Topic: Necessity: The Argument of Tyrants - page 3. (Read 2707 times)

I would argue that there is no such thing as absolute ("real") freedom, if you define it as "total absence of any interference in your life from other beings" - this is only possible on the desert island.


You argue that even if you are at risk of being killed or enslaved you are still free until it actually happens, but this is inconsistent with the idea that government restricts your freedoms - are you still free until the point they actually come and arrest you? Modern governments pass laws which are (essentially) promises to come and arrest you if you do certain things, but it wasn't always like that - under medieval (or fascist) governments they might come and arrest you if you offended them, or if it was to their political advantage. Were you still free right up to the point when they came and took you away? Surely the same applies on the island - if you know it would be to some-one's advantage to enslave you and have you work for free and there's nothing stopping them from doing so, are you free?

On the other hand if we're using dictionary definitions:


I would argue that definition 3 is the most powerful and general description of freedom. Surely definitions 1, 2, 4 are all special examples of that one, and it indicates a fundamental truth - that freedom is inextricably linked to power.

Using this definition, there definitely is no such thing as absolute freedom - even on the island you are restrained by your muscles and bones, by hunger, by your need to find shelter, by your finite intelligence. Only a god is absolutely free, but things like resources, technology, organisation and (yes) government each help make us more free.

I am aware that this is a different definition from the one you prefer, but I think it is the more important one. What good does lack of interference do you on a desert island?

I also agree entirely that the only direct thing governments can do is to restrict freedoms. However, they certainly are not the only thing that can restrict your freedoms, and if they restrict the person who would otherwise restrict your freedoms (by murdering or thieving) can they not be said to have the net effect increasing your freedom?

The necessity arguments have some weight if a society is faced with an existential threat, a war which threatens the extermination or subjugation of its people, etc. In WWII, European nations defending against German aggression, for example, could use the necessity arguments to implement whatever policies they could to try to defend themselves or to win the war. But the threat we now face, "terrorism" is such a tiny threat, the chance of being killed by terrorism so low... why would we take extreme measures against it? Why sacrifice liberty for security when we are secure anyway? Why respond to an unwanted pimple on your face by cutting off your head?

No, the response to the terrorist threat has been a pure power grab by governments and security apparatuses. The response is completely out of scale to the threat, and only further harms the population rather than protecting it.

Better stated and more accurately than I did. Thanks!

I believe Benjamin Franklin referred to individual freedom, not to be confused with State independence. Free men are well able to defend themselves.
Got the people scared out with terrorism, often hired by the "defender" itself, is a way to open the Pandora box. And after the first group of scared slaves other States hop in to take the profit of a scared mob. My country even has "terrorist laws" and "terrorist task forces", still we have no terrorism of any sort or any separatist movement, but they take the "terrorist scare crow" to spy on whatever they want for unknown purposes. It's an everything goes "for your security" kind of stinky "shaite"!

I'm sure he meant it in a broader context.

Any country that doesn't provide for the common defense is going to very quickly lose their freedom. But providing for the common defense normally entails at least a few years of greatly reduced freedom for the young men who are drafted.

I can't imagine that Benjamin Franklin didn't understand that.

In a broader context, I do agree with him. We see it today in our greatly expanding social services society.

The argument of tyrants is "SECURITY". It works best and allows them to run over any civilian freedom without much contest.
At some point however people will need some security against those who are pretending to be looking after its security. In the end it all sum up to the words of Benjamin Franklin: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Your argument then implies that there is *NO* such thing as real freedom. Governments & law *BY DEFINITION* restrict freedom, so, in your argument, does a lack of government.

Fair point.  You see the noble savage that wanders naked on an island as being truly free.  I don't.  Noble savages wandering naked in the forests have been the raw material for the slave trade throughout history.  If there is no law to stop his being enslaved, the noble savage spends his time hiding and avoiding slavers.  To me, a life spent hiding from people who can take you away as a slave is not freedom.

I'll just leave this here for Hawker so he can explain how the external control of government equates to exemption from the external control of government.

This debate cannot go anywhere until a definition of "freedom" has been agreed to. You define it quite differently than I do.

That assumes you are alone or you are the most powerful person on the island.  If someone random person who is stronger than you can take you as a slave, you are not free.

Your rights and freedoms are identical to the limitations on other people's rights and freedoms - what if there are other people on the island? There's no government to take away your rights, but what good is your right to (e.g.) freedom of speech if the other people on the island are free to gag you? What good is your right to life if others are free to kill you?

If you're not the most powerful person on the island, you have no rights. That is unless the most powerful person on the island is willing to protect your rights. In modern times, governments are the most powerful people on the island, and they do provide rights, because the only rights that you can rely on are the rights that governments are willing to defend.

Sounds like a secular argument to me.

But FACTUALLY, when I can do whatever I want, that is freedom. It's not defined by government or law. It's RESTRICTED by government or law.

Let's imagine that I'm living on an otherwise deserted island in the middle of the Pacific... and I can do ANYTHING I WANT, anytime I want. The ONLY restrictions on my freedom would be an inability to go to the nonexistent Casino, for example. But you'd argue that I have no freedom, because there's no government or law.

I think that freedom is being re-defined.

Freedom only exists as a legal concept.  Laws are government creations.  Take away government and law and you don't have freedom.

Governments can only restrict liberty, they can't 'give' it. What "right" can a government give that I don't already have in their absence?

I'm perfectly willing to concede that governments are necessary to any sort of advanced civilization, but I certainly don't make the mistake of believing that they can 'give' me freedom. They can only restrict it to one extent or another.

In what way does a government who's sole purpose is to control populations through coercion grant you any form of liberties or rights?

Being free is an illusion. You are only free if you are living alone on other planets.

The main point is that Tyrants use "Necessity" to increase their power.
I don't expect gov to "provide liberty", so we do not seem to be on the same page.

Does it not bother you that you contradict yourself?  If you believe in liberty and rights, you believe in government.  Yet you say that governments can't provide liberty.  Its a bit like saying you believe in seawater but don't believe in the sea.