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.
Well, how about we use what it is defined as? You know, rather than use various subjective interpretations and the like?
Lets see, well, the first (1) seems appropriate, but it is vague. Still, I think it gets "at" the point don't you think?
The second (2) is still somewhat vague, it simply follows the point of the first, but includes additional aspects.
The third (3) seems right on track:
Freedom from control
Freedom from interference
Freedom from obligation
Freedom from restriction
Freedom from hampering
Freedom from conditions
The power of right of doing, thinking, speaking
... according to choice.
I think that one gets it perfectly, right?
So, if I violate your ability to do the above, have I not violating your liberty?
Are those the liberties outlined in the constitution and bill of rights?
Have I, controlled you without your ability to choose?
Have I, interfered with you being able to accomplish what you desired?
Have I, obligated you to anything?
Have I, restricted you from being able to do otherwise?
Have I, hampered your ability to achieve other solutions?
Have I, imposed conditions to which you have no other option?
I have not. Your ability to obtain that which you desire still exists. The only control I have is if you:
1) view my services as a right and
2) view my lack of services as an infringement.
Since neither is true, you have all the liberty to achieve that you desire. The fact I as a company may choose not to provide you what you desire is not an infringement, it is simply a lack of service within a particular selection. Welcome to consumer 101!
So, liberty is defined as another not infringing on another. Simply put.
So why did the government break up monopolies
Quote:
You are in charge of yourself. nobody is in charge of you. If anyone infringes on you, then you have a case, so... as I said, what cases of business... infringe on you?
You sure you don't just have a problem with authority?
Quote:
I feel... no I KNOW, that my obligations in terms of taxes are only to that which will benefit me, the individual as I see fit and not by any means or scheme of another. Plain and simple. You want money, you seek my approval, that means you ask me the individual and you abide by my decision So, you allow me to opt out. Otherwise, you are telling me what I will pay, you are mandating, conditioning, specifying a directive.
Nope that sounds more like anarchy. How are we supposed to govern if one individual can pick and choose what taxes (i.e. services provided) based on what benefits themselves? Sounds like madness if everyone up and decided to think like you. You sure this isn't some big excuse to be cheap and selfish?
Quote:
Ok, so I see a motive. Initially, yes, this is what believed. Simply because those that were not such were believed to be non-human. We solved such over a bit of time, those non-whites are considered human. Case closed.
Again, the concept of such is sound. The definition of such was not. So, you arguing over the aspect that women and non-whites were treated badly is not a valid argument against the concept. It is a valid argument against the "perception" of those who established such.
The concept of individual liberty for ALL still stands, no matter how much you attempt to dissuade from that fact. All deserve the same liberty as that of those "white men". Again, problem solved.
The concept stated in the constitution and bill of rights?
My motive is just showing you how the "concept" changes based on our societal norms and economy.
To the bolded part. Problem solved? That's a huge understatement. There's a pretty large gap between the abolishment of slavery and the abolishment of Jim Crow laws.
Quote:
Perhaps you should stop hiding behind the color of ones skin and start seeking that of the concept to which protects all. For if you do not, the color of your skin will not protect you from the oppressors. Be it the one who serves in the contract of the oppressor or the one who experiences the actions of the oppressor, all end up as slaves.
What does the mechanization of agriculture and industries have to do with race? Keep up here. I'm talking about productivity now and how it significantly altered our labor situation. As technology has improved it takes less humans to do the same task. How do you think that affects our society? How have our trade and labor policies been affected by that? Do you think it makes more jobs expendable? Again life is complicated and the issue of productivity through technological advances is just another reason of why we are where we are.
Quote:
And frankly, if it were a matter of letting your ignorance be the teacher of such to which you alone would suffer, I would say let it be, but... the fact is, you ignorance enslaves us all. I truly hope, you see the results of your actions. You truly deserve it.
Fine, you will do what I say, when I say, and how I say in order to best protect you from harming yourself. You don't like that? Well tough, if you want me to pay for you, you have no choice in your lifestyle. You will operate in a manner that is best determined to limit your chance of injury or ailment. Shut up, you have no choice. You wanted someone to fund you, now accept the consequences of such. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept responsibility for yourself, or you relinquish your right to the responsibility of yourself. You chose the latter, now shut the hell up and do what is advised for the best of your health slave!
If you think these systems of handout do not come with consequence, then you are an idiot... without a doubt.
And again, you can choose a system where you can decide or you can choose a system that decides for you. You chose the system that decides for you. Fine, now shut up and operate to the EXACT requirements of the system. If you are not living the UTMOST perfect diet, exercise and stress routine, you a violator of the system. We will remedy such when we gain complete control of the people. You will dance our tune or suffer the consequences, even if you are to be eliminated for the betterment of society.
But they can be bought and sold by government, and that is what we are doing. The PEOPLE have decided you are a drain on the system, you will be scheduled for extermination as you threaten the well being of society due to your drain. Sorry, but we have the "whole" of society to consider, and you are not worth it. Goodbye!
As you obviously know absolutely nothing about how a Govt. funded health system works..... Read and learn......
I think some of these "rugged individualists" should pick up a copy of Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild.
We have evolved as a community because as individuals we are almost helpless in nature.
Kind of unfortunate that you took that as a primary lesson from the movie. The movie has spawned a bit of a cult following, many websites have content dedicated to the overall premise, and many viewers actually enjoyed that film for quite different reasons, and from it they took a very different lesson than you seem to be in favor of.
While nobody can deny there are certain division of labor benefits which may be enjoyed from exchanging with others, and while nobody can deny that Nature is a harsh mistress which is not easy to tame, to either draw a normative component implying involuntary collectivism from those two isolated facts, or to ignore that division of labor can lead to extremely adverse consequences which are deleterious to the individual and society as a whole, is foolish.
Now, I don't know exactly what you 'took away' from watching the movie, but per chance, if you somehow concluded that author John Krakauer and Director Sean Penn who wrote the book and directed/produced/screenwrote the movie script respectively, was supposed to be a lesson to warn others not to live that kind of life, intended to denigrate that lifestyle and to treat it as inferior, then you may have missed the very essence of why Penn made that movie, and why Krakauer wrote the book.
Far from denigration, it was something akin to an admiration for McCandless. The book and movie simply portrayed what happens to people who are unprepared for that kind of lifestyle, and that it should not be embarked upon lightly.
The lesson to be learned from the movie and book is that people need to learn more of the basic life-sustaining skills, and to practice them more on a regular basis, so as to hone the skills, and in doing so, to get away from the division of labor society some (not rely even more heavily upon). The lesson absolutely is not to discourage people to practice them (which is exactly what you are implying, even though you feign not to put it in those terms explicitly). The lesson to be learned is not for people to have less knowledge of these skills (also what you imply, even though you don't phrase it as such, because if you did, it would become very transparent what you seem to be advocating). Nor is the lesson to be learned from that movie that people should become more dependent upon others, thus making people more vulnerable in life, not less... and making them easier to economically leverage.
I've always found it an interesting observation, and a source of pride in this group I will mention, that some people in the progressive camp could be so utterly on the same philisophical page with certain groups on 'the right,' when it comes to promoting independence rather than dependence, as a preferential lifestyle when it comes to promoting the teaching and practice of skills relating to biological needs, and how completely far removed these good progressives are from a completely different breed of progressive who seems to preach the exact opposite.
While the former group of progressives preaches a doctrinal lifestyle which helps people escape the quasi-Hobson choices people in life often have to make (and it is exactly these quasi-Hobson choices which are the cases of moral concern on so many issues), the latter group of progressives seems to promote quite the opposite in that they seek to worsen and perpetuate the quasi-Hobsons choices people have to make, and thus by promoting a lifestyle of dependency as either a moral good, or as a promoted preference, they are causing many of the very problems they complain about, whereas the former group of progressives is not.
The "back to the land" movement has a rich history in the United States, its supporters often coming both from left and right camps, ranging from genuine communists and socialists on one end, to libertarian types on the other end... with plenty of more mainstream people filling all the gaps in between.... and many of these back to the landers so clearly recognize that it is the people who rabidly promote societal dependence are the cause of so much misery in this world by foolishly encouraging hyperspecialization over life-needs, and by doing this (which has happened to almost everyone in society nowadays - and this problem has merely gotten exponentially worse in the last century), it has the effect of rendering those with lesser means much more susceptible to being economically leveraged, and thus merely worsening their conditioning, rather than improving it.
Those who are most insulated from this problem (and thus can be economically leveraged less), are those who have avoided the pitfall of dependence caused by over-acceptance of hyperspecialization and hyper division of labor. The negative affects are the most acute among the demographic that has lost much of the necessary skills relates to things pertaining to biological needs, which nowadays, is most people. And this is one of the two primary reasons for the increasing disparity of wealth in society. The other problem is very much tangentially related, and has to do with the property rights regime over natural resources which have been adopted worldwide, which are far removed from what it should be. It is need for free access to natural resources combined with the skill of every single Man to use them to fulfill his needs so he cannot be economically leveraged and become dependent upon others, which will better the position of mankind.
Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 08-30-2011 at 09:04 PM..
Are those the liberties outlined in the constitution and bill of rights?
You asked for "my" definition of liberty, I gave you "the" definition of liberty. What do you mean "those" liberties? Either you have liberty, or you do not. There is no "freedom from control", but not "freedom from condition". It is either liberty or... not liberty. Is liberty protected in the constitution, yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So why did the government break up monopolies
Why did the government institute a socialist policy and mandate it on the people infringing on their liberty, their freedom of choice? It doesn't matter why, they have no authority to dictate such. The people always have a choice when it concerns private business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
You sure you don't just have a problem with authority?
Trying to deflect and attack? Try answering to the discussion rather than being insulting and avoiding it. It is childish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Nope that sounds more like anarchy. How are we supposed to govern if one individual can pick and choose what taxes (i.e. services provided) based on what benefits themselves? Sounds like madness if everyone up and decided to think like you. You sure this isn't some big excuse to be cheap and selfish?
I am not arguing a lawless society.. I already explained to you that Anarchy is incompatible with individual liberty. It does not respect individual liberty, it only respects might and its ability to gain that which it desires.
When you respect individual liberty, you can not violate such of another. That means, you are free to do as you like as long as it does not infringe on my liberty. This is what I was explaining to you in the last response to which you evaded. How can I infringe on you if your liberty is equal to mine? I can't. The affirmation of rights is individual liberty for all. See the concept now?
We are a self governed nation, not a nation governed by a body to which dictates to the people. Individual liberty is our concept, and the goal is to insure this is protected through the defense of the nation and through the adherence to liberty by those various governing bodies.
What you argue for is being able to disregard liberty selectively to impose conditions and controls on the people in order to serve various self interests which you consider important enough to disregard liberty for. This is no different than dictators, communist regimes, or monarchies to which impose conditions and controls on liberty to serve their interests and to which history has shown us as oppression of the people. Only the individual is qualified to decide what is best for them and the individuals liberty is above the authority of man as it is inalienable (not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated, which you in fact argue that it can).
Protecting individual liberty above all else insures the complete freedom of all to decide for themselves. This is what it means to be free. What is unfortunate is that you disregard this freedom to serve your idealistic goals. You promote oppression, no different than any other system that disregards liberty, you simply have convinced yourself that it is acceptable in order to feed your cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
The concept stated in the constitution and bill of rights?
My motive is just showing you how the "concept" changes based on our societal norms and economy.
To the bolded part. Problem solved? That's a huge understatement. There's a pretty large gap between the abolishment of slavery and the abolishment of Jim Crow laws.
Yes, it is called individual liberty to which we have already properly defined. You are arguing conditional liberty with controls on it in order to establish your ideal. What you argue concerning "changes based on our societal norms and economy" is that individual liberty can be restricted, removed, controlled, and disregarded to serve what society dictates as necessary. This disregards the individual and gives the mob of the majority the power to oppress the individual, something that is incompatible with individual liberty.
Jim crow laws were government mandated and out of their power to institute. What is your point? That because people abused the role of government in the past, it justifies it now? Because you argue for your own version of controls and conditions that are no different than Jim Crow laws. How can the Jim Crow laws be wrong and your institution of mandatory social programs right? Both when used by government disregard individual liberty itself. The public can not institute public mandates as such. So, the fact that it was allowed and abused since the establishment of slavery does not support your position to institute your own version of a violation of liberty. Both are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
What does the mechanization of agriculture and industries have to do with race? Keep up here. I'm talking about productivity now and how it significantly altered our labor situation. As technology has improved it takes less humans to do the same task. How do you think that affects our society? How have our trade and labor policies been affected by that? Do you think it makes more jobs expendable? Again life is complicated and the issue of productivity through technological advances is just another reason of why we are where we are.
My bad, somehow was still on the train of thought with your above discussion. You have failed to state the relevance of them in your argument. If you are going to use such a means as a defense, then you must apply them properly as a valid support. The occurrence of such does not conflict with my position concerning liberty, though I suspect you are using a misinterpretation in order to justify their use as support?
So please explain how your mention establishes a support for your conclusion.
Failure to state, please try actually entering the debate rather than calling someone wrong and then simply providing a link with no relevant attention to any point. It helps for people to understand your point.
Failure to state, please try actually entering the debate rather than calling someone wrong and then simply providing a link with no relevant attention to any point. It helps for people to understand your point.
Sorry i didn't realise your memory had gone that badly.
You have absolutely NO idea about how a Govt. health system works yet you spout on here about "slavery" and the right to choose etc etc etc etc .
I posted a couple of links hopefully to educate you on how Govt funded systems work so that you can see that you have it all backwards. You have far more choices and liberty with a NHS than with the current health system in the USA and it is cheaper to the user.
I now realise that even if you fell over the truth in this matter you wouldn't recognise it.... so it is pointless trying to give you facts'
Keep clinging onto your missinformation from right wing media or whatever morons you listen to. Sad really but can't be bothered wasting my time with someone who, no matter what, believes lies and B/S put out by the right.... You are exactly what they need in their now screwed up Party.... Adios!
Sorry i didn't realise your memory had gone that badly.
Actually, it is proper to respond to the previous discussion I had with you. You did not, you evaded it and then came back here, posting links with no point and fallaciously attacking. Maybe respond to the last post of our discussion and tying it in? By the way, in the last part of our discussion, you did not prove any point, so now you are simply talking out of your arse by acting as if you have a valid one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro
You have absolutely NO idea about how a Govt. health system works yet you spout on here about "slavery" and the right to choose etc etc etc etc .
I posted a couple of links hopefully to educate you on how Govt funded sstems work so that you can see that you have it all backwards. You have far more choices and liberty with a NHS than with the current health system in the USA.
Make a point, again you are failing to state. More choices? How is it I have a choice if I am forced to pay for a system I did not agree to? That is the issue here, not your perception of all the choices I have as long as I only choose the options you provide for me. Try to argue a valid point, you know... maybe actually building valid support?
So, what choices do I have over that of private industry? In the private sector, my choices are vast and all according to what I wish to spend and how I wish to spend it. I can even choose not to pay and simply suffer if I like. does your system allow me to opt out of paying for it? Didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro
I now realise that even if you fell over the truth in this matter you wouldn't recognise.... so it is pointless trying to give you facts'
Keep clinging onto your missinformation from right wing media or whatever morons you listen to. Sad really but can't be bothered wasting my time with someone who, no matter what, believes lies and B/S put out by the right.... You are exactly what they need in their now screwed up Party.... Adios!
You haven't provided any supporting facts in this entire thread. You haven't even provided a valid statement of position. All you have done is spout off with attacks, much like you are doing now. You are a one trick pony, proclaiming your position (which you never fully establish) valid, but then never providing any support and then simply jumping to attacking personally as if you had laid it all out in a proper fashion.
Look at your responses, you can't be this obtuse? Or are you being devious because you can't properly support a position that you are unwilling to even establish?
Again, state your position... argue your case, support your argument with valid premises. If not, then run along, you aren't even remotely prepared for this discussion.
government care is crappy care(because they dont PAY)
Yep, my wife worked for over 6 years in medical claims. The largest number of denials, short pays, and bureaucratic runarounds was with the government claims (by a wide margin). People are simply ignorant if they think government is better, severely ignorant.
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.
