| I'm struggling to agree with this. Take a... Syria during civil war society and compare it to... Norwegian society. I'd argue Norway has vastly more security and freedom. Increasing one didn't increase the other. And both metrics are pretty close to maximum. Using your example of security vs freedom, yes there are measures you can take to increase security at the cost of freedom. But there's also many measures you can take which do not compromise freedom. As a very basic example, having laws against murder. These laws (I can't imagine) effect "freedom" in any meaningful way, so I can't agree that they're fundamentally opposed in some kind of inherent way. What we call security and freedom (and utopian for that matter) are just words, definable in any number of subjective ways. But a theoretical Utopia is something theoretically perfect, which while technically possible, we probably agree is not practical. I suppose my point is that subjective, indefinable properties like "infinite security" and "infinite freedom" are not fundamental, literal forces that increase when the other decreases and vice versa. They're just words, and anything is possible, including a society where everyone enjoys maximum freedom and maximum security (by some definition) |
Simply having a few determined goals means the design necessarily have to be biased against the unmentioned goals. And those might be important for the general state, but it can be a hidden preference.