Political Crossfire Forums

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: 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

Define "just". What makes something just or unjust?

Quote:
your argument is just utilitarian normative bulls**t,

What does utilitarianism have to do with this? How can we discuss issues of ethics in positive as opposed to normative terms?

Quote: playing aound with semantics and pretending it is an argument.

it is, literally, sophistry.

You're the only one pretending to have an argument here. I have literally demolished everything you have posted thus far. Keep it coming as this is great sport.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: Keep it coming as this is great sport.

not really, i find you are an insult to philosophy and reasoning.


RueTheDay wrote: Anything between those two polar extremes will be a state of partial liberty or freedom.

so, liberty is in between another liberty? :lol:

or is freedom a state of "partial freedom"?

you think "partial freedom" is a meaningful statement? not a paradox, eh?

no, "partial freedom" is the state of liberty, as i stated earlier - liberty is a paradox.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Anything between those two polar extremes will be a state of partial liberty or freedom.

so, liberty is in between another liberty? :lol:

or is freedom a state of "partial freedom"?

you think "partial freedom" is a meaningful statement? not a paradox, eh?

no, "partial freedom" is the state of liberty, as i stated earlier - liberty is a paradox.

Liberty is not a paradox. It can however be represented by a scale, which was my original point.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Anything between those two polar extremes will be a state of partial liberty or freedom.

so, liberty is in between another liberty? :lol:

or is freedom a state of "partial freedom"?

you think "partial freedom" is a meaningful statement? not a paradox, eh?

no, "partial freedom" is the state of liberty, as i stated earlier - liberty is a paradox.

Liberty is not a paradox. It can however be represented by a scale, which was my original point.


:lol:

a scale between what? maybe like a paradox between absolutes of freedom and tyranny?

being at liberty is the essential paradox and goal of western liberalism.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Anything between those two polar extremes will be a state of partial liberty or freedom.

so, liberty is in between another liberty? :lol:

or is freedom a state of "partial freedom"?

you think "partial freedom" is a meaningful statement? not a paradox, eh?

no, "partial freedom" is the state of liberty, as i stated earlier - liberty is a paradox.

Liberty is not a paradox. It can however be represented by a scale, which was my original point.


:lol:

a scale between what? maybe like a paradox between absolutes of freedom and tyranny?

being at liberty is the essential paradox and goal of western liberalism.

The fact that we can have an amount of liberty that is somewhere between zero and complete liberty is not a paradox, it simply shows that there may be other goods apart from liberty that people value and that these other goods entail a tradeoff between themselves and liberty.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: ...a tradeoff ...

that's the paradox.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: ...a tradeoff ...

that's the paradox.

A tradeoff does not imply a paradox. Two different things.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: ...a tradeoff ...

that's the paradox.

A tradeoff does not imply a paradox. Two different things.

:lol:

yes, becaue more or less liberty is still the same liberty?

you just dont get it.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: ...a tradeoff ...

that's the paradox.

A tradeoff does not imply a paradox. Two different things.

:lol:

yes, becaue more or less liberty is still the same liberty?

you just dont get it.

Huh?

If I'm designing a car, I can only increase the power of the engine so much until gas mileage suffers; likewise, I can only improve gas mileage so much before the engine's power suffers. There is thus a trade-off between horsepower and gas mileage, but it sure as hell isn't a paradox.

It's no different with fundamental values like liberty and security. There is a trade-off between the two, but it isn't a paradox.

[The Impeacher]

heh

"those who give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

~ ben franklin


in other words, you end up with less liberty in oder to protect liberty itself. its the defintion of a paradox of choice.

it is the essence of the paradox of liberty, and the paradox that often exists between postive and negative liberty - and the individual v the state or the collective.

i'm sorry, but you just clearly dont have the intellectual tools to make this interesting for me.

read some rousseau, specifically articles about the social contract and the general will - and for you maybe even some von mises, as they make it clear.

[Fido]

RueTheDay wrote: Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.

and power over one's self and one's affairs.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: heh

"those who give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

~ ben franklin


in other words, you end up with less liberty in oder to protect liberty itself. its the defintion of a paradox of choice.

Or maybe it's not liberty that's being protected, but something else, like, for example, life. Liberty is not some sort of universal quantifier. Learn to think for yourself instead of just mindlessly repeating what others have told you.

Quote:
it is the essence of the paradox of liberty, and the paradox that often exists between postive and negative liberty - and the individual v the state or the collective.

Negative and positive liberty is not a paradox either, it's a matter of a differing definitions - essentially, "lack of a preventing factor that...." vs "an ability to...".

Quote:
i'm sorry, but you just clearly dont have the intellectual tools to make this interesting for me.

I've forgotten more about this stuff than you'll ever hope to know.

Quote:
read some rousseau, specifically articles about the social contract and the general will - and for you maybe even some von mises, as they make it clear.

Rousseau's concept of the general will couldn't be more at odds with von Mises' concept of liberty.

[RueTheDay]

Fido wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.

and power over one's self and one's affairs.

To what extent?

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: heh

"those who give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

~ ben franklin


in other words, you end up with less liberty in oder to protect liberty itself. its the defintion of a paradox of choice.

Or maybe it's not liberty that's being protected, but something else, like, for example, life. Liberty is not some sort of universal quantifier. Learn to think for yourself instead of just mindlessly repeating what others have told you.

ha bulls**t, its a well known paradox.

i suppose next you'll say the diamond-water paradox is not a paradox...

:lol:

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
it is the essence of the paradox of liberty, and the paradox that often exists between postive and negative liberty - and the individual v the state or the collective.

Negative and positive liberty is not a paradox either, it's a matter of a differing definitions - essentially, "lack of a preventing factor that...." vs "an ability to...".

or course if you could read, i said there often is a paradox, not a paradox of the concepts themnselves. please - try reading, and then thinking about what you have read, it'll do us all some good.

Quote:
i'm sorry, but you just clearly dont have the intellectual tools to make this interesting for me.

I've forgotten more about this stuff than you'll ever hope to know.[/quote]

yet you cannot demonstrate it. fascinating.

perhaps that explains why you cannot demonstrate it?

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
read some rousseau, specifically articles about the social contract and the general will - and for you maybe even some von mises, as they make it clear.

Rousseau's concept of the general will couldn't be more at odds with von Mises' concept of liberty.

yeah, together they present the paradox of freedom v slavery / freedom v property.

my guess is you didn't understand that one either.

are you going to make some points in this thread?

what is liberty, oh forgetter of things he never knew?

[Fido]

RueTheDay wrote: Fido wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Let's start with the most basic definition of "an absence of constraints upon thought or action" and work from there.

and power over one's self and one's affairs.

To what extent?

To the extent it involves one's self. If an action involves two people, then it is between them. If a man owns a mountain side and says: These are my trees, and I am going to cut them and sell them; but when and if he does that he will endanger everyone below with mud slides or snow slides, and pollute the rivers with run off, then his affairs become the interests of all.

Around this thread is the argument that one might have greater liberty than another. Equality is the determining factor in liberty. One person in one society cannot own more liberty than another. In a slave society, none are free. If the slave is slave to his master, the master is slave to slavery, and to a slavish dependence upon slavery which soon turns all people into slaves. As Lincoln said: the South is not a place for a poor white man to repair to; but to repair from. That is because, like the U.S. today, with its export of jobs and import of finished products, they were competing with people without our freedoms, without our needs, and without our expectations. White people in the South became slaves competing against slavery as we are today becoming slaves competing against slaves. Where can we run?

[George W Bush]

politicalmojo wrote: 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.

But you are free even when you have a gun to your head.
You choose to comply or not.

The same with law: if I choose not to obey, I choose ways to circumvent 'getting caught' - if I succeed, more the better. If not, oh well - it was my choice. I could now think of ways to escape, etc.

[Sallust]

Liberty is a very difficult term to describe simply because it means different things to different people. For me, liberty is the ability to think and act with freedom. Under this definition, liberty needs limits placed on it, or else any whim can be allowed to become reality. Who actually thinks complete liberty would be a good thing?

[Sallust]

politicalmojo wrote: 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. Power over others is an illusion. Any society that believes that liberty is being able to enforce your will on someone else is doomed to fail. And, for that matter, how can you make power of that sort "equal?" If I want to tell someone else what to do, on an equal and fair level, they should be able to tell me what to do at the same time, according to you. You say that the man with the gun is the free one. But if he pulls the trigger, he will very quickly come under the power of the police. Is his jailer the one with "liberty" then? The gun doesn't make you free, it gives the false impression of liberty, then imprisons you. See my signature, and consider that the gun gives you "higher station."

[Fido]

Sallust wrote: Liberty is a very difficult term to describe simply because it means different things to different people. For me, liberty is the ability to think and act with freedom. Under this definition, liberty needs limits placed on it, or else any whim can be allowed to become reality. Who actually thinks complete liberty would be a good thing?
I think complete liberty is a good thing, but I don't define it as license or privilage. Liberty is alway complete, or it is not liberty.

[Sallust]

Fido wrote: Sallust wrote: Liberty is a very difficult term to describe simply because it means different things to different people. For me, liberty is the ability to think and act with freedom. Under this definition, liberty needs limits placed on it, or else any whim can be allowed to become reality. Who actually thinks complete liberty would be a good thing?
I think complete liberty is a good thing, but I don't define it as license or privilage. Liberty is alway complete, or it is not liberty. So to you, being able to, say, kill without repercussions is liberty? If that's the case, I don't think liberty is necessary, or even a good thing to have. You can have liberty and still have some limits placed.