In Europe, most want "freedom from". As in, freedom from hate speech, freedom from Nazis, freedom from gun owning cowards, freedom from bullying, freedom from corruption

Free speech is as outdated as handguns, if you want a peaceful life and happiness

Guess that's where all your problems are coming from 🤷

[–] Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I didn't invent that take if you think it's strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻

I don't think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures that enable freedoms and try to balance out everyone's rights, like the right to exist, in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures and cutting out any middle man that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.

[–] Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

originally came from European philosophers,

Yep, hundreds of years out of date

Times change, as do philosophies

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure people everywhere want "freedom to" have a house, buy groceries and receive good healthcare, which are the most practical forms of positive freedoms in politics.

[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That means that everyone has access to those means. Many liberals and most conservatives do not support providing free housing, healthcare and groceries to people who don’t work. That’s why it’s a leftist take.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, my point is that people in this thread have got positive and negative freedoms and rights mixed up

[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago

Ah okay. I thought you were saying that those takes aren’t political because everyone wants it. (Which is obviously not true).

As far as I understand in Marxism freedom is understood as having all the means necessary to make decisions over your own live, like education, housing and healthcare. So ‘freedom to’ would be used in the context of having freedom to choose your own path.

Freedom to have a house is in that sense sounds to me like an example of the capitalist definition of freedom from restrictions, because the freedom to have a house means freedom from land ownership laws that currently prevent most people from owning the land they live on (or claiming land for their own that isn’t in use if they’re houseless)

[–] prex@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Free speech (& freedom of association) are super important to a lot (most?) of us.

Unfortunately some people abuse this right, making the argument that they should be free to remove others freedom.

The paradox of tolerance is a highly recommended read written by the same guy who made falsifiabilty the cornerstone of the scientific method.