Re: [Audio-video] http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/ghm2013/Samuel_Thibault_Jean-Philippe_Mengual-Freedom_0_for_everybody_really_.text

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

    Well, I take  freedom  in its the widest meaning: the ability to do what
    one want without hurting others freedom. So then it *includes* technical
    freedom (the capacity), social freedom (the liberty) and psychological
    freedom (the will)

That definition of freedom is misguided because it stretches the word
to include everything that is good or bad for a person.  That destroys
the distinction between freedom and practical opportunity.

Using your definition of freedom, everyone in 1900 had much less
freedom that we do.  And we have less freedom than a billionaire has.
With your definition, a poor man cannot be free.  But there are poor
men who disagree with you.

This is not just an interesting philosophical question.  You are
discarding the basis of the political idea of human rights.

It is not possible to give everyone the same abilities, and giving
everyone the same wealth is more radical than Chairman Mao.  It is
possible to give everyone the same freedom, because wealth and
abilities are something totally distinct from freedom.  If we were
to accept your concept, we would lose any possibility of insisting
on legal equality for people.

You may not intend to oppose the principle of equal rights, but that
is where your philosophy leads.  Since we stand by that principle,
we will have to defend it from your threat.  We will have to argue
against your philosophy.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call.