Why can’t I if I think that Libertarians are defining themselves misleadingly? Why do I need to accept their self-definitions at face value when there’s evidence those self-definitions aren’t true?
Come up with some evidence to show I’m wrong. Plenty of libertarians are telling me I’m wrong but none of them have produced any evidence to support it yet. (And variations of “because I say so” doesn’t count as credible evidence.)
You’ve produced no evidence or citation to authority to show you’re right. Why should I accept your definitions?
Oh man, do I want to see the answer to this.
It’s impossible to answer his questions because he doesn’t define his terms and refuses to accept the definitions that other people use. I have no idea what he means when he uses the term “freedom”. Same for some of the other posters in this thread.
Sorry, John, but that’s clearly bullshit. You all are just being utterly evasive.
No, he’s right. The answer to “Do Libertarians believe you have the power to stop somebody from taking freedom from someone else?” has to be “it depends”. Shoot, the answer to “Do non-Libertarians believe you have the power to stop somebody from taking freedom from someone else?” is also going to “it depends on what freedom is being threatened, and how”.
Would you blindly say you, or your government, has the power to stop somebody from taking freedom from somebody else? Or would you say that it’s true in some cases but not others?
I don’t accept the axioms of Euclidian Geometry. Now, your job is to show us a proof in Euclidian geometry and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.
And if we don’t agree on a definition of what “freedom” is, then how are going to agree on an answer to any generalized question about it? Heck, we have one poster here claiming there is a limited amount of freedom in the world and every time someone gains freedom, another person or group must lose at least an equal amount of freedom.
Then the correct response is to man up and say “I disagree with that view. I think that there is an potentially unlimited amount of freedom in the world and we can create more freedom as needed. So no individual loses freedom because another individual gains it.”
See? All you have to do is stand up and state what you believe. I did it in the OP and then I asked libertarians to do the same.
But you were able to state this:
How come you could make a clear and definitive statement about freedom then but somehow misplace the meaning of freedom minutes later?
They invented the word, y’know.
Because I’m using the definition that Libertarians use. I don’t know what definition you are using.
Which is what several folks have been doing in this thread - and that you’ve dismissed.
It’s pretty obvious that you attempted to present an example of some contradictions and have failed. Feel free to try again.
How do Libertarian’s define freedom? Is there such a thing as economic coercion in the Libertarian vocabulary?
Bull. This is what I’m seeing here.
“I’m for freedom.”
“Okay. Well, what happens when you have two conflicting freedoms? Person A wants to X and Person B wants to do Y. But obviously they can’t both do what they want. So which one is free to do what he wants?”
“I’m for freedom.”
“That doesn’t really answer the question.”
“I gave you an answer. And I resent the fact that you asked me a question for which my answer is inadequate. I only want to answer easy questions that have easy answers.”
What is the definition of freedom that Libertarians use?
Your questions were answered, on the first page, by me and by others. Color me perplexed at this belief that they weren’t.
Let’s see if the Libertarian definition matches up with any of these from the Oxford English Dictionary(first 10 only for brevity’s sake):
[quote]
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
(my bold)
This is where you’re going wrong. There is no conflict with libertarian principals in the bolded section. That’s why your questions in the OP are so crappy. Freedom, or liberty in the context of libertarian ideals does not mean the ability or freedom to do whatever one wants. Do you understand that?
You’ve failed to present any example where there is an actual conflict. I tried to guide you where there may actually be conflict - various externalities and such but for some reason you seem fixated on your poorly crafted questions in the OP.
It would be analogous to:
Person A: I support a representative government where people get to vote and elect leaders.
Person B: So I should be able to vote as many times as I want then, right?
Person A: No, that’s not how it works nor is it what I was describing when I said ‘representative government’.
Person B: Then you must not support a representative government because I define it as being able to vote more than you!
(you are person B in this example).