1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaAustralia will no doubt recover from that fact, and celebrates your decision to look elsewhere.
Thanks for the tip on Aus though, I was considering it as an option when my visa runs out here, I now know to look elsewhere, cheers.
BTW, for someone who likes to extol the virtues of a philosophy that promotes personal freedom, you have a remarkably intolerant view of other peoples interpretation of that philosophy. In fact your views of libertarianism are that narrowly and pedantically defined, it smacks of the very authoritarianism you claim you wish to avoid.
Originally posted by kmax87Yes I'd like you to receive fifty lashes for every misinterpretation. :^)
Australia will no doubt recover from the fact that you have chosen to look elsewhere.
BTW, for someone who likes to extol the virtues of a philosophy that promotes personal freedom, you have a remarkably intolerant view of other peoples interpretation of that philosophy. In fact your views of libertarianism are that narrowly and pedantically defined, it smacks of the very authoritarianism you claim you wish to avoid.
"Freedom means one thing and one thing only: being free from physical coercion. It's that simple. Freedom both from criminal coercion - which is why we have governments in the first place, to protect us against aggressors -- and freedom too from political coercion. This last is harder to achieve, since while many governments fall down in their duty to protect their citizens from criminal coercion, most are assiduous in ensuring at least a minimum of political coercion."
http://pc.blogspot.com/2008/03/freedom-to-starve.html#links
Originally posted by WajomaDon't you see an inherent contradiction in defining freedom as being only one thing.
Yes I'd like you to receive fifty lashes for every misinterpretation. :^)
"Freedom means one thing and one thing only: being free from physical coercion. It's that simple. Freedom both from criminal coercion - which is why we have governments in the first place, to protect us against aggressors -- and freedom too from political coercion. This last is ...[text shortened]... m of political coercion."
http://pc.blogspot.com/2008/03/freedom-to-starve.html#links
This is truly a case of the person constructing the debate being in control of the outcome.
Originally posted by kmax87You are free to misinterpret freedom as much as you like kmax, and I am free to point out why you are wrong.
Don't you see an inherent contradiction in defining freedom as being only one thing.
This is truly a case of the person constructing the debate being in control of the outcome.
Don't worry I wont engage gummint thugs to makes threats against your property and person if you continue to disagree. Unfortunately you will not grant me the same consideration when it comes to funding the local dope addict.
Originally posted by kmax87YOu might post in between this so please address it if you will.
Don't you see an inherent contradiction in defining freedom as being only one thing.
If you define freedom only in terms of being free of physical coercion, then the philosophies that flow from that fundamental understanding of user defined freedom will no doubt conform closely enough to the brand of libertarianism that you propose. However if you broaden your terms of reference to include a more comprehensive model of what freedom could represent for an individual in a civil society, then your view is way to restrictive.
Its time to leave websites and soundbytes and the thoughts of others behind and wrestle with the concepts as argued. If you dismiss every point on the basis that it does not meet your terms of reference then what sort of a debate are you having anyway?
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaMust be similar to the way that your lack of concern will allow government to legislate in favor of corporations at the expense of the people who do their work all the while championing the idea of a freedom of choice. You have sold your soul to the rights of capital and one day when your free market has eroded the last patch of virgin soil on this planet and you see the full effects of your delusion of how the supposed little we have scratched the surface of this planet can turn an eco friendly habitat into a toxic wasteland, you will finally work out that all the money and wealth you have earned will never taste good and you will not be able to buy yourself one clear stream or one clear blue sky.
Unfortunately you will not grant me the same consideration when it comes to funding the local dope addict.
Originally posted by kmax87But I don't broaden my terms. You are bent on broadening, or more correctly redefining 'freedom' as being 'freedom from want'.
YOu might post in between this so please address it if you will.
If you define freedom only in terms of being free of physical coercion, then the philosophies that flow from that fundamental understanding of user defined freedom will no doubt conform closely enough to the brand of libertarianism that you propose. However if you broaden your terms of refere ...[text shortened]... that it does not meet your terms of reference then what sort of a debate are you having anyway?
I flatly do not accept that definition. It dosen't even count as a defintion, freedom from want of what? There are people that we may think of as having everything but they still want more. And your solution is always the same, taking something from someone that has created it and giving it to someone who hasn't. And the way that is done - physical coercion.
You want me to call 'physical coercion' - freedom, and call, 'freedom' - physical coercion.
I wont.
Originally posted by kmax87spinning out, gone ranticidal. Better call it a night k
Must be similar to the way that your lack of concern will allow government to legislate in favor of corporations at the expense of the people who do their work all the while championing the idea of a freedom of choice. You have sold your soul to the rights of capital and one day when your free market has eroded the last patch of virgin soil on this planet and ...[text shortened]... ever taste good and you will not be able to buy yourself one clear stream or one clear blue sky.
Originally posted by WajomaThats just cos you're a sook!
You want me to call 'physical coercion' - freedom, and call, 'freedom' - physical coercion.I wont.
How do you intend to protect the freedom from physical violence btw? In using some form of force to enforce your right to be free of force, don't you in fact expose the ridiculous position of your whole argument?
Your so called basic right requires the very thing to enforce ,that it wishes to protect from. Thus being unachievable without some form of coercion, it is not a natural state for humanity to be in and therefore is as arbitrary a position to take as one which chooses to define freedom in some other terms.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87It is the initiation of force kmax that is evil.
Thats just cos you're a sook!
How do you intend to protect the freedom from physical violence btw? In using some form of force to enforce your right to be free of force, don't you in fact expose the ridiculous position of your whole argument?
Your so called basic right requires the very thing to enforce ,that it wishes to protect from. Thus being unach ...[text shortened]... is as arbitrary a position to take as one which chooses to define freedom in some other terms.
The i n i t i a t i o n .
You are justified to use force in response to an i n i t i a t i o n of force against you.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaSo now you have an expansion of your original thesis of basic need of freedom to include a special case for evil initiated forces and the justified response reaction mechanism and yet you find it incomprehensible that other people might find your basic definition of freedom to be at fault because if you were to accept the need for an independent policing structure that all members of that society have need to obey without fear or favor, then at the very core you have instituted according to your definition of freedom a corrupt coercive apparatus that robs you of your agency. On the other hand your version of freedom which is supposedly superior sounds like an anarchical system of random initiated force and justified reaction.
It is the initiation of force kmax that is evil.
The i n i t i a t i o n .
You are justified to use force in response to an i n i t i a t i o n of force against you.
By your definition of freedom the anarchical system is freer than the alternate system that enshrines a common law and a police force. My comment to you then is if you would live your life on a constant war footing, then you are welcome to your form of 'freedom'. If on the other hand by signing off on absolute freedom(by your definition of it) you have a system that is more stable and consistent that an anarchical one, then if that under your schema of classification makes it a system of wants then so be it.
If by wanting normalcy and wanting the freedom not to be constantly on guard and watching over my back, I end up sacrificing some aspect of absolute freedom( once again as defined by you) then I willingly subscribe to it and will choose to live in a civil society with some of my freedom's curtailed over a 'free' watch your own back system of anarchy any day.
Originally posted by kmax87The measure of a civil society is the extent to which people deal with each other voluntarily.
So now you have an expansion of your original thesis of basic need of freedom to include a special case for evil initiated forces and the justified response reaction mechanism and yet you find it incomprehensible that other people might find your basic definition of freedom to be at fault because if you were to accept the need for an independent policing stru ...[text shortened]... some of my freedom's curtailed over a 'free' watch your own back system of anarchy any day.
It's no big deal kmax, you believe you're better at running other peoples lives than they are themselves. People can't be trusted to help their fellow man so that's where you step in, you think you're better at it.
As it is with alcoholics the first step is to realise that they are alcoholics, my suggestion to you is that you should recognise you're a control freak, face it, stop pretending with words like 'charity' and 'freedom', give up on terms like 'civil society' just fess up.
I am not an advocate for anarchy (for the 503rd time) you put words in my mouth, you set up your own targets then shoot them down, and we're supposed to think what a great shot you are? There is a role for the state, a limited role.
I've posted this link before, maybe you missed it:
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf