Topic: Freedom is ... - page 13. (Read 14409 times)

Is there a word you use for the exercise of the set of rights you have that you never actually give up for any reason? - "inalienable rights" that is.  Does the condition of being able to exercise those rights any time you want to without fear of retaliation from other people have some sort of name for you?  "Freedom" is a good name that I use to describe this condition, but that word apparently means something else to you - something that we do give up from time to time in order to get other things, something that is "alienable", or tradable.

Or perhaps you have no word for what I've described.

I find a lot of people trying to tie their own meanings to words as if Plato was right about his ideals.  He wasn't.  Every individual has their own meaning for every word they use, and I think it's a waste of time arguing about what a word "really" means when the important issue is not what the words mean, but what the person using them means.  I avoid a lot of problems by recognizing that others use words differently than I use them.  At the same time, when we find common ground in the meanings of the words we use, it enhances our ability to communicate, so there is value in discussing word meanings.  I just think it's silly to argue about who is right in that area.

No sir, you are not to understand those things.  However, if it appears that I'm choosing to violate someone's property rights in the ways you described, it's a good bet that I'm doing it because they don't actually hold rights to the property.  If it seems to you that I'm wrong, please get in touch with me so we can have a reasonable discussion about it.

If you don't mind, I'm also interested in the logic behind what seems to be a set of conclusions you've made about me.  Can you explain?

Yes, they are being coerced in their view.  In my view, we are obligated to coerce them (as they call it) because their perception of their rights violates our property rights (heathcare requires the provider to be paid).  Likewise the slave-owners.

You've touched on another important point which is this:  The problems we will/do have with would-be slave owners and sick socialists are a result of their untenable conception of rights, not a poor definition of coercion.  Definitions aren't important unless you want to stick with a given word (as if you had a contract that uses the word or, if you're a statist, a law that uses it).  A person who believes they have a right to own slaves should NOT be free. Likewise a person who believes they have a right to medical services that others are capable of providing.  If you make unreasonable claims to rights, you should not be free.  Who judges?  I do.  Everyone should judge for themselves.

Quote: "I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options.""

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Freedom is not a law of nature or a right, its a feeling. Options might be a lesser kind of freedom but the more of them you have, the more free you feel.

I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options."

A car gives you freedom because instead of getting you to work this morning,it can take you anywhere if you feel like it. Likewise money gives you freedom of choice in many aspects of your life.

In a society each citizen trades some of their freedom for other benefits. You pay taxes to have infrastructure and security. You sell your temporal freedom at work to have monetary freedom in you spare time.

Freedom is not a well defined resource. Pushing a shopping cart down the highway not knowing where you gonna sleep tonight is the ultimate freedom for some, while it would be the absolute minimum of available choices in life for others.

You trade your freedom all the time. You have periods during the day here you have zero freedom and other periods where you decide others degree of freedom. When you feel un-free it's when you think your are in the red in your freedom bookkeeping.

It's hard to differentiate between freedom of choice and freedom by privileges. You will never feel that you have enough freedom as you cannot feel you have too much happiness in your life either.

your quest for your freedom is often in conflict with others quest for their freedom.

If you think hard enough, you know that the freedom you think you don't have is a freedom you have given away with your consent. Freedom is not something you ask for. Freedom has a price tag.

dscotese,

So am I to take it then that you are fully against a landlord evicting you from a property you rent? Am I to understand that you are against someone showing up to your home with a gun to forcibly remove you if you don't pay rent and don't leave? Am I to understand you are against a landlord telling you that you cannot keep pets in your apartment? Am I to understand that you are against a landlord deciding what color carpet the place you rent has? Am I to understand that you get full say in how your landlord spends his money?

Define coercion.

I put the definition of coercion into the hands of the victim:  If you claim to have a right, you can be coerced because someone can threaten to violate that right.  When someone threatens to violate a right you believe you have, then you're being coerced.  Whether or not someone is being coerced, in my book, that is, being a victim of a violation of the non-aggression principle, depends on the rights they feel are threatened by the alleged coercer.  If I agree with the rights, then I agree that they're being coerced.

Every set of laws that is enforced through the threat to violate the rights of others represents coercion.  There is only one legitimate way to violate other people, and that is in self-defense.  Whatever part of "taxes, levies, fees, rents, tariffs or payments [that cover] infrastructure [you're using] and [the enforcement of] regulations which prevent uncaring, greedy or ignorant persons and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others..." is self-defense would be fine with me.  From what I can tell, however, nearly all of those things generally and consistently "[affect] other individuals in a negative way," in addition to threatening to violate their rights if they refuse to comply.

In fact, the people who take that money, invent those regulations, and prevent people (caring, uncaring, greedy, not greedy, ignorant, and knowledgeable alike) and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others - those people are the ones most responsible for our loss of freedom.  Those are the people most guilty of coercion.  Those are the people who slow us down, warp our economy, heed progress, and create politics.  Those are the people who create the most violence.

Dalkore, have you checked out The Myth of National Defense?  It's a great collection of essays addressing exactly that topic of how people defend themselves from random thugs.  It shows pretty well that your conclusion is quite off.  You mistake a cooperative defense strategy with "government," but the latter bears that name specifically because it employs coercion against its own people while the former relies entirely on voluntary participate (like the US of A was supposed to be until Lincoln fucked it up).

While you "would much rather know [the] thugs and have checks and balances," I would much rather know my friends and neighbors and trust their recognition of the thuggery, random or not, and especially recognize and repel thuggery rather than inviting it simply because I know the thugs and they (pretend to) have checks and balances built into their thuggery.  In fact, my global community is constantly finding more people who recognize the institutionalized thuggery of governments and creating solutions to the problems they cause.  Bitcoin is one of those solutions.  Find out more (if you want) at http://voluntaryist.com.

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose" - JANIS JOPLIN

This lyric was a battle cry for a generation.

So, freedom is not being coerced, except in some cases where coercion is OK...

Or at least where you personally think it's not coercion, even if others feel coerced.

Twisting things, are you? We both know what you're doing. You're implying that we're talking about one's freedom regarding word usage. Even Anon136 understood the meaning. We're talking about a description of freedom, and how it's desirable that one not be coerced, with the exception of certain things that a certain crowd here likes to label 'coercion'.

Attack the meaning, not the structure of the sentences. It's always tiring to encounter such arguments.

The irony is that you are basically saying that "Freedom is free to do such and such, BUT DON'T DO THAT!" I mean, why shouldn't someone be free to use the term "coercion" however they wish? (aside from it hurting your feelings or something)

Excellent. I'd rather not debate your ethereal fantasy that exists nowhere in the world, whereas my description of how things work exists everywhere in the world multiple times over. Have a good day, and thank you for saving me the time of bickering with you about your nonsense.

time is to short to be wasted on a lost cause

No, I wasn't joking. If you would like to present an argument against it, feel free to do so.

oh you weren't joking, thats even funnier!

Can't wait! 

Then by that reasoning you are only as free as you can defend.  I believe this to be true and that is why people decided to form governments so they weren't ruled by RANDOM THUGS.  This is why a step back away from a form of government is regressive in fact.

I would much rather know my thugs and have checks and balances.   You all complain that they don't work, look at us now, HOW MANY OF YOU actually do something like protest, go to your reps office, write an actually letter (not email), call a TV station?   Very few and it shows, most people care more about themselves and their oh so important social lives.  Doesn't matter.  It is coming to a head soon and we will see where people stand and what they will do.  

okay, I'll grant you that one.