Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the problem. Most conservatives (by your admission) thinks of freedom as having the right to do whatever they want to do. Sorry, that's not how freedom works.
"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought."
Pope John Paul II
Liberals think freedom is free from consequences?? Which right-wing think tank said this?
.
Well first, I'm not right or left wing, or anywhere on the political spectrum at all. Second, I completely disagree with the Pope on that one. That's propoganda if I've ever heard it. "You're free if you do as you're supposed to do"....its like the complete opposite of freedom in my mind. I'd agree that there are things people SHOULD do..like treat others as you want to be treated, help your fellow man, be civil and refrain from resorting to violence, etc. etc. but that doesn't mean that you're free if other people are coercing you into doing them. I don't see how that even makes sense actually.
"Liberals think freedom is free from consequences?? Which right-wing think tank said this?"
None. I actually started thinking about that concept more after hearing Stefan Molyneux (an anarchist) talking about it a bit. He was saying that liberty is having the freedom to pursue your happiness. Maybe you'll achieve it, maybe you won't. He went on to talk about how people who haven't made big mistakes in their life or are ok with accepting the consequences of their actions are usually clear on liberty, and people who have made bad decisions and/or don't want to accept the consequences of their actions often try to redefine liberty.
So...I was saying that conservatives tend to agree with what he said, and liberals are a bit more mixed. Liberals tend to favor government programs as a safety net in case people make mistakes (which allows people to escape the consequences of their actions by accepting money from the government, which was taken by force from citizens who had nothing to do with the issue).
I still don't understand that quote. He says that it's a human right to do what we're supposed to do...like, "it's my natural human right to be obligated to (insert action)"...how does that make any sense? And how does freedom fit into that at all? Being free, by definition, is not being imprisoned, enslaved, coerced, governed, etc.
When questions about just what Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are it is really difficult to answer them with out having to write a large book. Jame Burke of the BBC tried to answer this question in a 1985 series called "The Day the Universe Changed.". He believed that the Modern world emerged as a result of a series of key paradym changes. If anyone of these changes which literally changed how we viewed everything had failed to happen todays Western World simply wouldn't be here and what would be here would be very diferent if not even recognizable.
Two parts of this series pertain to our modern western economics and political economy, they are "Credit Where i's Due" which covers the creation of what Adam Smith would call capitalism, for it covers the revolution in thought that created the bank, the limited liability company (corporation), insurance and the whole idea of credit. These all lead to the first real revolution in society since the discovery of agriculture and civilization thousands of years earlir called the industrial revolution and also spawned the age of European empires and mercantilism. Adam Smith in his work the The Wealth of Nations" brought in the idea of the market to find proper price and wage points, free market compettition and the idea of accumulation of Capital as an indicator of sucess and efficient market operation .
In the 19th Century another paradym change occured (Fit to Rule) and that was Darwin's Theory of Evolution and its introduction of competition to determine the course of evolution through the Survial of the Fittest. Implicit in Darwin's Theory was the idea that had emerged from physical sciences like thermodynamics that physical systems have a time arrow and evolve to become more complex over time. Life showed this by going from simple to complex organisms and thermal systems always evolved from lower to larger states of entropy (which in statistical mechanics we connect to an increase in in information content) .
The Theory of Evolution is not just a science topic and people almost immediately began to try to apply it to society as a whole and to things like economic, social sciences and politics. They tried to use Darwinism to explain the struggle of nations for power and wealth. Those that were more sucessful were the fitest and those that lost were the weaker. Americans with their frontier philosophy and love of competition took Darwin's theory as scientific backing for their way of thinking to the point of calling for the prohibition of welfare because it weakened the nation and prevented the culling of the weak from the herd.
Others took Darwinism to show that civilization had evolved from isolated individuals to every larger groups where sharing and cooperation emerged and lead to cities then civilizations. They believed that collective group action would yield further advancement for humanity these people are the founders of Socialism and Marx who believed that the endpoint of upward arrow of human progress would result in a World so wealthy that scarcity would no longer exist because every possible human need would be fulfillable by technonolgy so advanced that we may not imagine it today. When this utopia comes their would be no need for markets, property since any need can be met instantly , capital or any bosses at all. This is Communism not the Dictatorship created by Lenin, Stalin or Mao. Property is not taken away because when you can have any need met (Think Star Trek Replicators and the Holodeck) the whole idea of property may have no meaning. You never saw James T Kirk or Jean Luc Piccard every carry a walet or pay a bar tab.
Socialists believe in the idea of progress and that government can be used to guide and accelrate progress to make society wealthier, more equal and more technically advanced. Socialists invented things like modern policing, fire and ambulance services, social security modern medicine and the community hospital, universal healthcare, conservation of natural treasures and resources, the modern mass army and the idea of conscription, the idea of collective businesses and enterpises like rural electric cooperatives to bring electric power or telphones to rural area not served by businesses because it was to costly, the idea of public roads and improving roads by paving them public education and the modern technical University and representative government.
Socialists believed that a modern economy could be controled and managed by making public the ownership of the commanding heights of industry. In such mixed economies like one sees in Europe or Japan key sectors like utlities, transport, industries like steel, chemicals, petroluem may be state companies (For example in Norway the OIl and gas industry is owned by a State business called Statoil, in France the electric power is generated by Electricite de France and in Japan the rails are a company called JNR (Japan National Railroad and TV and radio by NHK a public company). Industries not considered crucial to state control of the economy like beauty parlors or retail stores are all privately owned.
It does. As a general rule liberals think because they want people to have as much sex as they want with whoever they want with no consequences that this somehow makes them champions of freedom. But that's not the be-all and end-all of freedom, and in nearly every other area of life liberals oppose freedom. They oppose letting people keep the money they earn. They oppose letting business hire and promote who they want. They oppose letting people choose to own firearms. They oppose letting people who don't want to pay for birth control or abortion refrain from paying for it. They oppose letting people make their own healthcare choices. They oppose allowing diversity of thought on college campuses.
The liberal support for freedom is a smokescreen. Liberals support only freedoms which coincide with their own ideology. When it comes to giving freedom to people who don't act or think like the liberals themselves do, then their support for freedom evaporates.
There is a saying "I don't like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That is real support for freedom. Liberals do not have that. Supporting homosexual marriage is a joke. Real freedom is supporting people doing things you hate. That's the real test of whether you support freedom. Liberals fail that test.
Hmm.... at least one person would have disagreed with your interpretation of freedom.
"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought."
Pope John Paul II
But hey, the Pope was a liberal, right? So what does he know?
What conservatives don't understand is that just because we liberals will defend your right to say anything, that doesn't mean we will also defend the crazy things that come out of your mouth. Freedom of speech extend only as far as allowing you to express your opinion, it's up to you to defend that opinion. Our freedom includes the right to challenge your stupid ideas.
Capitalism is where you do your thing. if it works out, great, if it doesnt then rule number 2 applies (If your gonna be stupid you better be tuff)
socialism is where you do your thing, but someone comes and makes you give up a big chunk of what you get for doing what you do to give to the guy who was stupid.
communisim is nobody gets to do their thing, except the pigs in charge of the barnyard. nobody gets nuthen for whatever they are forced to do, then all the proceeds go to the pigs and you get killed for not doing enough of what you dont want to do.
I still don't understand that quote. He says that it's a human right to do what we're supposed to do...like, "it's my natural human right to be obligated to (insert action)"...how does that make any sense? And how does freedom fit into that at all? Being free, by definition, is not being imprisoned, enslaved, coerced, governed, etc.
If you don't understand the Pope's quote then I'm afraid you also do not know how a sizable liberals by and large view freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Being free, by definition, is not being imprisoned, enslaved, coerced, governed, etc.
Being free doesn't mean you are not being governed. Freedom is bounded by truth (according to John Paul II). Once a person veered away from the truth, that person is no longer exercising freedom. The truth can take many forms, it can be a law, it can be a moral code, etc. But his point is that freedom is NOT having the absolute right to go wild, but instead is bounded by the truth that in turns guide that freedom.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
