That’s what I summarised, aside from the us-centric references. I still don’t quite understand the emphasis on “true individual liberty”, what that should entail and the meaning of it for the discussion. I agree with everything else you said, that part just isn’t clear to me.
What’s your definition of liberty here? Just the absence of constraints? As in to be free from sth., opposed to being free to do sth.?
If it is, then sure you can have individual liberty. It’s just (almost) utterly useless. Or do I not get your point here?
If you are rooted you can use afwall+ to deny internet access for nova
It’s important to think about the counterargument, I agree.
To counter your counterargument: it’s not a good argument on many levels (scope, allocation, distribution mechanism, effect). The main reason is that this sort of charity doesn’t improve the core problem of low(er) social mobility. The opportunity to pursue self-development/self-fulfillment should not be tied to the whimsical act of a better-off person but presented to everyone as equal as possible - through common goods and services. The impossible future is impossible due to vastly different prerequisites. The person’s “greatness” will never be seen, as most likely they will never be presented with the opportunity to display it.
This. Half of this thread is such an absurdly cruel and stupid oversimplification.
Just to make sure: I’m not trying to defend the nazis - the zealots that died as pows got what they deserved. But a lot of the common people never had a choice. It’s mostly the lower income classes that had less of a choice as well. Just meat that got send to the fronlines. I guess I just don’t get why people delight in their fates out of all the people/“nazis” they could hate on.