The dichotomy of “freedom to” and “freedom from” is pretty well-worn territory in philosophy, although there are many different formulations of it (including options beyond just these two), but the simplest model is this:
“Freedom to”: The protected right to do something, like fire a gun in the air.
“Freedom from”: The enforced guarantee that you will not be impacted by the actions of others, like your neighbor’s falling bullets.
An egalitarian society can’t grant “freedom to” all actions to all people while also guaranteeing them “freedom from” the consequences of all others’ actions.
If I have the freedom to drive a monster truck on any public motorway, I necessarily lose the freedom to walk those streets without worrying about monster trucks.
The only way around it is to have a privileged class that has extra “freedom to” do things when the consequences mainly impact the underclass, and extra “freedom from” the actions of the underclass.
Like, most states allow you the “freedom to” openly carry a firearm, but also employ police to protect your “freedom from” people being an immediate threat to your life.
In theory, you can’t have both. So in practice, this means that only white people get to openly carry guns. Black people get disarmed or shot.
—
That said, I’d disagree that labor freedom reduces economic security in general, but if you got more specific I’m sure there are some instances where that’s true.
Just specifically don’t take an employer’s word when they say “if you unionize we can’t protect you anymore”.
That’s wild, cuz that case is still ongoing. SC just declined to hear an appeal on the stay. So they don’t actually know that the courts have their back here yet.
I know the bar is several miles beneath the floor at this point, but at least some senators are willing to walk across it in this one specific very limited instance.
Edit: It is truly a dark timeline when the best reassurance you can find is that the dismantling of democracy may yet be done through procedurally valid means.
“They don’t need to collect dollars in order to spend them” does not mean “They ought to spend dollars and not collect them”.
I’m only describing that collecting X amount from tariffs does not imply that spending must necessarily increase by X somewhere due to some kind of conservation of dollars that the OP seemed to assume.
You’re not wrong. Burning is what they used to literally do in earlier times, and the conceptual model today is exactly the same even if there’s no literal burning.
Remember, the government is the issuer of the currency. They don’t need to collect dollars in order to spend them.
Imagine a referee removing a point from a participant.
The point doesn’t go anywhere, waiting to be reused, it just gets deleted. The next point to get added isn’t the “same point” in any sense, even though the point total is the same and maybe even some physical point token got reused.
Conceptually, sovereign currency is always on a one-way trip from being spent into existence to being taxed into annihilation.
The reason Canada got tariff-free access to sell to the US in the first place? Canada agreed to enforce penalties for tampering with digital locks, following the premise of the Digital Milennium Copyright Act.
If the US is going back on the deal, then Canada should too. Make it legal to jailbreak all US tech.
The reason Canada got tariff-free access to sell to the US in the first place? Canada agreed to enforce penalties for tampering with digital locks, following the premise of the Digital Milennium Copyright Act.
If the US is going back on the deal, then Canada should too. Make it legal to jailbreak all US tech.
The Snapdragon 865 offers good bang for the buck in the RP5, so it’ll probably be similarly cost-effective in this form factor.
I don’t personally see the appeal in a widescreen clamshell, since you get so much empty space in the middle. But if it’s your thing, this will probably be a great option.
It at least fixes a common complaint with the RP5, which is the position of the thumbsticks.
In essence, a coup is a 1) rapid seizure of state power by unelected actors, who acquire that power by 2) seizing critical government infrastructure and 3) weaponizing it to neutralize legitimate government actors' efforts to stop them. The unelected actors then use this power to 4) remake the rules of the political game in a way that cannot easily be checked or undone through democratic processes.
The dichotomy of “freedom to” and “freedom from” is pretty well-worn territory in philosophy, although there are many different formulations of it (including options beyond just these two), but the simplest model is this:
“Freedom to”: The protected right to do something, like fire a gun in the air.
“Freedom from”: The enforced guarantee that you will not be impacted by the actions of others, like your neighbor’s falling bullets.
An egalitarian society can’t grant “freedom to” all actions to all people while also guaranteeing them “freedom from” the consequences of all others’ actions.
If I have the freedom to drive a monster truck on any public motorway, I necessarily lose the freedom to walk those streets without worrying about monster trucks.
The only way around it is to have a privileged class that has extra “freedom to” do things when the consequences mainly impact the underclass, and extra “freedom from” the actions of the underclass.
Like, most states allow you the “freedom to” openly carry a firearm, but also employ police to protect your “freedom from” people being an immediate threat to your life.
In theory, you can’t have both. So in practice, this means that only white people get to openly carry guns. Black people get disarmed or shot.
—
That said, I’d disagree that labor freedom reduces economic security in general, but if you got more specific I’m sure there are some instances where that’s true.
Just specifically don’t take an employer’s word when they say “if you unionize we can’t protect you anymore”.