Political Crossfire Forums

[RueTheDay]

There is much talk, on this forum and elsewhere, of rights and liberty. Unfortunately, few people seem to have thought these concepts through and therefore, the terms are used in logically inconsistent and often contradictory ways. This post is an attempt to provide some clarification by clearly defining the terms, their relationships among one another, and their logical implications.

Liberty, in the political sense, is a type of freedom. Therefore, we will start with a definition of freedom. I personally favor the definition of freedom expressed by Gerald MacCallum in 1967: Freedom is a triadic relationship between an agent X, an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z. IMO, this is the most general and logical description of freedom. It allows you to clearly state _who_ is free, _from_ what_ they are free, and what they are free to _do/become_. In this model, distinctions between positive and negative freedom just become
different "Y"s.

With the aforementioned definition of freedom in mind, I will move on to definitions of rights, duties, and finally liberty. This analysis is based in large part upon the writings of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. A right is a claim held by an agent or group of agents against another agent or group of agents. A duty is an obligation on the part of an agent or group of agents to do/not do something. For every right, there is a correlated duty. This simply means that if A has a right against B, that B has a duty to honor A's right. Without such a duty, B has no obligation to perform or refrain from performing any action related to A's claim, and therefore there is no basis for A's right. In most matters of political philosophy, A will be an individual agent, and B will be taken to mean all other agents apart from A. Given the above relationship between rights and duties, a liberty can be expressed as the absence of a right and its correlated duty. If A has no right to X against B, then B has no duty to A related to X. B is then said to have a liberty with regard to X. He can choose to do or not do X without an obligation to respect a right possessed by A.

I will now synthesize Hohfeld's conception of rights, duties, and liberties with MacCallum's abstract definition of freedom to arrive at a definition of political liberty. Political liberty is the relationship between an agent X, the set of all other agents X', an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z and Y is the duty to respect a right on the part of a member of X' against X with regard to Z.

One logical consequence of this analysis is that the concept of a "right to liberty" is incoherent. Liberty is not right; rather, liberties are a class of entity on the same level as rights. Thus, an action can be prohibited on the grounds that it is either a violation of a right or a violation of a liberty.

Another logical consequence is that any question regarding the origin or justification of a right on the part of A against B can be equivalently reformulated into a question of the origin or justification of a duty on the part of B with regard to A. Likewise, any question regarding the origin or justification of a liberty can be equivalently reformulated into a question of the absence of a right or its correlated duty.

[Fido]

I think you are being too complex with a simple subject. Liberty and freedom are the same things, and democracy is the political expression of liberty. Rights are those powers necessary to defend and preserve ones liberties, and not so much power as to infringe upon the liberty of others. Liberty is then deeply concerned with justice and equity, so that ultimately life itself -the ideal expression of which is happiness- may be preserved, and shared with the greatest number over the greatest period of time.
If I tell you -you must fight for freedom- when you must know that freedom is life and violence is the greatest threat to life, then you might well call me a liar. If you must defend your life with violence then you must know you are defending your freedom with the same stroke. But if you seek justice and equity you are defending both peace and liberty with the same move, and neutralizing the need for violence before it becomes manifest.

[XxMorningStarxX]

Fido wrote: I think you are being too complex with a simple subject. Liberty and freedom are the same things, and democracy is the political expression of liberty. Rights are those powers necessary to defend and preserve ones liberties, and not so much power as to infringe upon the liberty of others. Liberty is then deeply concerned with justice and equity, so that ultimately life itself -the ideal expression of which is happiness- may be preserved, and shared with the greatest number over the greatest period of time.
If I tell you -you must fight for freedom- when you must know that freedom is life and violence is the greatest threat to life, then you might well call me a liar. If you must defend your life with violence then you must know you are defending your freedom with the same stroke. But if you seek justice and equity you are defending both peace and liberty with the same move, and neutralizing the need for violence before it becomes manifest.

ditto

[RueTheDay]

Fido wrote: I think you are being too complex with a simple subject.

On the contrary, I see people on here all the time using the terms rights and liberties interchangeably and also talking about the right to liberty. Oversimplifying things creates confusion rather than eliminating it.

Quote:
Liberty and freedom are the same things,

Not really. Liberty is a type of freedom; freedom is a much broader concept that applies far outside the political realm.

Quote:
and democracy is the political expression of liberty.

Explain that one please. It almost sounds like you are using the ancient Greek conception of rights being nothing more than the right to participate in government.

Quote: Rights are those powers necessary to defend and preserve ones liberties, and not so much power as to infringe upon the liberty of others. Liberty is then deeply concerned with justice and equity, so that ultimately life itself -the ideal expression of which is happiness- may be preserved, and shared with the greatest number over the greatest period of time.

IMO, your definition of lights and liberties is inadequate for actually analyzing situations that occur in real life. Also, by throwing in "justice", "equity", "happiness" as the primary value, and the "greatest good" concept, you are merely confusing the issue.

Quote:
If I tell you -you must fight for freedom- when you must know that freedom is life and violence is the greatest threat to life, then you might well call me a liar. If you must defend your life with violence then you must know you are defending your freedom with the same stroke. But if you seek justice and equity you are defending both peace and liberty with the same move, and neutralizing the need for violence before it becomes manifest.

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense whatsoever.

[Fido]

Quote: RueTheDay wrote: Fido wrote: I think you are being too complex with a simple subject.

On the contrary, I see people on here all the time using the terms rights and liberties interchangeably and also talking about the right to liberty. Oversimplifying things creates confusion rather than eliminating it.

Quote:
Liberty and freedom are the same things,

Not really. Liberty is a type of freedom; freedom is a much broader concept that applies far outside the political realm.

Now, now. If I look up liberty, its synonym is freedom. If I look up liberate, its synonym is emancipate, which is a political state that in no less a place than Rome, not otherwise noted for it generosity, gave one status as a citizen. Libertas comes from the latin Liber, meaning free, coming from the latin word for children Liberi literally: the free.; while Free comes to us from Anglo Saxon -freo, not in bondage, which comes from the much older sanskrit priya meaning dear in the original sense, but in later German meaning -to woo, -Frien. This is where we get the word friend, and also the name of the Franks, who thought themselves Free. But you must notice the sense also that to woo might result in children, and the sense of things dear.

Quote: Quote:
and democracy is the political expression of liberty.

Explain that one please. It almost sounds like you are using the ancient Greek conception of rights being nothing more than the right to participate in government.

Democracy is hardly possible without freedom, and if a person is not free to come and go as he or she feels fit, their democracy is a sham. But, just as people can be free as individuals, taking care of their own affairs, and making deals as they see fit they might also form organizations for the achievement of some purpose or to defend their freedom. Only in defense does democracy come into its own because in a democracy each man is a general commanding himself, and supporting his peers.


Quote: Quote: Rights are those powers necessary to defend and preserve ones liberties, and not so much power as to infringe upon the liberty of others. Liberty is then deeply concerned with justice and equity, so that ultimately life itself -the ideal expression of which is happiness- may be preserved, and shared with the greatest number over the greatest period of time.

IMO, your definition of lights and liberties is inadequate for actually analyzing situations that occur in real life. Also, by throwing in "justice", "equity", "happiness" as the primary value, and the "greatest good" concept, you are merely confusing the issue.
Quote:

Liberty and freedom are not just political concepts but social, coming as they do from words signifying dear ones, friends, and children. Societies age and die because they lose this sense of family, unity, and same-ness, and divide into classes which hate or exploit each other until fatally weakened they cannot resist invasion or revolution. Freedom is an ideal state of happiness.

Look once more at the word, which is synonymous with law in some places. I think what you are coming up against is the blatant misuse of the word right so as to distort and make the word essentially meaningless. We speak of civil rights and property rights, but why? If property rights were a simple right it would need no qualifier. If civil rights were not meant to be qualified it would not be. If we look at rights the way they were known in tribal time and as they are known today in places like Iraq, ones rights were qualified by ones native group, and the rights one had were in relation to rights had by other groups. If you look at societies like India that are many layered with castes, what you are seeing are groups having joined society by making a peace after invasion and each group agreeing to rights in respect to the others without any acceptance of exacting equality. What each of these tribal rights has in common with our civil rights is that they result from ones origin like a genetic inheritance. Property rights are different in resulting from what one owns. In conflict with civil rights they are not rights at all in my estimation, but the cause of your confusion. Since property relations have destroyed many societies against the efforts of civil rights, and have evolved often over time while civil rights have remained essentially stable, I have to conclude that rights are not only the result of ones life but for the defense of ones life. Rights are essential powers defensive in nature.

Quote: If I tell you -you must fight for freedom- when you must know that freedom is life and violence is the greatest threat to life, then you might well call me a liar. If you must defend your life with violence then you must know you are defending your freedom with the same stroke. But if you seek justice and equity you are defending both peace and liberty with the same move, and neutralizing the need for violence before it becomes manifest.

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense whatsoever.

If this makes no sense then consider the Iroquois confederacy. They often went to war, but never without due consideration that like all their consideration was charged with looking at consequences seven generations into the future. Do you believe our President considered seven minutes ahead before going to war after he was given the power to do so by a congress barely representative of the people? People should defend their freedom if they should defend anything they do not use. Yet the enemies of freedom are more numerous at home than abroad, and the threats more persistent here than elsewhere. If we can not defend our individual freedoms it is pointless to travel halfway around the world to fight a people still in possession of theirs. You might tell me those people are not free, and then you must explain how all those people with all those guns could be less than free. Bearing arms was once an obligation of citizenship in the free cities of Europe, and if it has become an endangered right it is because our army of mercenaries and our anti democratic government thinks better of a disarmed population. If this were a democracy we would not easily go to war on a whim. In fact we would do nothing a dire emergency did not makes necessary without due consideration and consensus.

[Katsumoto]

RueTheDay wrote: There is much talk, on this forum and elsewhere, of rights and liberty. Unfortunately, few people seem to have thought these concepts through and therefore, the terms are used in logically inconsistent and often contradictory ways. This post is an attempt to provide some clarification by clearly defining the terms, their relationships among one another, and their logical implications.

Liberty, in the political sense, is a type of freedom. Therefore, we will start with a definition of freedom. I personally favor the definition of freedom expressed by Gerald MacCallum in 1967: Freedom is a triadic relationship between an agent X, an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z. IMO, this is the most general and logical description of freedom. It allows you to clearly state _who_ is free, _from_ what_ they are free, and what they are free to _do/become_. In this model, distinctions between positive and negative freedom just become
different "Y"s.

With the aforementioned definition of freedom in mind, I will move on to definitions of rights, duties, and finally liberty. This analysis is based in large part upon the writings of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. A right is a claim held by an agent or group of agents against another agent or group of agents. A duty is an obligation on the part of an agent or group of agents to do/not do something. For every right, there is a correlated duty. This simply means that if A has a right against B, that B has a duty to honor A's right. Without such a duty, B has no obligation to perform or refrain from performing any action related to A's claim, and therefore there is no basis for A's right. In most matters of political philosophy, A will be an individual agent, and B will be taken to mean all other agents apart from A. Given the above relationship between rights and duties, a liberty can be expressed as the absence of a right and its correlated duty. If A has no right to X against B, then B has no duty to A related to X. B is then said to have a liberty with regard to X. He can choose to do or not do X without an obligation to respect a right possessed by A.

I will now synthesize Hohfeld's conception of rights, duties, and liberties with MacCallum's abstract definition of freedom to arrive at a definition of political liberty. Political liberty is the relationship between an agent X, the set of all other agents X', an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z and Y is the duty to respect a right on the part of a member of X' against X with regard to Z.

One logical consequence of this analysis is that the concept of a "right to liberty" is incoherent. Liberty is not right; rather, liberties are a class of entity on the same level as rights. Thus, an action can be prohibited on the grounds that it is either a violation of a right or a violation of a liberty.

Another logical consequence is that any question regarding the origin or justification of a right on the part of A against B can be equivalently reformulated into a question of the origin or justification of a duty on the part of B with regard to A. Likewise, any question regarding the origin or justification of a liberty can be equivalently reformulated into a question of the absence of a right or its correlated duty.

Nicely done. :clap:

But can we use that to determine what is justly a right/liberty and what is not?

[Atlas Bergeron]

Quote: There is much talk, on this forum and elsewhere, of rights and liberty. Unfortunately, few people seem to have thought these concepts through and therefore, the terms are used in logically inconsistent and often contradictory ways. This post is an attempt to provide some clarification by clearly defining the terms, their relationships among one another, and their logical implications.
this is a good idea

Quote: Liberty, in the political sense, is a type of freedom. Therefore, we will start with a definition of freedom. I personally favor the definition of freedom expressed by Gerald MacCallum in 1967: Freedom is a triadic relationship between an agent X, an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z. IMO, this is the most general and logical description of freedom.
This makes sense. The only confusion I have is: some of the variables seem to be able to represent collectives, while others do not. Y could concieably mean "this man" or it could mean "this group", where as Z is always a singular state (although, I can see how it could be a singular concept such as "happieness" but still implying all things which come with such a concept such as being well fed, living comftorably, etc. etc.). If this is true, such definitions must be given in teh context.

Also, To me, from first glance, it appears that X must always be an individual, although I would like to know your response to that along with a potentiol counterexample.

Quote: It allows you to clearly state _who_ is free, _from_ what_ they are free, and what they are free to _do/become_. In this model, distinctions between positive and negative freedom just become
different "Y"s.
is there a better way to state this? What do the underscores mean?

Quote: With the aforementioned definition of freedom in mind, I will move on to definitions of rights, duties, and finally liberty. This analysis is based in large part upon the writings of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. A right is a claim held by an agent or group of agents against another agent or group of agents. A duty is an obligation on the part of an agent or group of agents to do/not do something. For every right, there is a correlated duty. This simply means that if A has a right against B, that B has a duty to honor A's right. Without such a duty, B has no obligation to perform or refrain from performing any action related to A's claim, and therefore there is no basis for A's right.
this all seems good.

Quote: In most matters of political philosophy, A will be an individual agent, and B will be taken to mean all other agents apart from A. Given the above relationship between rights and duties, a liberty can be expressed as the absence of a right and its correlated duty. If A has no right to X against B, then B has no duty to A related to X. B is then said to have a liberty with regard to X. He can choose to do or not do X without an obligation to respect a right possessed by A.


Now this is an interesting distinction of liberty, and I find it overly confusing seeing that I have always used them interchangably. What is an example of an action which is "an absence of a right and its correlated duty?" Speech is the only thing I can think of that comes close. Would you say we have the liberty to speech instead of the right?

Quote: I will now synthesize Hohfeld's conception of rights, duties, and liberties with MacCallum's abstract definition of freedom to arrive at a definition of political liberty. Political liberty is the relationship between an agent X, the set of all other agents X', an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z and Y is the duty to respect a right on the part of a member of X' against X with regard to Z.
This however, makes sense. I do not see your distinction between liberty and rights within this section here however.

Quote: One logical consequence of this analysis is that the concept of a "right to liberty" is incoherent. Liberty is not right; rather, liberties are a class of entity on the same level as rights. Thus, an action can be prohibited on the grounds that it is either a violation of a right or a violation of a liberty.
i might be able to respond once I know your distinction.

Overall, I think this was a very excelent post :clap:

[bob.appleyard]

Fido wrote: This is where we get the word friend, and also the name of the Franks, who thought themselves Free.

It has been suggested that Frank meant "fierce." Can't remember the etymological justification for this, but, well, it fits.

[RueTheDay]

Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: There is much talk, on this forum and elsewhere, of rights and liberty. Unfortunately, few people seem to have thought these concepts through and therefore, the terms are used in logically inconsistent and often contradictory ways. This post is an attempt to provide some clarification by clearly defining the terms, their relationships among one another, and their logical implications.

Liberty, in the political sense, is a type of freedom. Therefore, we will start with a definition of freedom. I personally favor the definition of freedom expressed by Gerald MacCallum in 1967: Freedom is a triadic relationship between an agent X, an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z. IMO, this is the most general and logical description of freedom. It allows you to clearly state _who_ is free, _from_ what_ they are free, and what they are free to _do/become_. In this model, distinctions between positive and negative freedom just become
different "Y"s.

With the aforementioned definition of freedom in mind, I will move on to definitions of rights, duties, and finally liberty. This analysis is based in large part upon the writings of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. A right is a claim held by an agent or group of agents against another agent or group of agents. A duty is an obligation on the part of an agent or group of agents to do/not do something. For every right, there is a correlated duty. This simply means that if A has a right against B, that B has a duty to honor A's right. Without such a duty, B has no obligation to perform or refrain from performing any action related to A's claim, and therefore there is no basis for A's right. In most matters of political philosophy, A will be an individual agent, and B will be taken to mean all other agents apart from A. Given the above relationship between rights and duties, a liberty can be expressed as the absence of a right and its correlated duty. If A has no right to X against B, then B has no duty to A related to X. B is then said to have a liberty with regard to X. He can choose to do or not do X without an obligation to respect a right possessed by A.

I will now synthesize Hohfeld's conception of rights, duties, and liberties with MacCallum's abstract definition of freedom to arrive at a definition of political liberty. Political liberty is the relationship between an agent X, the set of all other agents X', an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z and Y is the duty to respect a right on the part of a member of X' against X with regard to Z.

One logical consequence of this analysis is that the concept of a "right to liberty" is incoherent. Liberty is not right; rather, liberties are a class of entity on the same level as rights. Thus, an action can be prohibited on the grounds that it is either a violation of a right or a violation of a liberty.

Another logical consequence is that any question regarding the origin or justification of a right on the part of A against B can be equivalently reformulated into a question of the origin or justification of a duty on the part of B with regard to A. Likewise, any question regarding the origin or justification of a liberty can be equivalently reformulated into a question of the absence of a right or its correlated duty.

Nicely done. :clap:

But can we use that to determine what is justly a right/liberty and what is not?

We sure can. But first we must define what "justice" means.

[thefranzkafkafront]

You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Im still reading this i'll add more as i do.

[Fido]

bob.appleyard wrote: Fido wrote: This is where we get the word friend, and also the name of the Franks, who thought themselves Free.

It has been suggested that Frank meant "fierce." Can't remember the etymological justification for this, but, well, it fits.

Speaking frankly, the Franks were the Free,

[Fido]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Im still reading this i'll add more as i do.

Freedom is a form of a relationship, that is, a form in the traditional sense that we relate through and about. It has that contractual quality because for the relationship to seem positive there must be some agreement, and some honor in living up to the agreement. You cannot imagine a person alone, like the last person on earth, as being free because the form has no meaning exept as a standard of a relationship just as no person can contract with themselves.

[Katsumoto]

RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote:
Nicely done. :clap:

But can we use that to determine what is justly a right/liberty and what is not?

We sure can. But first we must define what "justice" means.


Justice = Moral Action, or the application of moral action to rectify immoral action.

So what is moral action?

Moral action is the set of preferred human behaviors.

[Fido]

Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote:
Nicely done. :clap:

But can we use that to determine what is justly a right/liberty and what is not?

We sure can. But first we must define what "justice" means.


Justice = Moral Action, or the application of moral action to rectify immoral action.

So what is moral action?

Moral action is the set of preferred human behaviors.

Is that to say Justice is the active form of morality? Since morality is often a quality carried by culture, and as such is presumed rather than reasoned; what about the man on the spot. If you consider Justice as giving each his due, how do you find a fair judge where there are only plaintive and defendant in the room? For Western society Justice is ranked after peace, and in some societies peace follows Justice and Honor. I have an opinion that in such places there is always a deficit of justice and honor, and yet people still find cause for peace. I vote for the simple explanation that Justice is democracy in action, because if the people involved in any dispute are not free to decide on the issue and settle it for themselves they will fair no better in a court house. Justice will be what people decide is justice if they are left free to decide. This is no invitation to violence. Violence should always be discouraged, though never prohibited completely. And everyone should have the right to appeal to the people for justice if it is not forthcoming from ones neighbors and associates. But to put it fairly, Justice is a facet of every relationship worth the name, and that should be its home.

[RueTheDay]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Quote: There is much talk, on this forum and elsewhere, of rights and liberty. Unfortunately, few people seem to have thought these concepts through and therefore, the terms are used in logically inconsistent and often contradictory ways. This post is an attempt to provide some clarification by clearly defining the terms, their relationships among one another, and their logical implications.
this is a good idea

Quote: Liberty, in the political sense, is a type of freedom. Therefore, we will start with a definition of freedom. I personally favor the definition of freedom expressed by Gerald MacCallum in 1967: Freedom is a triadic relationship between an agent X, an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z. IMO, this is the most general and logical description of freedom.
This makes sense. The only confusion I have is: some of the variables seem to be able to represent collectives, while others do not. Y could concieably mean "this man" or it could mean "this group", where as Z is always a singular state (although, I can see how it could be a singular concept such as "happieness" but still implying all things which come with such a concept such as being well fed, living comftorably, etc. etc.). If this is true, such definitions must be given in teh context.

A "collective" is simply a group of individuals with a singular purpose. That's why I used the term "agent" to be as general as possible.

Quote:
Also, To me, from first glance, it appears that X must always be an individual, although I would like to know your response to that along with a potentiol counterexample.

X, need not always be an indivdual, it can be a group. However, for it to be a group, that would imply some degree of indivisibility, which may not be realistic.

Quote:
Quote: It allows you to clearly state _who_ is free, _from_ what_ they are free, and what they are free to _do/become_. In this model, distinctions between positive and negative freedom just become
different "Y"s.
is there a better way to state this? What do the underscores mean?

I originally posted this on sci.econ which does not support UBB code. The underscores are just used to underline the words for emphasis.

Quote:
Quote: With the aforementioned definition of freedom in mind, I will move on to definitions of rights, duties, and finally liberty. This analysis is based in large part upon the writings of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. A right is a claim held by an agent or group of agents against another agent or group of agents. A duty is an obligation on the part of an agent or group of agents to do/not do something. For every right, there is a correlated duty. This simply means that if A has a right against B, that B has a duty to honor A's right. Without such a duty, B has no obligation to perform or refrain from performing any action related to A's claim, and therefore there is no basis for A's right.
this all seems good.

Quote: In most matters of political philosophy, A will be an individual agent, and B will be taken to mean all other agents apart from A. Given the above relationship between rights and duties, a liberty can be expressed as the absence of a right and its correlated duty. If A has no right to X against B, then B has no duty to A related to X. B is then said to have a liberty with regard to X. He can choose to do or not do X without an obligation to respect a right possessed by A.


Now this is an interesting distinction of liberty, and I find it overly confusing seeing that I have always used them interchangably. What is an example of an action which is "an absence of a right and its correlated duty?" Speech is the only thing I can think of that comes close. Would you say we have the liberty to speech instead of the right?

It depends on the context in which it's framed.

Let's assume two people, A and B, and three words, X, Y, and Z.

If A has a right to speak X, then B has a duty to refrain from preventing A from speaking X. B therefore has no liberty with regard to A's speaking X, but he does have a liberty with regard to speaking Y or Z (but not necessarily a right in this case).

If B has a right to not hear A speak X, then A has a duty to not speak X. A does not have a right to speak X, but he has a liberty to speak Y or Z.

Quote:
Quote: I will now synthesize Hohfeld's conception of rights, duties, and liberties with MacCallum's abstract definition of freedom to arrive at a definition of political liberty. Political liberty is the relationship between an agent X, the set of all other agents X', an obstacle Y, and an action or state Z, where X is free from Y to do or become Z and Y is the duty to respect a right on the part of a member of X' against X with regard to Z.
This however, makes sense. I do not see your distinction between liberty and rights within this section here however.

Then re-read it. It's pretty clear.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

No, in fact I never said anything of the sort. I said that it is a RELATIONSHIP between an agent, an action or state that the agent would like to do or become, and an obstacle that prevents it. That is most certainly self-evident.

Quote:
The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Huh? Are you having trouble following along? We are simply attempting to define a set of terms in a logically consistent manner, not "justify" anything.

[RueTheDay]

Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote:
Nicely done. :clap:

But can we use that to determine what is justly a right/liberty and what is not?

We sure can. But first we must define what "justice" means.


Justice = Moral Action, or the application of moral action to rectify immoral action.

So what is moral action?

Moral action is the set of preferred human behaviors.


Oh give it a rest. I demolished that idiotic article in a prior post.

The author states:

Morality exists.
Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.
The more consistent a moral theory is, the more valid it is.
Libertarianism is the most consistent moral theory.
Therefore, libertarianism is the most valid moral theory!

And then he sets about "proving" steps 1-3. What about steps 4 and 5, why does the author skip over them? I guess he assumes that most people will fall asleep halfway through his idiotic essay and forget about them and just figure that he must have proved it in there somewhere.

You'll have to try again.

[Katsumoto]

RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote:
Nicely done. :clap:

But can we use that to determine what is justly a right/liberty and what is not?

We sure can. But first we must define what "justice" means.


Justice = Moral Action, or the application of moral action to rectify immoral action.

So what is moral action?

Moral action is the set of preferred human behaviors.


Oh give it a rest. I demolished that idiotic article in a prior post.

The author states:

Morality exists.
Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.
The more consistent a moral theory is, the more valid it is.
Libertarianism is the most consistent moral theory.
Therefore, libertarianism is the most valid moral theory!

And then he sets about "proving" steps 1-3. What about steps 4 and 5, why does the author skip over them? I guess he assumes that most people will fall asleep halfway through his idiotic essay and forget about them and just figure that he must have proved it in there somewhere.

You'll have to try again.

You are right, he did not prove the last three (which he acknowledged in the article) but he did prove the first three. So your critique, though correct, does not invalidate the article as a whole. All you have said is that he has not proved the last 2 of his five assertions yet.

[Katsumoto]

Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

[RueTheDay]

Katsumoto wrote: Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

I don't have any problem with someone asserting that an objective morality exists, I just make the observation that I haven't seen anyone state what it is in a logically coherent manner.