Many Americans should try to get a more neuanced view on freedom, I think. Freedom should not be defined as the absence of all external interference. We should think of freedom as the ability to realize one’s potential, to live a good life of dignity and fulfillment. Freedom cannot be separated from the broader social context that makes it possible. Individuals do not exist in isolation, and their well-being cannot be understood outside of the relationships, institutions, and systems that constitute the world around them. Individual freedom can only be truly realized when it is aligned with the common good. Conservatives must recognize that their own welfare is intertwined with the welfare of others.
We really do not exist in a vacuum, separated, isolated. We develop and become who we are by actively interacting with others and the world around us. It's a dynamic process.
And the world influences us in ways we can't fully control or understand. Life is unpredictable. We can get unlucky. We can get sick. Then we need a community that can be there for us. You never know if you are the one who will one day need ACA.
Some Americans are so brainwashed. It's just unbelievable. Americans have said to me: "poor you, Norway must be a horrible place to live. The state controls everything. You live in a dictatorship, omg."
I am not even sure if I understand what kind of freedom Trump supporters defend, it just sounds like extremely bad propaganda to me:
Yep I think you see it pretty clearly. Sounds like you’re putting it in terms of self interest, such as, “be generous because what goes around comes around.” There’s some truth to that, but it’s not enough, it seems.
If we only ever do things because they benefit us or create mutual exploitation that falls apart pretty quickly when one side is convinced this symbiosis is a lie.
And in truth, what goes around doesn’t always come around. So there has to be some higher appeal. For me it’s aesthetics. I think it’s ugly to let hundreds of thousands die just so we can give hundreds of billions in tax breaks to rich corporations and ultra-high net worth people. The key word is “ugly.” I try to stay away from “fair” or “mutual gain” and just appeal to aesthetics.
I believe we have many layers of cognitive dissonance where we’ve able to hide ugly things from ourselves, through a combination of truisms and selective concentration, and that an aesthetic sense can be revitalized through various cognitive behavioral therapy techniques or just reason-based discourse.
So when I write about this, the point I’m making is that the “reasons” they give are not really reasons that are well thought out. If we force the reasons into the light, the contradictions become obvious, and the ugliness is harder to hide. If this happens, people may naturally move away from ugliness, once revealed.
The big rebuttal is that ugliness is subjective. But I think it’s universal enough to be normative and sufficient for sweeping changes. And for those for whom it’s not, we can deal with that honestly.
Many Americans should try to get a more neuanced view on freedom, I think. Freedom should not be defined as the absence of all external interference. We should think of freedom as the ability to realize one’s potential, to live a good life of dignity and fulfillment. Freedom cannot be separated from the broader social context that makes it possible. Individuals do not exist in isolation, and their well-being cannot be understood outside of the relationships, institutions, and systems that constitute the world around them. Individual freedom can only be truly realized when it is aligned with the common good. Conservatives must recognize that their own welfare is intertwined with the welfare of others.
We really do not exist in a vacuum, separated, isolated. We develop and become who we are by actively interacting with others and the world around us. It's a dynamic process.
And the world influences us in ways we can't fully control or understand. Life is unpredictable. We can get unlucky. We can get sick. Then we need a community that can be there for us. You never know if you are the one who will one day need ACA.
Some Americans are so brainwashed. It's just unbelievable. Americans have said to me: "poor you, Norway must be a horrible place to live. The state controls everything. You live in a dictatorship, omg."
I am not even sure if I understand what kind of freedom Trump supporters defend, it just sounds like extremely bad propaganda to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g
The ultra-rich at least have the freedom to be greedy and exploit us, especially in the US. That is for sure.
Yep I think you see it pretty clearly. Sounds like you’re putting it in terms of self interest, such as, “be generous because what goes around comes around.” There’s some truth to that, but it’s not enough, it seems.
If we only ever do things because they benefit us or create mutual exploitation that falls apart pretty quickly when one side is convinced this symbiosis is a lie.
And in truth, what goes around doesn’t always come around. So there has to be some higher appeal. For me it’s aesthetics. I think it’s ugly to let hundreds of thousands die just so we can give hundreds of billions in tax breaks to rich corporations and ultra-high net worth people. The key word is “ugly.” I try to stay away from “fair” or “mutual gain” and just appeal to aesthetics.
I believe we have many layers of cognitive dissonance where we’ve able to hide ugly things from ourselves, through a combination of truisms and selective concentration, and that an aesthetic sense can be revitalized through various cognitive behavioral therapy techniques or just reason-based discourse.
So when I write about this, the point I’m making is that the “reasons” they give are not really reasons that are well thought out. If we force the reasons into the light, the contradictions become obvious, and the ugliness is harder to hide. If this happens, people may naturally move away from ugliness, once revealed.
The big rebuttal is that ugliness is subjective. But I think it’s universal enough to be normative and sufficient for sweeping changes. And for those for whom it’s not, we can deal with that honestly.