in the world. I’m not surprised it’s quite unpopular
This sounds a lot like Leszek Kołakowski's "How to Be a Conservative-Liberal-Socialist" (1978): https://web.archive.org/web/20041115033819/http://www.people.virginia.edu/~smd5r/Kolak01.htm
Or perhaps particularly the direction where Martin Krygier takes it in "Conservative-Liberal-Socialism Revisited" (2002): https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/2/article/12232
Freedom is one of the most abused concepts in political philosophy. For most people it simply means being able to do what I want. It's linked to a particular self-centred view - what is often called "entitlement". There is a tension between being a member of a society made up of diverse (in old fashioned and modern senses) people and an individual who experiences the world from within their unique mind and body. We may intellectually grasp that we have to accomodate our wishes to others, but often emotionally we resist. Those with less empathy or understanding are prone to following the emotional side. Their personal desires over-rule the need to integrate or adapt to others. Rather than accept that they are doing this, they try to turn it into a contest between their imagined 'legitimate' freedom and some outside force trying to impose restrictions, unfairly, upon them. It's all to avoid having to admit their self-regard trumps their regard for others, and what they are really doing is indulging themselves at others expense.
The label Libertarian is really a declaration that self-indulgence is their priority. They may convince themselves that its about ensuring 'others' have 'rights' but it is usually rooted in desires thay want to indulge. Voltaires alleged saying "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" has always rung hollow. Most people who say it you know almost certainly would never risk their life in defence of something they strongly disagreed with. They just think it makes them sound impressive. But really we all think "yeah, right - b*ll*cks you would!".