Asklemmy

There is surely a tradeoff at some point...

But noone says you can't lose both!

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”.

Everything has a cost. Usually of the same type as what you are buying.

You can usually reword security/stability as a type of freedom. The freedom to have a guaranteed income usually costs some of the freedom to choose where/when/how you work. For example.

You might say that you will pay for the freedom to not have school shootings with the freedom to have free access to guns. You lose one freedom to gain another.

You are correct that to some degree they are antonyms, but I would say that it's freedom vs stability. It's just that security is a type of stability.

If you break them down more mathematically freedom is represented as infinite possible trajectories, which is in other words a very unstable position. In order to increase stability you must reduce the possible trajectories.

"Freedom" = You can choose what you want to do

"Security" = limits on what you want to do.

Not always, but generally.

Sometimes if someone else has more freedom, that can lessen your security/safety.

I wouldn't make a direct connection between the two. Let's ask "security from what?"

Security from warfare doesn't need to limit individual freedom, perhaps it just requires a certain part of people and economic activity to engage in military activity, production, and research.

Security from poverty increases individual freedom. If the government helps those who lost their job, then you don't need to rely on having a job to survive, only to improve your economic status and living standards.

Security from crime is possibly more tricky. Less control you apply on a population, more likely it is for them to do crime. Although fighting poverty does help prevent much of that crime, especially organized crime.

But maybe you meant more on an individual level, than a system level. In that case sure, being an employee is probably the most secure option, although that's only true if the job contract limits firing. Aspiring to a better job, perhaps moving to a country or state with better worker rights, increases both security and freedom. For example, as an Italian I earn X and if I decide to have children I'd have huge costs and issues with parental leaves. If I moved to Sweden, not only I would have about a 30% increase in salary, but as a parent I would receive much more help, both for leaves and for free nursery and such (if I'm not mistaken). Plus I would cut costs in cars, as I wouldn't need one. So, higher security (I can save more money) and higher freedom (more free time).

I was in a discussion the other day about this, and someone brought up the "freedom vs. security" as the kind of "trade" someone assumes if they would, with complete freedom, fuck up someone else because they had no restrictions. We were discussing how the reason most laws exist is because somebody fucked it up for someone else.