Political Crossfire Forums

WorldCitizenMovement · Joined: 05 Jul 2005 Posts: 194 Location: Ontario

Everyday we always hear about our freedom, our liberty, our constant withdrawel from borders, from regulation, from restraint, from excessive control and abuse by our institutions, however, I ask this question over concern of a productive and effective society...

How much freedom is enough?

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6942 Location: Ohio

Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

WorldCitizenMovement wrote: Everyday we always hear about our freedom, our liberty, our constant withdrawel from borders, from regulation, from restraint, from excessive control and abuse by our institutions, however, I ask this question over concern of a productive and effective society...

How much freedom is enough?

The freedom to remain free is all we need. Freedom is an inheritance and also a legacy. No doubt, much inequality is built into our government, and it has been the destruction of other societies. Such inequalities so soon as they have reduced the society to people with everything to defend and no help to defend it, and people with nothing to defend and no reason to defend the inequality they are burdened with - then the society falls. In Roman times the free farmer was reduced to a proletarian by competition with slaves on great estates which soon gobbled up small estates. My book says only six Romans owned the whole of Mauritania, and Mauritania could not defend itself without the army of Roman preliterates who were themselves without real hope of property ownership. So Freedoms such as the Romans and we today consider freedoms are not freedom if they endanger the whole of society. Everyone must have a stake in society. Everyone must have a voice and a hand in government. Everyone might someday be called upon to defend the nation and all the property of the common wealth and then there can be no doubt of what people are defending. Without wealth and opportunity, which are the prize of true freedom being general and common the word freedom will be made meaningless the way the words entitlement, or rights, or public property have become meaningless. Prosperity is the fruit of freedom as poverty is the result of slavery. We need enough freedom to keep poverty from our land.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:03 am Post subject:

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”

Thomas Jefferson.

demt · Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 8

freedom untill you get yourself an education there isnt any

demt://www.twra5t.co.uk

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

demt wrote: freedom untill you get yourself an education there isnt any

demt://www.twra5t.co.uk

That form of education that leads to understanding is a luxury most people can never afford. You are blessed if you can.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.
But even that's not 100% freedom. If I can't do what I want because it will infringe on others' freedoms, that's not 100% freedom. With that being said, I agree completely. :-D

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

CrossEyedMary wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.
But even that's not 100% freedom. If I can't do what I want because it will infringe on others' freedoms, that's not 100% freedom. With that being said, I agree completely. :-D

What you might try to understand is that freedom is an ideal. 100% of an ideal is an ideal ideal. No freedom or justice can be shown to exist as an object. A pound of sugar has far more reality than a ton of freedom. We hypothesize a concept of freedom from particular examples of freedom, and all concepts are one thing, 100% of one thing. But these concepts are entirely mental as concepts, and for them to have any reality we have to have the mental ability to give them reality or perceive them as real even when mixed with the bric-a-brac of life.

NautaPuella · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 29 Location: United Kingdom

Fido wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Ultimate, 100% freedom is ideal.

That is, you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on others' freedoms.
But even that's not 100% freedom. If I can't do what I want because it will infringe on others' freedoms, that's not 100% freedom. With that being said, I agree completely. :-D

What you might try to understand is that freedom is an ideal. 100% of an ideal is an ideal ideal. No freedom or justice can be shown to exist as an object. A pound of sugar has far more reality than a ton of freedom. We hypothesize a concept of freedom from particular examples of freedom, and all concepts are one thing, 100% of one thing. But these concepts are entirely mental as concepts, and for them to have any reality we have to have the mental ability to give them reality or perceive them as real even when mixed with the bric-a-brac of life.

I agree, and freedom being such an ideal, there is always room for improvement, and that is a good thing!

"My freedom to punch you ends when my fist makes contact with your nose."

djolibertas · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 185

WorldCitizenMovement wrote: Everyday we always hear about our freedom, our liberty, our constant withdrawel from borders, from regulation, from restraint, from excessive control and abuse by our institutions, however, I ask this question over concern of a productive and effective society...

How much freedom is enough?

When you ask how much freedom is "enough", you're also asking how much control over your life by others is too much. Of course opinions on this vary from person to person, depending on how much they value their independence, however I think that each person should exercise control over their life to the greatest possible extent.

Contrary to what some claim, I don't think that "freedom" means doing everything possible, such as violating others' rights, which is why I think it is useful to ask the question in the form I stated above. When viewed as a question of how much you wish to be controlled, the issue of freedom becomes much more clear -- freedom is the ability to pursue happiness free from outside coercion or control. When approached from this perspective, it is hard to say that there can ever be too much freedom, unless you believe yourself to be incapable of acting rightly, or believe that someone else (like the government) knows what is in your interests better than you do.

The Ferryman · Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 1518

Freedom is a balancing act between individual rights and social rights.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

The Ferryman wrote: Freedom is a balancing act between individual rights and social rights.

Your answer suggests the rational acceptance of rational abilities as being an equitable attribute of all in society. If this is true, then I agree with you. Unless the individual is free, the society cannot be free; and if the society is not free, then the individual, no matter if rich, or powerful is not free. We all have to be free together, even throughout the world. The real danger to peace and justice and freedom in this world comes from people who are not free. Slaves, even of the sort that are bound to religious dogma, will never support the legitimate needs of others for freedom. Rather, they are jealous of the freedom they see about them, and see in the misery of the damned the first step toward heaven.

papershredder · Joined: 26 Jun 2006 Posts: 54

none is to much. freedom is freedom to do what you want.

Anarko-Kapitalizt · Joined: 21 May 2005 Posts: 2517

"Freedom" does not involve infringing upon someone's life, liberty or property. The only way freedom is possible in modern times is to either abolish the state or force the state to a nightwatchman status.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

papershredder wrote: none is to much. freedom is freedom to do what you want.

No! The abuse of freedom is synonymous with the abuse of people. So soon as liberty becomes license it is no longer freedom.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: "Freedom" does not involve infringing upon someone's life, liberty or property. The only way freedom is possible in modern times is to either abolish the state or force the state to a nightwatchman status.

Property deserves no protection as liberty. Productive property is the result of infringement on liberty. Would you protect the bank robber with his loot? Great wealth has destroyed every society which has experienced it because it conceals great poverty. General and equal poverty has not once destroyed a society; but many a wealthy society has rolled over the poor abroad as they do at home. People should have as much property as they can defend, and as much as their respect as human beings will bear. When great wealth comes at the expense of a society it is a plague. When wealth in property becomes a fortress for wealth, that protects it from the predations of inflation that every income in money must endure it is treason. Protect freedom, and respect people, and none shall fear to leave their homes or businesses unprotected. Protection of property endangers all without property, and creates classes of criminal on the extremes of society, poor and rich.

djolibertas · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 185

Fido wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: "Freedom" does not involve infringing upon someone's life, liberty or property. The only way freedom is possible in modern times is to either abolish the state or force the state to a nightwatchman status.

Property deserves no protection as liberty. Productive property is the result of infringement on liberty. Would you protect the bank robber with his loot? Great wealth has destroyed every society which has experienced it because it conceals great poverty. General and equal poverty has not once destroyed a society; but many a wealthy society has rolled over the poor abroad as they do at home. People should have as much property as they can defend, and as much as their respect as human beings will bear. When great wealth comes at the expense of a society it is a plague. When wealth in property becomes a fortress for wealth, that protects it from the predations of inflation that every income in money must endure it is treason. Protect freedom, and respect people, and none shall fear to leave their homes or businesses unprotected. Protection of property endangers all without property, and creates classes of criminal on the extremes of society, poor and rich.

Please explain how "productive property is the result of infringement on liberty". Are you arguing from the labor theory of value, or in some other way?

In our society there are certainly disparities between the wealthy and the poor, however the poor in our society are better off than most people in the world. Poverty is always assessed relative to others in society, and as a result people condemn capitalism for its neglect of the poor, even when the poor would be judged as rich by the standards of other cultures or states. This isn't to make excuses for the extremely wealthy, but rather to point out that capitalism does benefit all members of society to some degree, if not to the same degree.

When you say: "General and equal poverty has not once destroyed a society; but many a wealthy society has rolled over the poor abroad as they do at home." Are you proposing that everything would be better if everyone was equally poor? In much of Africa, the majority of the population lives in roughly equal poverty, and their societies have been effectively destroyed for decades. Although the situation in Africa is due in a number of ways to the predations of Western countries, the general point still seems to apply, that equality is not a worthy goal if it requires miring everyone in poverty. I think I'm misunderstanding your point.

I do definitely agree with you when you say "People should have as much property as they can defend, and as much as their respect as human beings will bear." Although the job of defending property is made much easier by the existence of the state, I think you mean as much as they can personally defend. I think things would be much different without a government to prop up the rich.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

djolibertas wrote: Fido wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: "Freedom" does not involve infringing upon someone's life, liberty or property. The only way freedom is possible in modern times is to either abolish the state or force the state to a nightwatchman status.

Property deserves no protection as liberty. Productive property is the result of infringement on liberty. Would you protect the bank robber with his loot? Great wealth has destroyed every society which has experienced it because it conceals great poverty. General and equal poverty has not once destroyed a society; but many a wealthy society has rolled over the poor abroad as they do at home. People should have as much property as they can defend, and as much as their respect as human beings will bear. When great wealth comes at the expense of a society it is a plague. When wealth in property becomes a fortress for wealth, that protects it from the predations of inflation that every income in money must endure it is treason. Protect freedom, and respect people, and none shall fear to leave their homes or businesses unprotected. Protection of property endangers all without property, and creates classes of criminal on the extremes of society, poor and rich.

Please explain how "productive property is the result of infringement on liberty". Are you arguing from the labor theory of value, or in some other way?

In our society there are certainly disparities between the wealthy and the poor, however the poor in our society are better off than most people in the world. Poverty is always assessed relative to others in society, and as a result people condemn capitalism for its neglect of the poor, even when the poor would be judged as rich by the standards of other cultures or states. This isn't to make excuses for the extremely wealthy, but rather to point out that capitalism does benefit all members of society to some degree, if not to the same degree.

When you say: "General and equal poverty has not once destroyed a society; but many a wealthy society has rolled over the poor abroad as they do at home." Are you proposing that everything would be better if everyone was equally poor? In much of Africa, the majority of the population lives in roughly equal poverty, and their societies have been effectively destroyed for decades. Although the situation in Africa is due in a number of ways to the predations of Western countries, the general point still seems to apply, that equality is not a worthy goal if it requires miring everyone in poverty. I think I'm misunderstanding your point.

I do definitely agree with you when you say "People should have as much property as they can defend, and as much as their respect as human beings will bear." Although the job of defending property is made much easier by the existence of the state, I think you mean as much as they can personally defend. I think things would be much different without a government to prop up the rich.

I will always be happy to argue from the labor theory of value, recognizing that it was an old idea before Marx got a hold of it. What I am trying to argue is a systemic view of rights. In any system the total quantity does not increase only because the proportion in one place or another increases. If you cuff your wrist so blood that is pumped in at high pressure does not have the pressure to leave the hand, that does not add more to blood to the circulatory system. It is said of power as a zero net gain. Every country is a system where every quality such as rights or money or wealth or justice may be considered as a fixed quantity. Now, you can see the flaws in this because every country is to some extent dependent upon international markets, but to a great extent the wealth of a country is a fixed quantity, and as Michael De Montaigne has said: The profit of one man is the loss of another.
Yet in a great land with many resources, the land gives up her wealth to the people, and the people share their wealth to some extent so that for a long time a people may bear great exploitation and a gradual shift of wealth and property into a very few hands without serious injury. The problems that wealth causes to a society are chronic and cumulative. A study of history will show that the problems this society is facing are nothing new to the world, nor are the solutions, many of which have not worked int he past, new or particularly creative.
I think you are right that wealth in property would collapse without the support of government. Today much of police effort goes into the protection of great estates, but there are more private police than public police in a land where the poor are the predominant victims of crime. What was said of slavery is true as well for productive property, that without the active intervention of government it would fade away. Property should support the protections it receives. Property once bore the burden of the government, and now only carries a fraction of that cost. Yet, when it come to influencing the actions of government on their own behalf you see it is not for want of money that they do not pay their share. Since property does not support the government, its value as a bank of wealth, and as a speculative value increases -driving up the costs for homeowners. While more and more people are homeless, job less, and hope less; fewer and fewer people as a percentage of the population hold greater and greater wealth.
I ask you: Is it not the job of every person in the common wealth to defend the common territory of the nation? For what opportunity are we asking young men to kill and die in a distant land? Are they not there on the speculations and avarice of a class of people beyond the control of the nation, of a class in control of the nation? Where does the great power these people demonstrate come from in a land where the people are sovereign? If they have greater wealth is it not from the many having less wealth? If they have greater rights through the possession of property is it not because those with no property have less rights? We cannot escape from the fact that we are living in a closed system that is becoming bloated with the rich on one end and bloated with the poor on the other while the paths of social mobility are become limed up like an old piece of plumbing. Social systems that were once dominating and invasive find in time that they are invaded or cave under the weight of their inequalities and injustices. People know whether they have a cause to defend. Today the poor are mercenaries to the rich. This situation will end. Either it will be controlled and peaceful from within, or devastating and deadly from without.

djolibertas · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 185

While I agree with you that the wealthy use government as a tool to further enrich themselves, and that this is a situation that should be rectified, I disagree that accumulation of wealth by some necessarily means that others will suffer.

Wage rates are determined not by corporations, but by the supply of and demand for labor in the market. Because of this, one cannot claim that the greed of CEOs or other wealthy corporate officials results in lower wages, since wages are determined by market factors rather than the amount of available resources that a company has. (If the wealthy took pay cuts and companies had available funds, they would invest those funds in furtherance of the company's goals, rather than elevating wages above what is determined by the market.) An argument can be made that corporations will be unable to hire as many workers due to wasteful compensation of managers, CEOs, etc, however the company will suffer naturally from this because they will be less efficient and less capable of meeting the demands of consumers as a result.
More on this and other aspects of the labor market here: http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap21sec9.asp

Also, some people becoming more wealthy does not make others poorer, since wealth is not a fixed quantity and economics is not a zero-sum "game". When people invest labor and capital in the process of turning raw resources into usable items, this creates value since a previously valueless or low-value item (the raw resource) acquires value. In this way, the workers who invest labor and the capitalist who invests capital (that pays for machines, facilities, and the raw resources) both benefit. The fact that they capitalist benefits more than the laborer reflects the fact that the capitalist is investing more and risking more than the laborer, who is only investing his time and energy.
More on this here: http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/part3_ch25.aspx under "The Formation of Fortunes Within the Market Economy"

Also, you might find this critique of the labor theory of value interesting: http://www.mises.org/story/1680

If you disagree with any of these economic ideas, let me know and I'll see if I can make things more clear or if we can try to address the root of our disagreement.

This said, I do agree that capitalism can and does have a number of detrimental effects on society, as it encourages shallow materialism and encourages endless greed and unhappiness with what one has. I also believe that this at least partially explains why so many non-wealthy Americans are so unhappy with their situation and so hostile towards the wealthy, even though they are better off than most people in the world. It is because capitalist systems constantly reinforce the idea that you must always have more, more, more of everything, instead of recognizing that what you have is more than sufficient. This is not to belittle the plight of those who are legitimately suffering in poverty, but it might explain why so many middle-class Americans lean towards the labor theory of value, exploitation theories, and other critiques of capitalism out of resentment for those more wealthy than them.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:24 am Post subject:

I think people have first to realise, that 'freedom' and 'liberty' are far too ambigious, and that in essence very few of the liberties that we have today in modern society as buzzwords, can in essence be justified proparly.

In essence there are 3 foundational liberties, conveyed simply by existance, as to be put shortly, the existance of each being is justified in so far as his actions do not directly and physically harm the existance of other beings, as no rational being can logically be given presidence over the others, thus in simple existance we are all equal.

Freedom of Concious
Freedom of ownership
Freedom of existance.

From these we can then derive ligunistic precepts that better first our society, such as freedom of relgious, or speech. However there are many that we would hold as freedoms as mentioned earlier such as freedom to have education, that quite simply are little more than emotional constructs.