Why I think the idea of freedom is so hard to quantify
Post Reply   Forum
Posted by: Ihavenoname ®

12/03/2022, 14:20:41
Author Profile Mail author Edit

Let me introduce two gentlemen who advocates for "freedom."

John Stossel, a Libertarian reporter. And Richard Stallman, a computer programmer who is involved in the "free and libre software" movement.

John Stossel advocates for limited government, "civil liberties," the U.S. constitution, and free speech. He does a good job exposing wrongdoings in government and elected officials.

But, he has flaws as well. He is a "free market" advocate. While I agree with most of his overall "free market" ideas like reducing regulations on job growth, he also endorsed ideas from shady companies such as Uber and Lyft.

Those companies are known to underpay drivers, and they also invade and store private information, something Stossel doesn't mention. Drivers have accused Uber of underpaying them too. Stossel doesn't mention that either.

And Stossel calls you "selfish" for not taking the questionable COVID vaccine, despite legitimate cases of life-threatening disabilities reported from taking the vaccine.

So you think vaccines should be mandated even if it can be potentially lethal? How is that freedom when you are forced to take a dangerous vaccine? Health and safety doesn't necessarily equal freedom.

Currently, Stossel is one of the only few decent mainstream reporters left (including those on other independent conservative sites). He used to work for ABC's 20/20 and FOX Business.

Then, there's Richard Stallman. A well-known computer programmer who advocates for freedom in "free speech" in software.

He started the GNU project, which provided software with the source-code completely available in the public domain. He advocates for the use of a proper GNU/Linux distribution with the source-code for that operating system freely available as well.

The idea is that software should be made to respect the user's freedom. Anyone can audit and modify the source code of the program. And more importantly, people can study the source code of the program and see what it does to their computers.

He rightfully advocates against "proprietary" software, meaning any software you use, whether it be on a computer, or on the internet, doesn't have the source code to the program. You have no idea what the program does to you. It may pose dangers like privacy invasions. He also calls out big tech companies for their misdeeds.

If you're interested, you can view the four essential freedoms of software to better understand this "free and libre software" debacle.

While Richard Stallman is a hero in the computing industry (including Gary Kildall and too many others to list), he also has flaws. Stallman is a progressive who shares mixed views. Some I agree with. Others, not so much.

He does correctly call out Uber and Lyft for privacy violations and underpaying of drivers, but he advocates for liberal ideas and Democratic candidates. Ideas include more government regulations, "climate-change" urgency (disclaimer: I'm not an expert on climate change), condemning "right-wing" extremism, and other things I won't get into.

He doesn't like Trump, calling him the "bully" and the "troll." Some of his criticisms of Trump has merit (like Trump calling out DeSantis, and his ego to an extent), but others seem more like "Trump-derangement syndrome."

He also praises actions from the 'Crats too. He often sides with our dictator and makes narrow-minded views on government authority. There's more, but areas like unionization are not my expertise.

He made certain comments on a particular subject that got him into trouble, which led him to resigning from a senior position on the Free Software Foundation. I'm all in for freedom of speech, but people have to think carefully on what they say.

Ironically, on his website, he posted a picture of an American flag that reads "America means civil liberties, patriotism means protecting them," despite his progressive views.

What's wrong with his views? Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. He does condemn dictatorship in China, but some of his views conflict with freedom as in a person's civil liberties. He cares about "freedom," but incompatibilities from his 'Crats endorsements makes it questionable. 

And that's why freedom is hard to quantify. Freedom in what?

From what I see, Stossel supports civil liberties, but has questionable economic views related to "technologies" as a means of life-quality improvements. Stallman rightfully supports freedom in computer software, but holds questionable and incompatible views on freedom in politics and economic policies.

I see myself as a middleman between the two. But sadly, I don't think freedom will never be properly quantified. It seems certain freedoms comes with a price tag.

Economic freedom, but maybe at the cost of the worker's civil liberties? Technological freedom, but potentially at the cost of practical convenience?

I don't know.







Modified by Ihavenoname at Sat, Dec 03, 2022, 15:12:29

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page
IMO anyone who believes in AGW is either an opportunist, a useful idiot or a mendacious lunatic.
Re: Why I think the idea of freedom is so hard to quantify -- Ihavenoname Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: LateForLunch ®

12/05/2022, 14:35:35
Author Profile Mail author Edit

AGW is not even a theory, it's a speculative conjecture based on an unproven (unprovable) belief that atmospheric carbon creates a "green house effect". There is ZERO evidence of that. That's because the atmosphere is so immense, that no actual controlled experiment can be performed. The only experimental "evidence" presented toward validating carbon forcing of black body radiation (heat) has been performed IN A LABORATORY environment, NOT IN THE ATMOSPHERE itself. That's why AGW conjectures/projections or "computer models" (PTOOY!)NEVER match observed results. Sadly being able to match empirical observations with theoretical predictions is one of the basic criteria for a scientific conjecture to be considered reasonable. 

But we are deep into the Age of Cacogenic Mendacity now, and scientists are to be considered a protected class now like the priests of old -never to be questioned or criticized. 

Both of the people mentioned in your above post remind me of something I heard a long time ago - people are often eager to offer lots of criticism and lots of advice but no help. 

It seems to me that (all due respect to Stossel at least) simply describing things or agonizing about perceived injustice/infamy does not demonstrate superior morality nor mastery of the essential, vital concepts or any COMPREHENSIVE understanding of how to integrate solutions into the central purport. 

IOW, just because wheels are spinning doesn't mean their minds are going anywhere. 






Modified by LateForLunch at Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 14:37:38

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I’m no expert on climate change, but I do know climate change urgency is mainly propaganda
Re: IMO anyone who believes in AGW is either an opportunist, a useful idiot or a mendacious lunatic. -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: Ihavenoname ®

12/05/2022, 15:13:34
Author Profile Mail author Edit
I admit, I don’t have a clear understanding of climate change, nor am I in any position to provide a sensible opinion on this matter.

But, as you pointed out, studying such thing is likely difficult (and probably inconclusive in many cases).

My problem is that climate change urgency being is used as a blatant excuse to take away our freedom. WA Gov. Joker Inslee enacted a stupid carbon tax and banned the sale of gas-powered cars by 2030, just like what Gruesome Newsom did. So did evil Canadian PM Tyrant Trudeau (carbon taxes only, I remembered).

Will it be a crime to drive a 1970 Plymouth Roadrunner in the future? I hope not. Many car enthusiasts will be outraged.

And a Canadian bank even released a new credit card to “track your carbon footprint” in the form of a communist-style social credit score like China. No thanks. I hope other companies don’t follow suit!






Modified by Ihavenoname at Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 15:29:03

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Don't buy into the ecoparanoid terminology...
Re: I’m no expert on climate change, but I do know climate change urgency is mainly propaganda -- Ihavenoname Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: LateForLunch ®

12/05/2022, 21:06:06
Author Profile Mail author Edit

...such as using whatever rebranding they attempt to sell fear to the public. They used to refer to it as "global warming" then changed it several times and finally settled on "climate change". The fact is that the basis for the whole idiotic scam is a speculative conjecture referred to as "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW). At the root of this fiction is something known "carbon-caused black body radiative forcing" which is a lot of jargon meaning the belief that carbon in the atmosphere causes heat (black body radiation) to be absorbed by the air and prevented from escaping back into space.

Carbon forcing is the foundational basis for the entire AGW conjecture - since it doesn't work that way, AGW is complete Bravo Sierra. Period. All the strong evidence is that this is exactly the case, but government/leftist-supported political entities continue to promulgate the falsity that it is otherwise.

In lay terms, AGW states that human-contributions of a harmless inert trace gas (carbon dioxide) that never makes up more than about 0.3 % of the atmosphere has more effect on the global temperature than ALL OF THE OTHER FACTORS COMBINED. Those other factors are: natural emissions of carbon dioxide (natural decay of vegetation, naturally-caused forest fires, volcanic activity, deep ocean current upwelling of methane), plus variations in solar radiation caused by orbital changes, plus changes in distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere (clouds, humidity, large bodies of water), geographic factors (El Nino etc), solar radiation output variations. 

From the physics perspective (which looks at physical factors as the percentage of energy contribution to the total energy of the system) that is similar to the belief that a speeding freight train can be derailed by a spit wad.

 IOW, AGW is patently absurd on its face just by examination of the basic physics. One does not need to be an expert in physical geographical science (climatology) to understand the pertinent factors, but one does need a passable grasp of the most elementary precepts of physics. Once one has the latter, it is childishly easy to determine that AGW is absolute, utter, infantile nonsense. 

In a hundred years, the whole conjecture will be viewed as idiotic and a sign of the barbaric state of affairs of our time. Legitimate science has been replaced by cacogens with pseudo-science and we are being gaslighted on a scale that was never before possible prior to the mass media age. 
 






Modified by LateForLunch at Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 21:16:14

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I agree. And I don’t like the leftists pushing their “activism” either.
Re: Don't buy into the ecoparanoid terminology... -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: Ihavenoname ®

12/06/2022, 02:16:23
Author Profile Mail author Edit
They’re entitled to their beliefs, but I hate how they call out people for causing harm to mother nature, only to destroy valuable paintings in a museum in London.

In the end, I have better things to do than to be told that the world will end in 12 years due to AGW. 






Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
"I have better things to do than to be told that the world will end in 12 years due to AGW, " ...as do 99.9% of all normal people.
Re: I agree. And I don’t like the leftists pushing their “activism” either. -- Ihavenoname Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: LateForLunch ®

12/06/2022, 21:15:40
Author Profile Mail author Edit

... since it is complete nonsense. Ignorance among AGW advocates (fanatics) is so widely pervasive, that even though I have read and posted comments on articles about it for over ten years, I have had only two rational exchanges with people who possessed even elementary knowledge of the issues involved and both got angry and resigned from the discussion because they had no refutation for any of the cogent points. 

Virtually hundreds of people who commented in support of AGW were simply unable to respond substantively to any post because NONE of them had the remotest inkling of understanding of physical geographical science. All were simply parroting what they had been told, second, third, fourth or worse hand. 

The New Ignorami forever gaslighting and forever mendaciously dedicated to the occult. 








Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I think part of the AGW supporters has to do with putting feelings over facts
Re: "I have better things to do than to be told that the world will end in 12 years due to AGW, " ...as do 99.9% of all normal people. -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: Ihavenoname ®

12/07/2022, 02:13:49
Author Profile Mail author Edit
I think they prefer to go with their emotional feelings over hearing the actual facts.

And it usually doesn't end up well. AGW protests have caused more disturbances recently. Unfortunately, this trend will continue.







Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Prezactly...AGW fanatics and all ecoparanoids did not arrive at their beliefs through a rational process which is why it is impossible to talk them out of it by rational argument.
Re: I think part of the AGW supporters has to do with putting feelings over facts -- Ihavenoname Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: LateForLunch ®

12/07/2022, 02:53:24
Author Profile Mail author Edit
In regard to being rational, they are as a species, sub-normal even though they imagine themselves to be superior in every way (especially morally). It is increasingly difficult not to wish those who support 'Cratism great physical harm. 






Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page

Forum     Back