Liberty

[ZNFYRH]

I understand the symbolism. His use of it is incoherent.

He sees the question of the OP as, "Does X=Y"?

And he answered, "Y=Z"

That's incoherent to the topic of the thread.

Osborn has shown that he believes that forcing liberty is a workable concept and answered in the affirmative.

Kame did the equivalent of saying that he won't answer the question of the OP because, in one specific circumstance, it is an "unworkable concept."

That kind of response is incoherent as far as the topic is concerned.

[Kamehameha34]

I understand the symbolism. His use of it is incoherent.

I would attest that it's quite coherent if it's given you this seemingly newly acquired insight into the fact that I'm not directly answering the OP.

Kame did the equivalent of saying that he won't answer the question of the OP because, in one specific circumstance, it is an "unworkable concept."

One specific circumstance? That circumstance is called reality.

What I said is ubiquitously relevant to all circumstances dealing with the unwillful acceptance of liberty. It can't happen. By the very nature of liberty, it can't be forced.

It seems like you're skimming through the meat of all of our posts for a simple "yes or no."

Fortunately, sometimes people can and do explain their answers, and sometimes a member's thoughts can't be confined to what they see as a false, or misrepresentative dichotomy.

If you'd read more into Osborn's post, you'd see that his thoughts are of self-reliance. His usage of the word "liberty" is seperate to mine.

I even explained and elaborated on what I saw as liberty, as your OP made clear you want to debate the meaning of the word as well.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kame I would attest that it's quite coherent if it's given you this seemingly newly acquired insight into the fact that I'm not directly answering the OP.

This isn't a thread for evasive fence-sitting. Commit to a side and debate it.

Quote by: Kame By the very nature of liberty, it can't be forced.

You're answering, "It isn't possible" and Osborn has answered that it is.

So when I say use complete sentences, I want you to explain why it isn't possible to force liberty on someone.

[Kamehameha34]

My post is editted. I'll give you a while to reciprocate before reading your post.

[ZNFYRH]

I understand what you wrote and I stand by my opinion of it.

You basically said that in a system of absolute liberty one has the liberty to surrender aspects of it as well. So in a system of absolute liberty it's an unworkable concept.

You established a unique condition... a system of absolute liberty.

Then showed how under that specific condition it is not possible to force liberty on someone.

Now what if you don't have a system of absolute liberty?

[Kamehameha34]

This isn't a thread for evasive fence-sitting. Commit to a side and debate it.

Why pick a side when you’ve not even settled on a common definition for the concept being discussed, or when your question is based on a false premise?

That’s like me asking you “Does your mom know you’re homosexual?” and expecting you to answer with a “yes or no” answer without clarifying that, as I assume by virtue of your marriage, that you are heterosexual.

You're answering, "It isn't possible" and Osborn has answered that it is.

He's talking about a different concept. Don't be confused by the fact that they are both represented by a single word.

Now what if you don't have a system of absolute liberty?

To preclude the surrender of liberty, one would have to restrict all forms of expressed consent - which is unworkable. It's technically possible, but not outside of conditioned hypotheticals.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kame That’s like me asking you “Does your mom know you’re homosexual?” and expecting you to answer with a “yes or no” answer without clarifying that, as I assume by virtue of your marriage, that you are heterosexual.

The correct answer would be "no."

My mother does not know I'm a homosexual.
She knows I'm a heterosexual.

Don't start with crap like that.

Quote by: Kame Why pick a side when you’ve not even settled on a common definition for the concept being discussed, or when your question is based on a false premise?

You need a common definition for the concept of liberty?

And how is the question based on a false premise?

This is the kind of shit I don't like... you're turning this into a "my term is different so I'm right" derailing.

Quote by: Kame To preclude the surrender of liberty, one would have to restrict all forms of expressed consent - which is unworkable. It's technically possible, but not outside of conditioned hypotheticals.

WHY is it unworkable?

You are saying that by suppressing expressed consent you are denying liberty.

And you can't grant liberty by denying liberty.

Osborn says that you can.

So defend your position.

[Thanatos]

You aren't really free unless you have the power to screw yourself over and give up that freedom.

Iraq is an interesting case. The vast majority seems to be interested in democracy; they voted. There's a minority that has no interest in democracy and wants a dictatorship, so everybody's liberty cannot be expressed at the same time in the same country. All I can say is it sucks to be them, and the majority rules.

Now, the majority could suppress the minority if they were willing to take matters into their own hands, but they are still dependent on our troops. Either the majority of Iraqis want it badly enough to fight for it or they don't; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make one drink.

[5010]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You mention a king and that reminds me of the original intent of castles and lords. If you wanted to live under the lords protection you surrendered a certain amount of liberty to that lord. However, in exchange, you were given protection from outsiders... a type of guarantee of another type of liberty. What would happen to those people if someone came along, killed the lord, and told everyone that they now lived and worked free from the lord? What if that person did so with complete benevolence?

The act would be received differently by those treated well vs badly by the lord. Those treated well would lose liberties. Those treated badly would gain liberties. Then one must factor in the internal and external threats that are no longer held at bay and the level of personal protection.

So it is not a black and white answer, but a mix of both. The same act doesn't effect the population equally.

[Suburbanite]

Liberty is just a word people invest too much important shit into, like their life.

[Kamehameha34]

The correct answer would be "no." My mother does not know I'm a homosexual. She knows I'm a heterosexual. Don't start with crap like that.

I'll "start" with whatever's necessary to get through to you that some questions carry false premises that a simple "yes or no" can't dispell.

You need a common definition for the concept of liberty?

Yes. Words generally have definitions, and it really helps when using said words to point out which of the many definitions attached to said words you are employing.

And how is the question based on a false premise?

I'd answer your question but I wouldn't want to start with any crap by offering you insight into my position.

This is the kind of shit I don't like... you're turning this into a "my term is different so I'm right" derailing.

No, I'm not. Look past your paranoia long enough to realize that you yourself welcomed debate on the definition of the word in the OP.

That's the kind of shit I don't like. You think using blunt language, and dropping an occasional swear word will reinforce this "cutting the crap" facade and you'll be absolved of your responsibility to debate like an adult.

WHY is it unworkable?

Because it's impractical.

Demanding a synonym for my position really doesn't accomplish anything.

Osborn says that you can.

Why are you talking about Osborn as if we're the same person? He's not even using the same usage of the term liberty.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: But do you believe that if someone else labored for your survival that you owe something to that person?

Depends on the relationship of that person, to you.

Parents are both morally and legally obligated to raise, provide for and protect their children. The "brunt" of the debt you own to parents for this exchange is respect for their rules in their home, respect for them as parents, and making an effort to be educated and self-sufficient by age of majority. Love is conditional.

The child didn't ask to be born, and was a result of two people having sex (a selfish act for pleasure and or creating life), so the parents have every obligation to fully raise that child and provide for that child IF they allow that child to be born.

If it is anyone other than a birth parent, what is owed should be a private two party conversation between the child and the guardians.

ZNYFRH said: Especially in the times when they labor for your survival because you are unable to do so yourself?

The question of how they got there, is a valid question. If they are being raised by birth parents, it is the parents "fault" they are a burden, and the child is a result of their own selfish acts of pleasure (w/o birth control) or procreation (without abortion).

ZNYFRH said: I understand the former (which I underlined) but I do not understand what you mean by the latter (which I bolded). the part you bolded was: or by the extortion of others for their labor using force.

Historicly, kings used force to control peasants, and make peasants provide for the King with their labor, via taxes, tithes, etc.

In many modern socieites, the same method is being used, but under slightly different pre-text, resulting in the same false "misconception of entitlement by birth".

Life is an individual struggle, and while societies often try to use force to provide wealth redistribution in the name of some abstract "betterment" of society, it really amounts to simply being extortion and wealth redistribution at the behest of corrupted minorities that hold either power or wealth. Taxation without representation is the same as a Kings proclamation that you WILL pay tithe, and the force that backs it up is one and the same.... deadly.

Many today grew up expecting an "entitlement" to public schools, social security, welfare, work-loss insurance, etc. There are all false constructs built upon the backs of others, without their conscent, and funded by the threat of the use of force, by government.

ZNYFRH said: The emphasis strikes me as contradictory.

It is contradictory, because the questions and post I am answering has set up a double negative, as Jack Sparrow has pointed out.

ZNYFRH said: When you force a person to do something, aren't you infringing on their right to live as they choose?

Not if their conception of living as they choose, depends on the wealth and labor of others, without their conscent. (see taxation without representation, forced wealth redistribution, etc.)

In essence, the person born and not educated to expect full self-sufficiency from majority age, is being set up to build their life on a false set of rules, built on a house of cards.

Who do you blame, the person who knocks down the house of cards, or the person who got everyone to believe the lies that the house of cards was really a house of rigid concrete construction?

ZNYFRH said: If they choose to surrender certain liberties to another person or entity, and you force them to take responsibility they don't want, how is that not infringing on their choice?

Because, they don't understand, haven't taken the time to learn, have never been forced to learn, the role of man in nature and how they fit in the role of their own survival.

ZNYFRH said: This statement seems problematic, especially considering the quote in the OP.

The quote in the OP was a double negative, a false construct paying no heed to logic or nature.

ZNYFRH said: You believe it's what existence demands. And you are specifically talking about forcing your belief on someone else, in the process infringing on their own belief about what is best for their own life.

Which came first?

If a persons belief is built on a lie, and another persons belief is built on the truth as reality and all observable facts can attest, who should suffer the consequences?

ZNYFRH said: The pertinent question then becomes: Why do you think your belief is better than someone's own belief for how they live their life?

My belief is that I can take care of myself. The other people believe they need a village to raise a child, instead of two parents with common sense.

Then come the facts.....

Life IS a tangible objective, and absolute. You are either alive, or dead. You live, or die.

A person who can keep themselves alive, and raise and provide for their own, are infinitely better off than those who depend on the force of others to provide for them.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn Historicly, kings used force to control peasants, and make peasants provide for the King with their labor, via taxes, tithes, etc.

So by that, you basically mean that they granted liberty by saying that you must work for them or they would completely take away your liberty, yes?

Quote by: Osborn The quote in the OP was a double negative

It's not. It only seems so when the "belief" of the first part is "all people should be free".

As far as your post as a whole, I appreciate it.

Instead of just saying, "The OP is contradictory," or, "The OP is a double negative," you actually elaborated on the circumstances of the question... how it is not infringing to force liberty on those who do not want it; when that liberty means the expense of another's liberty.

If I'm understanding you correctly, and for you or others to explore, what about the following:

What about a "closed" societal system where all involved surrender different liberties to each other in various ways... even when some are laboring for others... in exchange for mutually agreed benefits?

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: So by that, you basically mean that they granted liberty by saying that you must work for them or they would completely take away your liberty, yes?

Yes, much like the IRS.

ZNYFRH said: What about a "closed" societal system where all involved surrender different liberties to each other in various ways... even when some are laboring for others... in exchange for mutually agreed benefits?

As long as each individual is making free-will, voluntary contracts, all is peaceful and moral, as long as those contracts don't infringe upon the rights of others, without their conscent.

I need to note here however, conscent and tolerance are two different things.

[ZNFYRH]

How do you perceive the difference between consent, as you've used it, and tolerance?

[Osborn F Enready]

Conscent is being asked to vote, and voting to pass, condone or participate in the action.

Tolerance is not being asked, solicited or questioned on your concerns, and simply attempting to obey the laws that come to be, until they are no longer tolerable.

Sanction, is a form of tolerance. I may not agree on an issue with the current laws, but I will have been said to have sanctioned it by action, if I didn't take means to stop it, reverse it or repeal it.

The overwhelming burden of laws in American society today for instance, are "tolerated" and said to have been upheld by previous sanction, or, a lack of a large enough movement to remove, repeal or reverse a law. Many of these current laws, are coming to be viewed as "damaging and unsustainable", so tolerance and sanction for those laws are waning.

As was noted in the Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[ZNFYRH]

I don't want this to become political.

What you are essentially saying is that if a person gives their consent to surrender their liberties, and what they get in exchange does not involve infringing on the liberties of others, it is acceptable?

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: What you are essentially saying is that if a person gives their consent to surrender their liberties, and what they get in exchange does not involve infringing on the liberties of others, it is acceptable?

Yes, and that is the basic understanding of free-will, voluntary contracts.

When you agree to work for someone, you agree to surrender some of your liberties and labor in exchange for pay. That is a free-will, voluntary, mutual agreement, assuming all binding issues are clearly put forth, discussed and or agreed to.

My point, without becoming political, is that to "force" for instance, US citizens to be responsible for themselves (by removing unconstitutional social aid programs, welfare, etc), would be entirely constitutional, and entirely within the law, as long as the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the foundation of law in this nation.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn to "force" for instance, US citizens to be responsible for themselves (by removing unconstitutional social aid programs, welfare, etc), would be entirely constitutional, and entirely within the law

Law and Constitutionality have no place in this thread.

But...

Are you saying that those things you listed in parenthesis all deny liberties from other people?

And that by forcing the liberty of those things on the individual, it is giving liberty back to those who have certain liberties denied when they are in place?

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Are you saying that those things you listed in parenthesis all deny liberties from other people?

Yes, and I think that is fairly obvious by the way the funds are obtained.

ZNYFRH said: And that by forcing the liberty of those things on the individual, it is giving liberty back to those who have certain liberties denied when they are in place?

Yes, exactly.

I would also like to point out the missing variable, which is time.

When you speak of living things, time is a relevant variable in the equation, since life is measured in time, and time is associated with the value of life.

For example....

Many times, people, as Jefferson noted, are willing to put up with bad things, even though they know they are bad things, simply because it is what they know, and to know is to be familliar. Some people are more scared by change, than they are with tolerating a given and known bad thing, which is tolerable, to some, not to others. This is an issue, and part of the reason individual "rights", or "self-evident truths" were recognized amongst the human species, to help attempt to rectify.

If all people were legally limited to free-will, voluntary mutual conscent contracts, the only role of law would be to recognize those contracts, and enforce the law when contracts were broken by facillitating justice, through a jury of "legally equal" peers, objective law, and the limited use of force only to facillitate this process of aquiring justice.

Much like voluntary mutual conscent trade requires a medium of exchange of some type, most oftly a form of currency or barter of labor; human relations, or society, requires a basic set of guidelines and limitations to which all people are entitled by birth, by nature, to enact on natural ability, until the point those actions limit others, to attain maximum individual happiness, contentment and assign a value as opposed a burden, to life itself.