Liberty

[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?

[Chancellor]

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 does one "force" someone else to have more liberty?

[ZNFYRH]

An example of the concept... I do not want this to be political... is U.S. action in Iraq.

We are forcing the country to become a democracy when the people don't necessarily seem interested in that level of liberty.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: 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?

You are born in liberty, and "societal" and or "cultural" expectations are taught both by education and actions.

If a person "expects" less than liberty, they have been misinformed,or have been prevented from understanding mans place in the natural world. (thanks mostly to religions)

Nothing in life is free, and survival is not free, so your survival and your life are or have been paid for by SOMEONES labor, whether you or not.



In order for someone to expect anything less than liberty, they had to have been spoiled and prevented from learning the harsh lessons of the chore of survival, whether by good graces from loved ones generosity, or by the extortion of others for their labor using force. Society was built with a history of exploitation of peasants by Kings.

Society, as a concept, is a form of extortion without the recognition of individual sovereignty and free-will contracts.

So, to answer your question:

No, it is not interference with someones liberty to force them to accept what their existence, and continued existence DEMANDS, or let them perish due to "unwillingness" to accept that charge for their OWN life.

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: ZNFYRH 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?

Liberty is the absense of foreign force or control, so it is impossible to force it, this is a double negative

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ZNFYRH An example of the concept... I do not want this to be political... is U.S. action in Iraq. We are forcing the country to become a democracy when the people don't necessarily seem interested in that level of liberty.

Well, no, we're not forcing it to become a democracy. We helped it draft its own constitution and determine its own governmental structure. Then we facilitated free elections so that the people could elect their own leaders. That is not forcing anything on anyone.

So, again, "How does one 'force' someone else to have more liberty?"

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn You are born in liberty

I agree in the sense that at birth you are only interested in yourself and your own survival and contentment. You don't have anyone else's morality or ethics imposed on you.

Quote by: Osborn If a person "expects" less than liberty, they have been misinformed,or have been prevented from understanding mans place in the natural world. (thanks mostly to religions)

This is about acceptance, not expectation... but I understand the point you are making.

Quote by: Osborn Nothing in life is free, and survival is not free, so your survival and your life are or have been paid for by SOMEONES labor, whether you or not.

But do you believe that if someone else labored for your survival that you owe something to that person? Especially in the times when they labor for your survival because you are unable to do so yourself?

Quote by: Osborn they had to have been spoiled and prevented from learning the harsh lessons of the chore of survival, whether by good graces from loved ones generosity, or by the extortion of others for their labor using force.

I understand the former (which I underlined) but I do not understand what you mean by the latter (which I bolded).

Quote by: Osborn No, it is not interference with someones liberty to force them to accept what their existence, and continued existence DEMANDS, or let them perish due to "unwillingness" to accept that charge for their OWN life.

The emphasis strikes me as contradictory.

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

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?

Quote by: Osborn accept what their existence, and continued existence DEMANDS, or let them perish due to "unwillingness" to accept that charge for their OWN life.

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

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.

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

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Jack Liberty is the absense of foreign force or control, so it is impossible to force it, this is a double negative

See Osborn's post #4.

You can force someone to have liberty they don't want.

One example I can think of is a person in prison who has someone try to help them break out. They choose not to. They believe they need to surrender their own liberty and someone else believes they should have more liberty and be out of prison.

The example about Iraq is pertinent as well. The explanation for that follows this post.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Chancellor Well, no, we're not forcing it to become a democracy. We helped it draft its own constitution and determine its own governmental structure. Then we facilitated free elections so that the people could elect their own leaders. That is not forcing anything on anyone.

Helping it?

We're forcing it.

We're establishing deadlines for them to achieve goals.

Why give them deadlines? A deadline means a consequence... a negative consequence... for failing to comply within a specified amount of time.

And when were the Iraqi people asked if they wanted to vote?

Quote by: Chancellor So, again, "How does one 'force' someone else to have more liberty?"

See the prison break example in the above post.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH See Osborn's post #4. You can force someone to have liberty they don't want. One example I can think of is a person in prison who has someone try to help them break out. They choose not to. They believe they need to surrender their own liberty and someone else believes they should have more liberty and be out of prison. The example about Iraq is pertinent as well. The explanation for that follows this post.

I disagree. You can ALLOW a person more liberty, but they have the freedom of choice to accept it or not.
If you were to somehow allow more liberty in a former dictatorship, for example, and the people chose another dictator, at least it was their choice.

The very essence of liberty is the absense of force of ANY kind, so you cannot "force" liberty on anyone.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Scribbler I disagree. You can ALLOW a person more liberty, but they have the freedom of choice to accept it or not.

I agree that, at best, if you believe someone should have liberty you can give them the choice.

But what about those who believe that someone cannot surrender their liberty?

Think of someone trying to free an animal they healed and the animal doesn't want to go.

This isn't necessarily about whether you can, technically, accomplish what I ask in the OP.

Osborn has given his answer to the question itself... whether or not you are interfering with someone's liberty when you take away their choice.

[5010]

People often reduce their level of liberty for mutual benefit in personal and business relationships. Contracts and agreements shackle us into committments.

What if I became king of the world and decided one day to order all contracts null and void? In other words, if one breaks an agreement, don't come to my court for any recourse.

Furthermore, let's say I impose a "no record keeping" rule on dishonorable activity. No one would be allowed to keep lists of those who habitually broke agreements.

What kind of liberty is this?

Consider a mother. Would one want children with a man hoping he would stick around to help support them or at least finance it if he decided to leave?

Consider ordering merchandise. Would one send a merchant a check hoping that they send the items?

Consider subscription. Would one provide service to a subscriber hoping they will pay the bill?

All of the above options are still available and people have complete liberty to throw caution in the wind, but because there is no security they are wise to limit who they deal with.

So in this case, too much liberty in theory makes options unwise, and therefore reduces liberty in practice.

Is this what you are talking about, ZNFYRH?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I agree that, at best, if you believe someone should have liberty you can give them the choice. But what about those who believe that someone cannot surrender their liberty?

I wasn't responding to that, only the idea of not forcing anyone to have more liberty.

Think of someone trying to free an animal they healed and the animal doesn't want to go.

Then you have given the animal the liberty to choose. It will stay if it wants to.

This isn't necessarily about whether you can, technically, accomplish what I ask in the OP.

The answer to the question is yes, as you are taking away the liberty to choose between giving it up or not.

[Kamehameha34]

"Forcing" liberty on someone is an unworkable concept. In systems of absolute liberty, there are ways to voluntarily cede control of your life to others.

The benefit of making people choose this instead of forcing it upon them is that those who don't consent to an authoritarian system don't have to abide by it.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: 5010 All of the above options are still available and people have complete liberty to throw caution in the wind, but because there is no security they are wise to limit who they deal with. So in this case, too much liberty in theory makes options unwise, and therefore reduces liberty in practice. Is this what you are talking about, ZNFYRH?

Precisely.

People surrender liberties willingly in exchange for something else.

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?

Quote by: Scribbler The answer to the question is yes, as you are taking away the liberty to choose between giving it up or not.

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?

Quote by: Kame "Forcing" liberty on someone is an unworkable concept. In systems of absolute liberty, there are ways to voluntarily cede control of your life to others.

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.

I urge him to correct me if I'm wrong... but I think he would disagree with you.

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

[Kamehameha34]

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.

"But" implies a contradiction. There is none.

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

That's what happens when you surrender liberty. Criticize those who do it, not me.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kame "But" implies a contradiction. There is none.

You didn't see the contradiction?

Osborn answered the question of the OP with a "no."

You gave an answer indicative of a "yes."

[Kamehameha34]

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?

Sterilized, this says "Is X = Y?"

I answered with this:

"Forcing" liberty on someone is an unworkable concept. In systems of absolute liberty, there are ways to voluntarily cede control of your life to others.

Sterilized, I stated "Y (Forcing liberty) = Z (an unworkable concept)"

"Y = Z" does not answer affirmatively or negatively to "Does X = Y?"

I hope this cleared things up.

[ZNFYRH]

No it doesn't. Use complete sentences instead of incoherent symbolism.

[Autolykos]

I find his symbolism to be quite coherent, Z.

More to follow.

- Rob