I don’t really think so. The key difference is in how personal freedom is defined. Leftists, for instance, tend to include things like the ownership of a home (not the freedom to own one, but the actual possesion of one) as among essential personal freedoms. They might include education and health care as well.
The key distinction IMHO is that libertarians are more willing to see freedom as more limitedly (more expansively from my perspective) defined as freedom from force or coercion.
It’s all in the details. Virtually anyone will say they are for personal freedom, but I don’t think anyone is absolutely, unequivocably for 100% personal freedom. For example, I have never heard anyone say that they believe murder should be legal. Almost everyone believes that their personal freedom ends where it infringes on someone else’s personal freedom. The difference between individuals is how they define when another’s freedom has been infringed, where they draw that line, and how they believe it should be enforced. So again, it’s just too vague to say a party is “the party of personal freedom”.
I found this article that sums up my feels pretty well. The issue, I think, is that there are various types of freedom- and while Libertarianism pursues one type, it is willing to give up all others for its sake.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/pk-is-against-liberty.html
Quoted from Paul Kienitz’s article:
To me, the question is how much power others have over you and how constrained your choice of actions is, not whether the constraint is by public action rather than private action. In the viewpoint of those who hold this fallacy, what matters is how free you are on paper, not how free you are in what choices are actually open to you right now in real life. According to this view, a destitute person with no public support is more free than one who gets some kind of pension or welfare, despite the fact that the latter is the one who can do many things that are closed off to the former.
I will refer to these two definitions of freedom as F1 and F2, the former being freedom on the books and the latter being freedom available in the concrete moment. Now there can be plenty of good arguments for why F1 is somehow more essentially important than F2, but I am not going to go along with a movement that dismisses F2 from consideration. The freedom that I most value day to day is F2 – the practical opportunity to arrange my life the way I best like, not the theoretical opportunity to do things that some random legislator might want to outlaw someday. Now F1 is indeed important, make no mistake; it is only by making sure of some guarantees in this area that we preserve our rights and make sure that F2 has a stable foundation. It is the kind we like to fight for as an ideal, because we can speak of it in noble abstract terms and magnanimously promise that it will be equal for all. No such idealization is possible for F2, since it can never be equal in practice for different people. It depends on things like how much money you have and how healthy you are. So we tend to avoid confronting the question politically, and many conservatives argue that it should not be considered at all, since that’s a slippery slope leading to socialistic intervention. But in disregarding it for the sake of clarity and fairness, we can easily argue ourselves into a situation where by increasing “freedom” we curtail our opportunity in practice.
blowero I’ll take your non-answers as concessions. This was fun (and easy too).
I disagree. You have to have some very odd things included as “personal freedoms” to make this claim.
To wit:
I cannot even make sense of this sentence in the context of personal freedom. What does the freedom to commit murder mean in the context of a universally applicable moral code? You have to postulate some sort of moral code which applies to the murderees but not to the murderers. IT does not make any sense.
Well it is a little vague. But there are dictionaries. There are agreed to definitions of what words mean. We can disagree as to what constitutes an invasion of personal freedom when it comes to things like copyrights or drivers licenses. But the idea that personal freedom has no meaning whatsoever, or that it means something even close to the same thing as physical capability seems unnecessarily obtuse.
This is a common mistake. The question is not how free the destitute person is in either case. The question is in how free are those who must pay his bills in the second case. Its not that the destitute person is more free in the first case, it si the fact that everyone else is more free.
And just for the record, most libertarians do not think that poverty assistence should be ignored, they just feel that it should not be forced. There is a profound difference.
So three questions come to mind for me (and please do not take either of these as denigrating to libertarianism, as that is not my intention. I really am asking as I don’t know):
Without the power of bulk purchasing and funds collection/distribution that government represents, how then to fund schools? I agree that since I don’t have kids, my burden should be lessened in paying for schools - this is a Libertarian tenet as I understand it (not paying for services not used). But if I ever hope to have kids, I should still pay some percentage for their future education. Otherwise when I do have kids, there is a chance that since I and other childless individuals declined to pay for schools, they won’t exist, or won’t exist in sufficient means for me to use them for my future child. What then my options in a Libertarian society? The same applies, to a lesser degree, with all services of which I wouldn’t partake, including roads, parks, garbage removal, recycling, etc… How would these services be maintained if everyone wasn’t forced to pay a share to maintain them?
What about restrictions on personal behavior that are not directly or immediately imposing on someone else’s right to do something, but may in future? Say I drive a car that isn’t polluting now, but as technology improves it becomes more polluting than newer cars. Unless there is a driving need to do so (such as the fuel my car uses becoming obsolete and no longer sold) why would I have any need to upgrade my current ride just to ensure my neighbors don’t have to suck my pollution?
For helping the less fortunate, how would this work in a libertarian society? I agree that most folks will still give to charity, but a major reason to give charitably now is the tax breaks that this can represent, especially amongst the highly fortunate. Would Bill Gates give away as much as he does without a significant tax break to associate with them? Seeing as he has a sociopathic behavioral disorder (Asperger’s Syndrome) I kind of doubt it, but with the tax benefits of doing so he gives away freely and hugely. This applies to a lesser degree to many other individuals, even me (although I have no where near the resources of Bill) - I do give much, but would not give as much if it wasn’t for the tax benefit of doing so.
I eagerly await illumination…
Private schools work very well. Without the government acting as a massive single consumer, there would be different kinds of these. We do not have any cheap private schools because there is no market for them. the government owns all such schools. The question is a little more complicated than that, but I’m just giving you MHO.
They would be maintained by people voluntarily* paying for them.
Well, you may not. What if your neighbhors got together and offered to help you afford a new car? What if they could show that your car was, in fact, damaging them or their property? The real question is absent such things as this, why would you want to force someone to buy a more expensive care or go without one? That is the choice.
This is not strictly true. Tax breaks is the main that some people give to charity, but it is not as universal as you think. Also, there is the fact that without taxes people would have more money to give. Or even, gosh forbid, more money to grow the economy, the number of jobs, and the opportunities in general for those who need help.
That’s just some quick thoughts on your questions. Someone more knowledgeable than me will come along and give us more info.
The thing is, we have differing views on what maximizes liberty. I contend that taking a small amount from everyone for the purposes of relieving the burden of the very poor increases liberty for everyone. Not simply the very poor, by providing options out of destitution, but for ‘those paying the bills’ as well. Public health issues affect everyone, and I don’t think that the connection between poverty levels and crime can be ignored. It’s the same idea why I think that even the childless should contribute to public schooling- we all benefit from a well educated citizenry (yes, that’s a separate debate).
I don’t see how libertarian ideas, taken past the ‘commune’ level lead to anything other than a lack of class mobility, oligarchy, etc. That will lead to legislation to mitigate conditions, or, barring this, revolt.
I’ve always wondered how many generations people could live in a modern Libertopia before legislation would kick in to moderate market excesses…and from there, how long until we were right back where we are now.
No you don’t. You have to go on to my next sentence to understand the point.
Hmmm…I don’t know why you can’t.
I don’t know how to answer that question, as it has nothing to do with the point I made.
I don’t know what you’re talking about now. Who’s talking about postulating moral codes?
Why are certain things immoral? BECAUSE they impinge on another person’s freedom. We can’t have ABSOLUTE personal freedom, because there are certain things that, were we free to do them, would infringe on other people’s personal freedom. EVERYONE agrees that we have to draw a line somewhere where my freedom stops and yours begins (my example was murder, there are countless other examples). And where one draws that line is as varied as there are individuals.
Why does this idea cause you such confusion and consternation? It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Non-sequitur. Truism.
As well as many, many other things.
That’s an utter strawman.
Perhpas, but at the expense of individuals. The problem is that this formulation requires that you think of freedom as some sort of averaged quantity accross the society. That is not what freedom is. It is a charcteristic of individuals. Not of collectives.
But here is the question. If any particular project is demonstrably benificial to those who pay the bills, why do you have to use force? And if they are not demonstrably benifical, your premise evaporates.
But there is no evidence of this. The only cases of monopolies, oligarchies, very restricted class mobility, etc. are examples of governmental control of economies. Not free economies.
Again, this is only because you believe that murder is part of absolute personal freedom. This is ridiculous. The only formulation of personal freedom which includes murder is some sort of physical ability formulation. In other words whatever a person is physically capable of he should be free to do. But this is a ridiculous formulation of personal freedom on the political scale. It certainly does not amount to “absolute” personal freedom.
Limitations on actions are not the same thing as limitations on personal freedom. A freedom to murder may be a freedom for certain kinds of actions, but applied to societies it is tantamount to a massive reduction in personal freedom.
It is only from within this context (personal freedom is not the same as freedom to commit any act) that you can discuss whether or not one philosophy is more or less in favor of personal freedom. Leftists would like to frame the discussion in terms of how much freedom should be limited. In that context the idea that freedom should be limited for the common good makes sense. I do not accept the premise, however, that all societies amount to some amount of limitations on personal freedoms.
The freedom to commit murder is a contradiction in terms.
People, on the whole, will opt for short term benefits over long term ones, even when the short term benefits have ‘hidden’ long term costs associated with them. This is especially true when the benefit is acute (yay! a tax rebate!) and the costs diffused (national debt what?) The idea of a well educated or well fed, or healthy population is hard to guage…an extra $50 in my wallet is much easier to conceptualize.
However, I don’t think that our government should operate this way. I often lament that fact that it does.
Of course it’s ridiculous. That’s the point - absolute freedom cannot exist, because it would be ridiculous. Therefore, the concept of personal freedom must, of necessity, be a compromise between what I am allowed to do vs. how what I do affects what you can do. It’s the old adage, “My right to swing my arms ends where your face begins.”
If it is tempered, then it is not absolute, by definition. Perhaps the extremeness of the example is throwing you. I chose murder because it is something on which everyone will agree. Let’s take a less extreme example: At what point does my freedom to drive a polluting car infringe on your freedom to breathe clean air? How does your political philosophy solve this conflict? How such conundrums are worked out is the very basis on which political philosohies differ. It is insufficient to simply say, “I’m for personal freedom”, as it doesn’t explain how such details would be worked out. There is more than one solution to the problem.
Exactly - the devil’s in the details, as I said before.
I don’t see that at all. You are applying pre-conceived notions as to which personal freedoms you consider to be moral, and simply declaring that whatever you don’t consider “moral” is not defined as a freedom. The problem with this approach is that not everyone agrees on what is or isn’t moral. It is a difference of degree rather than substance. For example, I would say that owning guns is immoral, and reduces freedom, whereas you would probably say it increases freedom.
But every freedom has consequences for others, not just murder. The consequences just aren’t necessarily as extreme. Unless you want to say that all freedoms are contradictions in terms, I disagree with this line of reasoning.
And I think this is an unfair generalization. May people will. All things being equal. But if all things are not equal (and when are they ever) many people will not behave this way. Let’s just examine the very common behaviors of parents for many examples.
Be careful about over generalizing the popularity of tax cuts. There are serious qustions about exactly what the best way to help poor people, educate children, feed as many people as possible, and keep people healthy. There are valid arguments to be made that putting the government in charge of such things may not be the best way to go.
But all of this still begs the question. You said that “The thing is, we have differing views on what maximizes liberty. I contend that taking a small amount from everyone for the purposes of relieving the burden of the very poor increases liberty for everyone. Not simply the very poor, by providing options out of destitution, but for ‘those paying the bills’ as well.” I asked why such benifits could not be aquired voluntarily and you responded that the benifits are hard to see. But if they are hard to see, then doesn’t that mean that they may be difficult to prove?
Can you not see that you are simply postulating that you (or some politician you support) should be allowed to make these kinds of decisions for people too shortsighted to do it for themselves? I realize that you would not characterize your position this way, but can you not see how others might?
However, I don’t think that our government should operate this way. I often lament that fact that it does.
[/QUOTE]
Glad we agree on this. But I don’t thin we do really. 
Close, but not quite. The addage implies that my freedom of movement stops where you physical form begins. That is, I am not allowed to use force against you. The way you characterize is my actions could be said to impose on your freedom if I am insulting to you based on your actions. The adage does not go that far at all.
No, you cannot go too far in this direction. Just because freedom is limited to a certain kind of freedom (political vs physical) does not mean that neither is “absolute”. Just because you are not free to commit murder does not mean that you are not absolutely free.
No, not really. I understand what you are saying. I disagree with your formulation of “freedom” and “absolute”.
This question has been addressed previously in the thread. But as for our discussion, allow me to answer this way. My freedom to drive a polluting car ends where your lungs begin. Specifically I am not allowed to force you to breath the air. I am not allowed to drive the car into your lungs.
Quite. Some based on the idea of individual freedoms and other not so much. I agree it is not sufficient, but it may be necessary.
No, I am not. I am saying that those actions which impinge on the freedom of others is not included in any societal formulation of “freedom”. Nowhere did I say that this action or that action is bad so it is not included. I am trying to discuss actions from the opposite direction.
But again, this would be a very odd formulation of the idea of freedom. How can my ownership of a gun impinge on your freedom? Ownership, mind you not use to force you to do or not do anything.
All actions have consequences, but not all consequences amount to unreasonable* restrictions. Murder does. It amounts to saying that Freedom to destroy freedom is a contradiction in terms.
*I mean unreasonable in the sense of force. That is only those restrictions which are not amenable to reasonable interactions qualify.
Are you serious? You think it’s literally talking about the specific example of a person swinging his arms? You really don’t recognize any larger, symbolic meaning there? I just don’t know what to say.
You lost me. How does being “insulting” have anything to do with what we were discussing? You seem to be on a completely different wavelength from me.
But you’re missing the point. Platitudes do not distinguish political philosophies. We can disagree on what actions constitute individual freedom. You’re just arbitrarily saying that whatever you don’t believe in isn’t freedom. That would be o.k. if everyone in the world were in exact agreement on what things comprise “freedom” and what things don’t, but that’s not the case.
[quote]
No, not really. I understand what you are saying. I disagree with your formulation of “freedom” and “absolute”.
[/quote
This question has been addressed previously in the thread. But as for our discussion, allow me to answer this way. My freedom to drive a polluting car ends where your lungs begin. Specifically I am not allowed to force you to breath the air. I am not allowed to drive the car into your lungs.
Quite. Some based on the idea of individual freedoms and other not so much. I agree it is not sufficient, but it may be necessary.
No, I am not. I am saying that those actions which impinge on the freedom of others is not included in any societal formulation of “freedom”. Nowhere did I say that this action or that action is bad so it is not included. I am trying to discuss actions from the opposite direction.
But again, this would be a very odd formulation of the idea of freedom. How can my ownership of a gun impinge on your freedom? Ownership, mind you not use to force you to do or not do anything.
All actions have consequences, but not all consequences amount to unreasonable* restrictions. Murder does. It amounts to saying that Freedom to destroy freedom is a contradiction in terms.
*I mean unreasonable in the sense of force. That is only those restrictions which are not amenable to reasonable interactions qualify.[/QUOTE]
Oops - please disregard the last post. I accidentally hit submit. I’ll finish later.
Of course I do. That’s why I mentioned force. As in force in general. The problem is that you want it to mean “affect”. This goes too far. The fact that I breath elliminates some air that you might otherwise breath. This is in some respect an “affect”. However, I seriously doubt that the idea of my freedom stoping at your physical form encompases this sort of “affect”.
Again, it has to do with you wanting to claim that any “affecting” of another’s freedom counts as a possible stopping place for my freedom. What I am trying to get accross is that the only effects which count this way are those which elliminate or destroy someone’s freedom. Spcifically force.
Otherwise you are in danger of allowing that the “all property is theft” meme much much too much validity.
Although I am chomping at the bit to respond to that first paragraph, I’ll respect you request.
blowero just as an exercise, let me try a more extreme example. Suppose I offer the idea that “absolute freedom” is not absolute unless it includes the freedom to physically transform oneself into a whale and swim in the ocean. Can you agree that such a formulation warps the definition of “freedom” and “absolute” beyond the context of a political philosophy?