Andrey,
Why do I have to experience the deprivation you speak of to understand
this deprivation? Why are only those people denied the right to openly
criticize public figures the only people who can understand how important
it is to be able to openly criticize public figures? I don't understand
this basis of this argument.
Is this argument based on some extreme sort of historicism or standpoint
relativism in which only those people who have directly experienced
something can properly speak on the matter and all other claims on such
matters are automatically disqualified on these grounds? This must go
along with the subjectivism underlying your earlier argument regarding
freedom.
If this is the case, then there are no grounds for discussion, since
whenever hard questions come your way you may simply say, "You haven't
experienced this, so you couldn't possibly understand, and therefore I am
right and you are wrong." This is a wonderful rhetorical device, Andrey;
you cannot lose the argument in your mind. If your goal is to close off
discussion to save an untenable position, then this seems the proper
device to deploy. But if you want to have a real discussion, I don't see
how constantly appealing to alleged exclusive subjective experience will
advance matters.
And after explaining this to me, would you be so kind as to answer my
first question? What kind of freedom is it to live under conditions of
economic exploitation and coercion?
Andy