Liberty

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn

Then what do you think about this:

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.

I summarized that here:

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 you can.

... but wouldn't you know the response I got was more emo-teen angst than coherent response.

Specifically... and I have to be careful how I word this...

By forcing individual responsibility and accountability (which we agree is true liberty, yes?) on those who surrender it for benefits that come from the expense of the liberty of others... aren't we then infringing on their right to liberty in the first place?

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: By forcing individual responsibility and accountability on those who surrender it for benefits that come from the expense of the liberty of others... aren't we then infringing on their right to liberty in the first place?

There are too many undefined participants in the above equation for me to answer without reservation.

Who is forcing?
Who is surrendering?
Who is paying the benefits, or define the benefits?
What or who is paying the expense?
Who is being infringed?

If you can word that question better, noting the above questions in regards, I will attempt to answer that without reservation.


Voluntary mutual conscent is key to liberty.

Individual liberty, in the absolute sense, can not exist within nature, as nature is the ultimate "limiter" on any given individual, no matter how secluded from other life forms. You can obtain individual liberty to the extent that nature will allow by the graces of your ability to match or beat it, which a great example would be Tom Neale, once he reached Suvarov.
An Island To Oneself - Suvarov, Cook Islands by Tom Neale

In a political society, the greatest attempt, and success toward achieving individual liberty in both economic, and social senses, was the United States, prior to 1900.(not saying no positive changes were made regarding individual liberty after 1900) It was not perfect, not fully equal (mainly regarding womens suffrage and non-recognition of blacks as equals), but it was the most sincere attempt yet in history to achieve individual liberty to an extent to which society could form, thrive and prosper, with a minimal infringement on individual rights.

[Kamehameha34]

ROFL

Careful, if your flamebaiting isn't at least grounded in truth, it's easy to look like an idiot.

Because it's impractical. Demanding a synonym for my position really doesn't accomplish anything.

The angst is overwhelming.

You wrote an OP in the hopes of attracting a discussion. I've tried to reciprocate by both discussing the definition of liberty, and how that relates to what I demonstrated to be a question based around a false premise.

You respond by claiming questions with false premises don't exist, and by stating that Osborn disagrees with me at every turn - despite his clear difference in context to anyone actually reading his posts for content - and overall, blatant douchebaggery.

I suggest you think long and hard before starting another thread in an open forum if this is the affect dissenting points of view has on you.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH So if I'm reading correctly, you believe that liberty lies in the ability to choose. By forcing someone to have complete liberty, you would be, in fact, infringing on their liberty. Is that correct?

No. You can NOT "force" someone to have "liberty". I can only assume you really don't understand the term, or are applying it incorrectly.
You cannot force someone to have the freedom of choice. You can GIVE them the freedom of choice, but it is then their choice whether or not to avail themselves of said freedom.
Now, you can force them to MAKE a specifically defined choice, such as in the aptly named film "Sophie's Choice", but that isn't anything near liberty, anyway.

But Osborn, in post #4, states that you are not infringing on someone's liberty if you force them to take 100% control of their life.

That isn't forcing them to choose anything, by my definition. That is really the definition of liberty in itself, having the CONTROL of your own destiny. If your choice is to be controlled, that's your decision, but having the freedom of choice means you don't HAVE to accept control.

But what happens when those who surrender certain liberties and choices to a single entity end up losing the ability to take them back?

Not all choices are in your own best interest and do not always come with a positive result. But, history shows that people DO usually exercise their control by originally appointing these "controlling entities" in the first place.
You also have the freedom to choose to stand at the curb or walk in front of a speeding bus. One choice keeps you safe and the other results in you being splattered all over the front of that "controlling entity".

[Kamehameha34]

No. You can NOT "force" someone to have "liberty". I can only assume you really don't understand the term, or are applying it incorrectly. You cannot force someone to have the freedom of choice. You can GIVE them the freedom of choice, but it is then their choice whether or not to avail themselves of said freedom. Now, you can force them to MAKE a specifically defined choice, such as in the aptly named film "Sophie's Choice", but that isn't anything near liberty, anyway.

Thank you, that was the point I was making.

If aliens suddenly came and kidnapped all government officials in the world, I could still voluntarily subject myself to the will of another. I could give him a gun and tell him to shoot me if I don't obey.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Scribbler No. You can NOT "force" someone to have "liberty". I can only assume you really don't understand the term, or are applying it incorrectly.

I understand the terms.

And take care to notice that I'm not giving an opinion or taking any sides in this thread.

I'm facilitating the discussion, more than anything else.

[Kamehameha34]

Incorrect. In this post you implicitly state that it is possible to force liberty onto someone.


Edit: Hell, you say the same in posts 8 and 9 on the same page. A casual glance at the first 20 posts negates your assertion that you "aren't taking a side."

[ZNFYRH]

I'm tired of your useless bickering. Participate or leave.

[Jack]

The personal comments are unnecessary. Please debate the topic and refrain from making comments on other members.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I'm facilitating the discussion, more than anything else.

If you say so.

In that case it seems the discussion has run its course then. Everyone has stated their position and it appears nobody is changing their minds.


I'll be over in the corner reading my magazine.

[ZNFYRH]

Take it another step, then...

What if you are trying to give liberty to someone who doesn't want liberty?

If you believe liberty is the right to choose, what if you are taking away that person's "master", so to speak?

[Autolykos]

Here is my follow-up.

Quote by: ZNFYRH "A man's beliefs [are] his own affair, so long as they [do] not interfere with the liberty of others." -Arthur C. Clarke I put this in the Philosophy section because I want to avoid this being about politics or government. I want to debate the meaning of liberty as a philosophical concept. As it relates to many topics currently active on VC and the quote above, the question up for debate is this: Are you interfering with the liberty of others when you try to force them to have more liberty than they are willing or able to accept?

How do you define "liberty"?

If one defines it in a negative sense, i.e. the absence of physical restriction (or, perhaps, the threat thereof), then the very idea of "forcing someone to have (more) liberty" becomes absurd. To "give" someone (more) liberty, in this context, would mean to remove physical restrictions for him, which has nothing to do with using force against him personally.

As you might have guessed, I define "liberty" in this negative sense. Therefore the question itself seems absurd to me, and I see no reason to answer it.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

I want to reiterate, for clarification purposes here.

In the OP, the term force was used.

Force is not necessarily always physical.

For example....

Tax dollars, are currently used to "add" non-natural liberty to peoples lives, at the expense of the liberty of those actually earning the funding which is being redistributed via government.

By removing that "tax and redistribute" policy, and all of the dependent programs, you would be technically "forcing" people to accept the liberty they should have had all along, but did not, because the system has operated for so long unconstitutionally, people have been allowed to become dependent on it.

That is force, though, not physical force, and not a violation of ANYONES rights. Its actually re-empowering people with their FULL RIGHTS as was intended from the beginning of the nation.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I want to reiterate, for clarification purposes here. In the OP, the term force was used. Force is not necessarily always physical. For example.... Tax dollars, are currently used to "add" non-natural liberty to peoples lives, at the expense of the liberty of those actually earning the funding which is being redistributed via government.

I don't see how that adds liberty, given my definition of "liberty".

By removing that "tax and redistribute" policy, and all of the dependent programs, you would be technically "forcing" people to accept the liberty they should have had all along, but did not, because the system has operated for so long unconstitutionally, people have been allowed to become dependent on it.

Again, given my definition, I can't agree. Removing such a policy would restore liberty to those whose liberty was taken away, i.e. by threatening or using physical force against them in order to take some of their wealth.

That is force, though, not physical force, and not a violation of ANYONES rights. Its actually re-empowering people with their FULL RIGHTS as was intended from the beginning of the nation.

When I speak of "force", I speak in a physical sense. But that's just me.

- Rob

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I want to reiterate, for clarification purposes here. In the OP, the term force was used. Force is not necessarily always physical. For example.... Tax dollars, are currently used to "add" non-natural liberty to peoples lives, at the expense of the liberty of those actually earning the funding which is being redistributed via government. By removing that "tax and redistribute" policy, and all of the dependent programs, you would be technically "forcing" people to accept the liberty they should have had all along, but did not, because the system has operated for so long unconstitutionally, people have been allowed to become dependent on it. That is force, though, not physical force, and not a violation of ANYONES rights. Its actually re-empowering people with their FULL RIGHTS as was intended from the beginning of the nation.

However, if you aren't a constitutional anarchist does one have the right to choose to live in a society where you are required to contribute? Is liberty the act of choosing your path, or is it the path itself? If its the path why do we even have elections and amendments? What is the purpose of a democracy where there is only one right answer and you don't have a right to hold a contrary opinion of how things should be done?

Personally, if I was in charge I'd buy up large chunks of Wyoming and tell the Libertarians that this area is for them to test their idea of a perfect society with zero government interference. Be free. I don't really care. As a democracy one could say that if you don't like popular opinion then move to Columbia, but I'd be nice. I can make a pretty good guess about what would happen to the people there, but its your right to make choices I see as unwise.

Is it my right to make choices you see as unwise?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Take it another step, then... What if you are trying to give liberty to someone who doesn't want liberty? If you believe liberty is the right to choose, what if you are taking away that person's "master", so to speak?

Liberty can never be forced upon someone. It is, essentially, the freedom to make choices affecting your life.

When you have the freedom to choose what you eat, who you vote for, and when you go to sleep, you can always subject yourself to the will of another to determine what you eat, who you vote for, and when you go to sleep.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Take it another step, then... What if you are trying to give liberty to someone who doesn't want liberty?

Then they CHOOSE not to accept liberty, but the fact that they have that choice means they DO have that freedom to make such a choice. I don't understand the confusion here.

If you believe liberty is the right to choose, what if you are taking away that person's "master", so to speak?

If you take it away without their consent it is not a matter of freedon, liberty or choice.

[ZNFYRH]

Both of you are going with "liberty" as "the right to choose."

Another way to look at it... and please try to avoid political/government inclusion:

What is true liberty? The right to choose what you want, or the right to do what you want?

If I'm on an empty stretch of highway and I drive 120 MPH, I am choosing to do so. But when a police officer pulls me over and, probably, puts me in handcuffs for reckless endangerment (of the non-existent people on the road), I am being shown that I don't have the right to do what I choose.

Relating this to the topic brings the following questions:

Which is true liberty; doing or choosing?

Which is the greater infringement on liberty; taking away the ability to choose or taking away the ability to act?

And finally, if your definition of true liberty is doing what you want... and if you believe all people should have true liberty... are you infringing on the liberty of a person to enslave others if you fight to take prevent them from having those slaves?

[Osborn F Enready]

Auto said: I don't see how that adds liberty, given my definition of "liberty".

I would agree with your "definition", but for the purposes of this thread, I am trying to show ZNYFRH and others that the "supposed" liberty gained by these measures, shouldn't have ever existed in the first place, and was a violation of ALL taxpayers liberties when enacted.

Auto said: Again, given my definition, I can't agree. Removing such a policy would restore liberty to those whose liberty was taken away, i.e. by threatening or using physical force against them in order to take some of their wealth.

I agree, but, you have to acknowledge that in order for these programs to exist, liberty was stolen in the first place.

Multiple generations have come to "expect" these entitlements, so they see these entitlements, wrongly I might add, as a "right", which they never were, and never were intended to be.

The first step in making the argument, is showing that point, because it is "force" being used to yank the carpet out from under those programs, though, force that would be completely constitutional, since the programs removed liberty to begin with, using force, that has never been officially acknowledged.

Auto said: When I speak of "force", I speak in a physical sense. But that's just me.

Normally, I do also. In this case however, when generations have been purposely duped, or misinformed of what constitutes the difference between a right and an entitlement, clarification is needed.

Removing the economic platform for unconstitutional programs, would be seen as force by those affected, and "forced" to be responsible for themselves, for once.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanatos said: However, if you aren't a constitutional anarchist

?????

What the hell is a constitutional anarchist, or anarchy.

Thanatos said: does one have the right to choose to live in a society where you are required to contribute?

Yes, but ONLY by free-will, voluntary mutual conscent contract.

You, as an individual, have a right to sign away your liberties in exchange for nanny-statism, but only for yourself, not for anyone else.

Look up on google, "New Harmony Indiana" history. It was started as a socialist commune, and failed miserably. Why did it fail? It was voluntary, and force couldn't be used to make people stay in the co-op.

Thanatos said: Is liberty the act of choosing your path, or is it the path itself?

Liberty is self-ownership, and I have already defined it in this thread from my viewpoint.

Thanatos said: If its the path why do we even have elections and amendments?

Elections are to remove(impeachment), or put in power, people who will reflect the will of the people and be responsible for their decisions as elected leaders. Their duty is to protect the rights of the people, first and foremost.

Amendments are to modify existing laws, not modify individual rights, which are "INALIENABLE" or "UNALIENABLE", whichever you prefer.

Thanatos said: What is the purpose of a democracy where there is only one right answer and you don't have a right to hold a contrary opinion of how things should be done?

Firstly, as I have said a thousand times, and proven a thousand times, THIS IS NOT, and NEVER WAS a democracy.

Individual rights limit the power and reach of laws, government and foreign policy, AS WELL as CHECK democracy.

Thanatos said: Personally, if I was in charge I'd buy up large chunks of Wyoming and tell the Libertarians that this area is for them to test their idea of a perfect society with zero government interference. Be free. I don't really care. As a democracy one could say that if you don't like popular opinion then move to Columbia, but I'd be nice. I can make a pretty good guess about what would happen to the people there, but its your right to make choices I see as unwise.

.....

Thanatos said: Is it my right to make choices you see as unwise?

You have the right to make choices that affect your life, but not others lives, using force.