| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: What is "liberty"? |
|
|
| Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
thesheesh
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you're looking to define liberty I think two key terms you need in your definition would be right and free(dom). The concept of liberty has to do with being granted the right either through alienable or inalienable means to express free will or actions on a particular agenda or event. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thesheesh wrote: If you're looking to define liberty I think two key terms you need in your definition would be right
If you're talking about the libertarian definition of liberty, I would tend to agree. But then you have to define "rights", list what rights exist, and provide a source for them.
Quote:
and free(dom).
Freedom is effectively synonymous with liberty in this context.
Quote: The concept of liberty has to do with being granted the right either through alienable or inalienable means to express free will or actions on a particular agenda or event.
The word "express" is tricky. Do you mean an ability to do so or a lack of obstacles to prevent one from doing so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
mojo
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 5502
Location: Dreamland, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Liberty is the freedom to satisfy our needs and then pursue upon our desires.
Freedom is to general. Am I free when a man points a gun to my head. No I am product of someone else's coersion. Actually freedom could be described as the application of power over others. Power comes in different forms but it always exerted whether on a conscious or unconcious level by the individual.
The perfect system of freedom exists when the power exerted is sublime and equally shared among individuals. But in a more pragmatic society power is controlled by those whose choices and work are of value. Therefore power will never be equally distributed among society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fiscal_Conservative
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 158
Location: Lloret del Mar
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to 'The Oxford English Reader's Dictionary' from 1979 for German students :!oops: -yeah, don't laugh, the only one I have at the moment-, 'Liberty' is "freedom to have one's own beliefs without interference". Also "right or power to decide for oneself what to do, how to live, etc."
These definitions make liberty pretty much unattainable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
politicalmojo wrote: Liberty is the freedom to satisfy our needs and then pursue upon our desires.
Liberty and freedom (in the political sense) are synonymous, so that's a self-referencing definition.
Quote: Actually freedom could be described as the application of power over others.
I don't see how that could be the case. Perhaps for the person exercising the power that would be true, but not as a general condition for all involved.
Quote: The perfect system of freedom exists when the power exerted is sublime and equally shared among individuals.
I don't see how the power being "sublime and equally shared" results in freedom. I would think that how the power is exercised would be more important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
mojo
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 5502
Location: Dreamland, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RueTheDay wrote: politicalmojo wrote: Liberty is the freedom to satisfy our needs and then pursue upon our desires.
Liberty and freedom (in the political sense) are synonymous, so that's a self-referencing definition.
Quote: Actually freedom could be described as the application of power over others.
I don't see how that could be the case. Perhaps for the person exercising the power that would be true, but not as a general condition for all involved.
That was what I was referencing to. Freedom is the application of power.
Quote: Quote: The perfect system of freedom exists when the power exerted is sublime and equally shared among individuals.
I don't see how the power being "sublime and equally shared" results in freedom. I would think that how the power is exercised would be more important.
Power has to be sublime or the keeper of the power would enjoy abusing those privilieges. How power is excercised is how power is attained. It is the continuing reallocation of power in order to create more power. If that makes any sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fiscal_Conservative
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 158
Location: Lloret del Mar
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What makes you think power over others will make you free? Isn't that just a whim, a misunderstanding of onself? And how could there be "equal power"? How do you measure that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
mojo
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 5502
Location: Dreamland, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fiscal_Conservative wrote: What makes you think power over others will make you free? Isn't that just a whim, a misunderstanding of onself? And how could there be "equal power"? How do you measure that?
Freedom is an overused term by the media and politicians. Are you truly free when someone points a gun to your head and says dance. I suppose in one sense you are you could get up and spit in that persons face. But you know darn well the consequences of those actions. So freedom according to my definition is the application of power. For example that person with the gun holds your freedom momentarily captive. If you choose to excercise that power and try to escape then you will be shot and no longer exist. Therfore power is freedom.
But I suppose I am not making it clear enought hat I'm not talking about power in the authoritarian sense. Im not suggesting that stronger people go around killing people. Thats just silly. But never the less liberty is the application of power. Liberty in way we hear most often today is shared most equally among people. For instance money is a form of power. A major corporate CEO could go out to eat dinner and have a more than likely chance that he will see his secretary dining with him form acroos the room. That is what I meant by equal sharing of power.
Im not talking in a marxist sense. Socialism does not equally distribute power it lowers how much power can control and tells people to deal with it. It also has to sublime because if people knew they controlled a tremendous amount of power then they can abuse it more easily.
Power and freedom have to created through hard and smart work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fiscal_Conservative
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 158
Location: Lloret del Mar
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
politicalmojo wrote: Fiscal_Conservative wrote: What makes you think power over others will make you free? Isn't that just a whim, a misunderstanding of onself? And how could there be "equal power"? How do you measure that?
Freedom is an overused term by the media and politicians. Are you truly free when someone points a gun to your head and says dance. I suppose in one sense you are you could get up and spit in that persons face. But you know darn well the consequences of those actions. So freedom according to my definition is the application of power. For example that person with the gun holds your freedom momentarily captive. If you choose to excercise that power and try to escape then you will be shot and no longer exist. Therfore power is freedom.
But I suppose I am not making it clear enought hat I'm not talking about power in the authoritarian sense. Im not suggesting that stronger people go around killing people. Thats just silly. But never the less liberty is the application of power. Liberty in way we hear most often today is shared most equally among people. For instance money is a form of power. A major corporate CEO could go out to eat dinner and have a more than likely chance that he will see his secretary dining with him form acroos the room. That is what I meant by equal sharing of power.
Im not talking in a marxist sense. Socialism does not equally distribute power it lowers how much power can control and tells people to deal with it. It also has to sublime because if people knew they controlled a tremendous amount of power then they can abuse it more easily.
Power and freedom have to created through hard and smart work.
"Liberty is the application of power", you say. Ok, let's assume only through the excercising of power can someone become free. But then what do you make of all those who hate you because you're free/powerful? Wouldn't the fear of a revolution prevent you from fully enjoying and tasting freedom? A CEO or a Senator could excercise his power asking his secretary to eat out. Wouldn't he somehow have to spend a lot of energy trying to convince the population that revolutions are not the answer, that the harder you work, the more you earn, etc.; all of this to preserve his lifestyle, to maintain his power ... Wouldn't he be afraid of the consequences that someone might realize "Hey, this person gets everything I always wanted without a single drop of sweat". Wouldn't you fear the envy of others? Power never lasts forever. And even if you can keep it, nothing guarantees your descendants will have the same luck. Is that not a source of anxiety? And if anxious, can one feel free or powerful?
I think if one wants to be free, one must also want freedom for others. But maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm slave to my arguments, maybe I'm too dependent on the logic of words. Je ne compte plus que sur vous, cher Monsieur, to get out of this web. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Impeacher
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 2928
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: What is "liberty"? |
|
|
RueTheDay wrote: Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.
yes, chaos is always a good place to start... ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Impeacher
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 2928
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RueTheDay wrote:
Liberty and freedom (in the political sense) are synonymous, so that's a self-referencing definition.
omg! NO!
in short, liberty is the condition of balancing rights and freedoms. being "at liberty" is the paradox between our rights and the rights others.
that is not freedom, liberty is the paradox of our freedom versus the freedom of all others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Liberty and freedom (in the political sense) are synonymous, so that's a self-referencing definition.
omg! NO!
in short, liberty is the condition of balancing rights and freedoms. being "at liberty" is the paradox between our rights and the rights others.
that is not freedom, liberty is the paradox of our freedom versus the freedom of all others.
False. Constraints may be placed upon liberty in order to protect the rights of others (though we then have to define, identify, and justify "rights"), but those constraints are not part of the definition of liberty itself.
I am starting from first principles; you are starting from a pre-conceived and contradictory idea of what you think liberty means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Impeacher
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 2928
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Liberty and freedom (in the political sense) are synonymous, so that's a self-referencing definition.
omg! NO!
in short, liberty is the condition of balancing rights and freedoms. being "at liberty" is the paradox between our rights and the rights others.
that is not freedom, liberty is the paradox of our freedom versus the freedom of all others.
False. Constraints may be placed upon liberty in order to protect the rights of others (though we then have to define, identify, and justify "rights"), but those constraints are not part of the definition of liberty itself.
I am starting from first principles; you are starting from a pre-conceived and contradictory idea of what you think liberty means.
you are a sophist.
Quote: What is "liberty"?
Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.
the point you started from is FREEDOM, not LIBERTY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Liberty and freedom (in the political sense) are synonymous, so that's a self-referencing definition.
omg! NO!
in short, liberty is the condition of balancing rights and freedoms. being "at liberty" is the paradox between our rights and the rights others.
that is not freedom, liberty is the paradox of our freedom versus the freedom of all others.
False. Constraints may be placed upon liberty in order to protect the rights of others (though we then have to define, identify, and justify "rights"), but those constraints are not part of the definition of liberty itself.
I am starting from first principles; you are starting from a pre-conceived and contradictory idea of what you think liberty means.
you are a sophist.
Translated: I am not intelligent enough to respond to your arguments, so I will call you names instead.
Quote:
Quote: What is "liberty"?
Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.
the point you started from is FREEDOM, not LIBERTY.
Perhaps you would like to provide a starting definition of liberty then. Claiming that it is a paradox is not defining it, BTW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Impeacher
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 2928
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RueTheDay wrote: Liberty and freedom (in the political sense) are synonymous, so that's a self-referencing definition.
RueTheDay wrote: Constraints may be placed upon liberty
RueTheDay wrote: What is "liberty"?
Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.
you are right, calling you a sophist assumes you know something, and i apologize to any and all sophists in the hizz'ouse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In case any intelligent people would like to continue the conversation......
Liberty does in fact refer to an absence of constraints on human action. A just society will require that SOME constraints are placed upon human action. Thus, liberty cannot be the SOLE value of a just society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Impeacher
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 2928
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RueTheDay wrote: In case any intelligent people would like to continue the conversation......
Liberty does in fact refer to an absence of constraints on human action. A just society will require that SOME constraints are placed upon human action. Thus, liberty cannot be the SOLE value of a just society.
which, according to your "logic," also means freedom is defined by constraints.
:lol: |
|
| Back to top |
|
RueTheDay
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 2418
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: In case any intelligent people would like to continue the conversation......
Liberty does in fact refer to an absence of constraints on human action. A just society will require that SOME constraints are placed upon human action. Thus, liberty cannot be the SOLE value of a just society.
which, according to your "logic," also means freedom is defined by constraints.
:lol:
Let me dumb this down a few levels so that you can understand it. A state of total liberty or freedom will have the complete absence of constraints. A state of no liberty or freedom will be marked by complete constraint (the unavailability of choice). Anything between those two polar extremes will be a state of partial liberty or freedom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Impeacher
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 2928
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: In case any intelligent people would like to continue the conversation......
Liberty does in fact refer to an absence of constraints on human action. A just society will require that SOME constraints are placed upon human action. Thus, liberty cannot be the SOLE value of a just society.
which, according to your "logic," also means freedom is defined by constraints.
:lol:
Let me dumb this down a few levels so that you can understand it. A state of total liberty or freedom will have the complete absence of constraints. A state of no liberty or freedom will be marked by complete constraint (the unavailability of choice). Anything between those two polar extremes will be a state of partial liberty or freedom.
:lol:
let me smarten this up for you, so you can understand it....
"unjust" liberty = unconstrained liberty, which is best defined as a state of freedom
"just" liberty = constrained liberty
your argument is just utilitarian normative bulls**t, playing aound with semantics and pretending it is an argument.
it is, literally, sophistry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
