Kangaroos not good enough for you anymore?
-VM
I’d have a lot easier time discussing this in a friendly way if it didn’t start by calling my notions of freedom a “fallacy”. In fact, the author is conflating “free” and “able”. “Free” to do something means no one will prevent you from doing it. It does not mean that someone must guarantee that you are “able” to do it. A blind man may well be free to watch a movie. Unfortunately, he is not able to. We may both be free to eat a certain potato. But we are not both able to eat it–once one of us eats it, it is gone. Opportunities to exercise freedom are scarce: Every exercise of a freedom removes an opportunity from someone else. The reason for defining freedom in the way that we do is to make every person have actual freedom equal to every other person. Attempts to guarantee opportunities to certain people necessarily costs freedom to others.
In particular, attempts to enforce one person or group’s definition of fairness disregard every other definition.
These practical opportunities are scarce. The author is trying to use semantics to justify his notion of the most “fair” way for these opportunities to be distributed. In a libertarian society, these things that he values most would be the ones that he would be most willing to work to achieve, which would mean they would be the ones he would be most likely to have–by trading with others.
If we’re talking about having the government enforce equal “opportunities”, then it is not a slope toward socialist intervention–it is socialist intervention.
Just to be clear, I prefer a world where as many people have as many opportunities as possible. And I do, in fact, believe that the best way to achieve this is to give each person as much freedom as possible. For one thing, only the individual knows what is most valuable to him, whether it is communion with God, collecting big houses, or feeding the poor.
Doesn’t that depend on how many other people value education? I haven’t bought a car in 7 years, yet I don’t worry that I better hurry up and buy one or there won’t be any when I decide I need another one. This is the way markets work: If there is something that is important to a lot of people, market participants will be anxious to provide it to them. Which is why there is never a shortage of porn.
If you are polluting the air, you are harming your neighbors now, even if they may not “feel” the effects immediately. You are referring to an example of the “tragedy of the commons”. There is an active thread about this issue. My thoughts on the issue are available there, if you are interested.
If this is the only reason for helping others, then the world is in trouble. Personally, I think we all have a responsibility to help each other, especially in times of trouble. But not everyone agress with this moral position, and since I don’t think I’m God, I don’t think it is my place to try to impose this moral belief on others. Remember also, that libertarianism doesn’t require that pure charity be the only way of helping others; it only requires that people not be forced to help others. Right now, we don’t see much else because people have gotten into the habit of thinking that it is the government’s responsibility.
Take away the nanny-state mentality, and I would expect that a whole host of new ways of helping would appear. However, I would expect that a lot of them would require a bit more on the part of the receiver than just holding out an empty hand. There is an Asian nationality–I think Korean–that has a concept that I’ve always thought was interesting. People join together in clubs. Everyone puts a certain amount of money in the “pot”. One person takes the money and invests it, usually by opening a business, and pays the money back from profits. When the pot is back up to full strength, another person gets a turn, and so on…
The key point to keep in mind when you are thinking about questions like this is that libertarians don’t believe that there is One Best Answer to any problem, whether it is “how to make the best TV” or “how best to help the poor”. We believe in free markets because they allow for different people to try different solutions, and the best will tend to stand out. And “best” this year may be topped by an even better “best” next year. It is this continuous improvement that causes life to improve for everyone. The rich may indeed get richer, but the poor get richer, too. In this country, poor people have cars and TVs. There are other parts of the world where a poor person has wicker basket and a cow turd.
So, when you ask a question such as this one, many libertarians may have many ideas for solutions that might be tried, but we don’t claim to know what The Answer is. If we thought The Answer existed, we would support it along with everyone else.
-VM
Wait, you’re saying physical force is the only way you recognize that it’s possible for one to infringe on another’s freedom? What if I walk up to you on the street and shout in your ear with a bullhorn, causing permanent hearing damage? It’s not physical force, but surely you wouldn’t allow it in your utopian Libertarian society? But what if I want to play my radio at a moderate volume. Is that allowed? Are there not infinite gradations of sound volume between playing a radio at a moderate volume and shouting into your ear with a bullhorn? Do you really believe that these things are absolutes; that there is no gray area? That a thing either is, or isn’t a freedom, and there are never any judgment calls to be made that might depend on one’s political philosophy?
If I operate a factory, am I allowed to dissipate a cloud of toxic gas that spreads to people’s homes? I’m not using physical force against them, so is it my freedom to engage in such a practice? Do you not agree that all U.S. political parties would support at least some limitations on a business’ freedom to pollute, and that their real disagreement would be on how restrictions are implemented, and how much?
On the contrary, it means exactly that.
[quote]
No, not really. I understand what you are saying. I disagree with your formulation of “freedom” and “absolute”.
And that proves my point. We can both say we are for personal freedom, but our ideas of exactly how “personal freedom” is defined are dissimilar.
I’m glad you agree that it’s insufficient. But the “it may be necessary” part of your sentence makes no sense.
I disagree. That is not part of any definition of freedom that I’ve ever heard. Besides which, such a statement is hopelessly simplistic, because you are refusing to recognize that people might not agree on what constitutes “impinging on another’s freedom”. Your definition breaks down as soon as we encounter a situation that isn’t completely black & white.
Only in your opinion.
Because I am not free to live my life without the fear of gun violence. I trust you will disagree on that point, which will only serve to further prove my point that people can disagree on what constitutes “individual freedom”. I also believe that we should have the freedom to breathe clean air, and if you drive a polluting car, you impinge on that freedom.
Look, you’re not getting this. I’ll say it again - murder is an extreme example that I chose because it is easy for everyone to agree on. It represents the extreme end of the spectrum. You can’t do everything you want because some things you do might affect others. Murder is a thing that affects another in perhaps the greatest way possible. There are millions of other things we can do that may or may not affect people, in lesser ways. I find it simplistic to say that every possible action we can take is ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCABLY either a “freedom” or “not a freedom”, and is never subject to one’s judgment. If you believe that, then you are casting yourself as God.
Sorry, I don’t follow that at all.
Well I vehemently disagree. I’m quite sure the adage is intended to demostrate a more general idea. It’s not literally talking about swinging fists, any more than “A bird in the hand beats two in the bush” is literally referring to ornithology.
Wow, that’s out of left field.
That’s o.k., go ahead. I hadn’t finished, so the thought wasn’t as polished as I wanted, but if you’re dying to respond, go ahead.
Thanks for your answers… I still have doubts it would work, especially the one above - I doubt people would voluntarily pay for things that they don’t use, regardless of how compelling a case is made that they should - and hope I can get answers for them. Other than these doubts, I would like to identify as a libertarian as I agree with most of the tenets (personal freedom, personal responsibility, tightly controlled and limited government) - I just have serious doubts as to the workability.
Maybe you can call me libertarian light :).
To answer the first part of your concerns, I don’t think that we can equate the actions of parents for their own offspring to the actions of citizens toward each other. I’d happily give up my life for my children- I’m sorry to say that my selflessness is much less extensive when dealing with people outside of my family group. That said, I have no trouble with reasonable takings to provide for those that need assistance.
I don’t think that people are heartless bastards as a rule, but I do think that concerns closer to home trump things like the well-being of society when factoring in how to spend money. I don’t think that this is a radical concept. We do it all the time. I could certainly donate more to charity than I do, and my kids could certainly use less stuff, but that’s how we spend our money. I don’t think this is wrong, nor do i begrudge anyone else, even the very rich, their right to do the same.
It’s the government’s job to do long term planning on a grand scale, if only because they are the only ones capable of doing it. I don’t argue that government will provide the cheapest services, or even the most efficient services, but it is consistent. And when dealing with social programs, consistency is, for me, the highest priority (a safety net with lots of holes in it isn’t very safe). Religious testing, race based standards, discrimination against the handicapped- all features of private charities and services that I would not like to see replace government services.
But I do understand that I come at it from a much different pov than you are- as someone earlier in the thread posited, we have very different views on what government should be doing, so obviously we will disagree as to method. This has certainly been a much more civil, and enlightening, discussion that I’ve had in the past on this subject.
Just for clarification, when I speak of voluntary fund raising, I am not talking about donations. The earlier discussion about voluntary taxes might serve as an example. Funds could very easily be collected for services that people do use. some of those funds could be used for other things besides that one and only service. The example mentioned suggests that the entire criminal justice system by collecting funds from those who wish their contracts to be enforceable in court. Similar things could be done to fund a social safety net. The only restriction in libertaria is that whatever method is used to collect funds be voluntary.
Ok, but this is not the same thing. I understand fully that you have no problem with some of your money being taken to help others. but what you’ve said here is the you have no trouble using force to take money from someone else to help a third person. This is a common opinion, and I’m not judging. But please don’t call it selflessness. At least not in the virtuous way.
Ok, but this is not true. Again, not really trying to argue, but if you support the forcefull taking of property from people, then you do not support their use of that property. Its sort of what forceful taking means.
I have to disagree with several points in this paragraph. Just an agree to disagree sort of thing.
1)No, its not. Every organization is supposed to perform long range planning of one sort or another. Even individuals. I don’t understand at all the idea that only the government is capable of planning for the long term. Isn’t it made up of people? What makes them so much wiser when they work for the government.
2)I also disagree with the idea that government services are consistent. I disagree on two fronts. First of all politics itself denies that this is the case. Piolitical expediency is anything but consistent. Secondly, consistance is not necessarily a virtue. Giving money to everyone who asks, even with minimal checks will result in more and more people asking for money. A refusal to take ownership of the money, a refusal to require flucuating requirements for the money, if you will, can lead to an increase of the problems that a social safety net is designed to solve.
3)But of course I never said the charity would be the only way to replace the social safety net. I happen to be a sort of heretical libertarian. I don’t really want to scrap the social safety net. I would like to reform it heavily. But libertarians in general would not be opposed to a social safety net as long as its funding is not accomplished through force. That’s really the only sticking point for libertarians.
Me too. I understand that you come at the questions from a different angle.
Of course. that’s what I said as well. It is not, however talking about so general a principle that any and all affects qualify. For instance the adage does not indicate that my swinging my fist well away from your face is a violation. Even though theoretically we could postulate some affect it might have on you. (Fear of living in a fist swing free world, for instance. ;))
Not really. Just an extentiion of the idea that every action affects everyone else. This is exactly the logic used by the “Property is theft” loonies. It goes like this: “If you own something, then I cannot own it. Your freedom to own is an impossition on mine.”
Sigh. If I am not taking you too literally, you are doing it to me. No, I am not saying that physical contact is the only form of force which violates someones freedom. Your example clearly qualifies as an assault. I would include fraud as a form of force, for instance. However, I would not see my ownership of a gun as any sort of violation of your freedom. Swinging my fist well away from your face and all that.
Well, of course not. I never said any such thing. I am only disagreeing with you that everything can be included. Look again at my question about turning into whales.
I agree entirely. I have never said otherwise. The only point of contention between us is that you seem to want to include all sorts of things as possible freedoms. Your definition of absolute freedom seems to be that any sort of restriction (even definitional or contextual ones) count as violations of it. This seems unnecessarily harsh. I am not trying to say that a given set of actions are freedoms and some others are not. I’m only suggesting that a definition of absolute freedom which includes the freedom to become god is meaningless in the context of a political discussioin.
I am agreeing with you that saying a given philosophy is for such a freedom is meaninglessly vague. I am trying to point out that interpreting libertarians this way is to take the phrase “personal freedom” out of context.
Why are we having such a hard time communicating? Didn’t I specifically ask you to clarify whether you thought it was only talking about physical force, and didn’t you say, “of course”? And aren’t you now saying the exact opposite? I’m trying really hard to parse your posts, and I don’t know why it’s so difficult.
Well of course it doesn’t. Who said it does?
I find swinging your fists when nobody is around to be a poor comparison to owning a gun. But then that’s not even the point. We already know that our political philosophies differ; that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing whether saying Libertarianism is about “personal freedom” is an overly-vague description. But I do enjoy how you try to turn everything into an excuse to beat your right-wing drum. 
Strawman.
Don’t sigh at me. I’m really, really trying to make sense of what you’re saying, but you insist on writing cryptically. I keep specifically asking you if you’re being literal or not, and my honest reading of your post was that you were being literal.
Understood. And that was my point. We can disagree on what constitutes “personal freedom”. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. (Not literally referring to feline mutilation) 
Well that’s just a semantic quibble. I use the dictionary definition of freedom, which is “the state of being free of constraints”, whereas you apparently qualify your definition of freedom to be only that which does not apply force to others in any way. I differentiate between individual freedom and collective freedom, whereas you, as near as I can tell, consider the two concepts to by synonymous. I don’t get why you do this, but it’s certainly your prerogative to do so if you wish. The problem I have with your lexicon is that there doesn’t seem to be any way to describe the idea of “doing whatever you want”. I consider that as one idea, and then the idea of how you affect other people as a seperate idea. I think we both agree that we can’t (or ought not to) do “whatever we want”, but you don’t seem to even acknowledge the concept itself. At any rate, it’s just a matter of defining our terms differently. Perhaps you are using some sort of philosophical jargon that I’m unfamiliar with - I don’t know. I know Liberal does that a lot, and it makes his posts really hard to decipher.
Well, yeah. That’d be the dictionary definition.
To live with other humans, one cannot do whatever one wants. I would say that’s probably the very first lesson a child learns. I suppose it is harsh, in a way, but it’s certainly necessary. We gradually learn that there is not only “me”, but there is also “you”.
Become God? What on Earth are you talking about?
Well why didn’t you say so in the first place?
I disagree. The context is different because you disagree on the specific mechanism by which personal freedom is obtained. That does not mean that you are the only one who believes in personal freedom.
Well, sort of. You also, in the part I quoted I might add, asked me if I recognized a larger principle in the adage. That was what I addressed my “of course” to. The remainder of the paragraph should have made that clear.
Well your implication all along has been that there can be no agreement on what constitutes an infringement of rights. And you have specifically said that many actions affect others as if affecting others was the same thing as impinging on their freedoms.
To be more clear, I’m not saying that you said that the adage implied swinging a fist away from another constituted a possible breach. I’m drawing an analogy between your “may actions affect others” argument and the adage. I’m trying to get you to recognize that while there is a principle beyond fisticuffs involved, the adage does not justify solialism.
Yes, I’m having fun with it as well.
Well, to some extent we agree with each other on this. If there is any libertarian who says that “Libertarianism is about personal freedom.” and nothing more you would certinaly have a point that this is far too vague to be meaningful. However, I don’t think you have ever encountered such a libertarian. I’m certain I have not.
More to the point, however, the ideal of personal freedom taken in the context of a political philosophy discussion does have some meaning. You have been trying to say that it does not. Your example that absolute freedom would include the right to murder, for instance.
I don’t think you understand what that means. I am not claiming that you are making a particular argument and then bashing that. I am simply noting that one of your arguments is disturbingly familiar. Its not a strawman at all. A straw man would be if one of us proposed that the principles of libertarianism were so undefined as to include the possibility of a “right to murder”. That would be closer to a strawman. Even then, though, you’d have to actually make the point that this is what libertarians are saying. You have not done this.
Yes. Always assuming that we agree that such a phrase has meaning.
Well, sort of. Think of the application of force as a constraint. If we think of personal freedom in the social or political sense, then it seems nonsensical to take a definition of freedom which includes the use of constraints. We may disagree on how to measure constraints. But we can agree that murder would certainly be one, and should not be considered part of personal freedom in this social or political context.
Does that make it any clearer?
Sorry, I meant that as an expression of exasperation. It was really directed at me. I tend to think of misunderstandings as my own failure of expression. I did not mean to impune you in any way.
That’s odd. I thought it was the other way around. I’m saying that I want to maximize personal or individual freedom. You seem to argue that we can increase freedom collectively. That it is ok for us o take freedom from some in order to increase the aggregate or collective amount of freedom. Perhaps I have misunderstood you all this time.
This is not the case. I simply do not think that “do whatever you want” belongs in the definition of personal freedom as it applies to libertarianism or any political philosophy except perhaps anarchy. I don’ think I’ve ever implied that other contexts might not exist.
I did not mean harsh as in unpleasant. I meant harsh as in unecessarily strict. I was speaking definitionally. That is I was suggesting that your definition of freedom (especially in a political context) seems too broad to be useful. Unless, of course, your purpose is to make the discussion about how to restrict freedom instead of how to expand it.
Well, how it is measured. I don’t think we are really discussion how freedom is obtained.
No. It doesn’t. Has anyone ever suggested that libertarianism is the only philosophy which believes in personal freedom? You haven’t been reading that in all along have you?
I’m trying to get you to recognize that the concept of personal freedom, even absolute personal freedom does not include every concievable action. There are limits based on the context. If we limit the discussion to those actions which are physically possible, for instance, becoming a whale or god are out. That does not mean that we are no longer talking about absolute personal freedom. I’ve been trying all along to get you to see that personal freedom in a political context means that some other things are no longer part of “freedom”.
It is entirely possible for one philosophy to say that it bases all of its values on “personal freedom”. Another can say that it believes in personal freedom too, but it holds a couple other values higher. They can both believe in personal freedom but the hierarchical value system of one sees it as the highest value upon which all others are based. In that context, and taking into account the always included “except to limit the freedoms of others” phrase that is used, saying that libertarianism is based on personal freedom has a very specific meaning indeed.
Sorry, I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore.
But I most certainly didn’t say that actions that don’t affect other people are impinging on their freedoms, as in the example you gave in your response:
“the adage does not indicate that my swinging my fist well away from your face is a violation.”
This is starting to bug me, pervert. You post an obvious strawman, then when I call you on it, rather than fess up, you just obfuscate.
Plus, I can’t even discern what it is you’re talking about now. If I can do something that somehow violates a right that you have, then I ought not to be allowed to do that thing. You’re making this needlessly complex and your arguments are becoming more and more opaque.
I never said there “can be no agreement”. I said that people who hold different political philosophies will tend to disagree on how their objectives should be attained. I certainly didn’t contend that a society can never reach a consensus. All societies reach a compromise somewhere between “doing whatever you want”, and “government control of everything”, but it doesn’t mean that every individual is in exact agreement on where the lines ought to be drawn.
I also never said: “affecting others was the same thing as impinging on their freedoms”. I would say that you can affect others in ways that impinge on their freedom, and I’ve already given several examples. But YOU seem to be saying that it is impossible for that to occur, and I do disagree with that.
You say that the only way I can infringe on your rights is to use physical force against you, but when I give you other examples, you just say: “Oh, well that * counts* as physical force.” What you’re really doing is evaluating it on a case-by-case basis, just like we all do, except that when you come across an action that you believe violates another’s freedom, you just instantly re-define it as “physical force”. And we’re not all going to agree on exactly which things violate another’s freedom and which things don’t.
I feel like there’s an entirely different conversation going in in your head than the one on the page. I’m guessing you meant “socialism” and that’s just a typo, and I’d absolutely love to know by what tortured logic you arrived at the conclusion that I was arguing for socialism. (Strike that: I actually don’t want to know.)
Is it that in your mind, anyone who disagrees with you on anything is automatically branded a “socialist”?
Glad to see you finally concede my point.
I don’t think you’ve followed the thread. I’m not the one who made the contention that it’s “about personal freedom”. I didn’t just up and announce that I think that’s what Libertarians say. This all came about in the course of the thread. But that’s cute how you tried to turn things around there.
Those strawmen just keep coming… :rolleyes:
This is why you piss me off, pervert - You know PERFECTLY WELL that you are using a different definition of “freedom”; I already posted a whole diatribe on it. Yet you have deliberately substituted your definition for mine and pretended that they are the same. You are being deliberately obtuse, and not arguing in earnest.
Yes, if we, as individuals, were absolutely free (please look up the definition of “absolute”), then we would be free to murder. How you arrive at the conclusion that this means the concept of personal freedom has no meaning is completely beyond me. Again, I simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Yes I do. A “strawman argument” is an argument that you have created, that was never made by me, but that you nonetheless have presented as though it had been made by me. And you are continually doing this.
But in a way you’re right - it’s not just a strawman. You’ve slipped in a couple other fallacies at the same time. You claimed that what I said was like something that some imaginary group you have dubbed “Property is theft loonies” and that therefore I am ostensibly arguing that property is theft. There are so many logical blunders there, I can’t even begin to name them. Suffice it to say that the whole train of thought is utter bullshit.
Well it really has very little meaning, as it is overbroad. Which just happens to be the original point I was making.
Again, you are conflating MY freedom with YOUR freedom. What I am saying is that MY freedom may come into conflict with YOUR freedom. If I murder you, it is not a constraint on MY freedom, but it has curtailed YOUR freedom. This does NOT mean that I advocate murder; it simply means that I acknowledge that in a society in the real world, one can’t do whatever one wants, all the time, and murder is one of the things you can’t do. The dictionary definition of “freedom” does NOT include constraints. YOU are the one who is trying to attach constraints to the concept.
If I could get you to acknowledge this extremely straightforward idea, I would consider my time here well spent.
No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t.
Well then I think we’re just talking past each other. I’m honestly not getting what you’re trying to say. Maybe you’re not being deliberately obtuse, but I’ll be darned if I can figure out what point you’re trying to make.
O.K., but what does defining the word “freedom” have to do with how you structure a society? We were arguing about the definition of the word. Re-defining a word doesn’t make a concept go away. I could re-define “racism” as “only actions that are not racist”, but it wouldn’t make it go away.
You don’t seem to be understanding that if I define ‘absolute freedom’ as “being able to do whatever you want”, it doesn’t mean I believe that we should do whatever we want.
Are you arguing that by using a conflated definition of “freedom”, that you are somehow advocating freedom? I’m actually curious if this is something you picked up in some New-Age philosophy class or something. I’m really not familiar with this line of reasoning. Is there some author who espouses this?
Funny, I thought you were arguing that.
If you want to put it that way, I guess so. They’re called “laws”. They forbid us from doing certain things that would infringe on other people’s rights. That’s why I can’t, for example, climb up on your table in a restaurant and take a shit on your dinner. There’s a law against that. Or I can’t just punch you in the face anytime I feel like it. Or I can’t make donuts on your front lawn with my car. Or I can’t poison your dog. Or I can’t have Wookstock III in my back yard at 3:00 in the morning on a Monday night if I’m your neighbor, even if I really, really want to. Or a million other examples.
Again, you are confusing the definition of freedom with the actual policy enacted with regard to freedom. As another example, if I DEFINE assault as “the threat of physical harm to another” it doesn’t mean I ADVOCATE assault.
Please, I’m BEGGING you to ackowledge that you understand this distinction.
I thought we were talking about a definition here. What do you mean by “strict”. It’s not a policy, it’s a definition. Who’s being strict? God?
Again, you don’t effect changes by re-defining words. I find your definition to lack usefulness, because it conflates two concepts - the individual and the society. It might be useful in a fictitious society that had a collective consciousness, like the Borg in Star Trek, but otherwise, it’s just confusing.
Sorry, I lost you. Let’s take a step back. I am not claiming that all Libertarians claim to be the “party of individual freedom”, and that’s all. I was replying to a specific person who made that claim. If we both agree that the Libertarian party is NOT the “party of individual freedom” then we have nothing to disagree about in this particular instance. You seemed to be trying to argue against my point. If you agree with my point, then we can stop arguing.
Again, that’s just a sematic quibble.
So what? I never suggested they were “in”. Could we at least proceed with a modicum of common sense?
That’s a silly argument. Things that are physically impossible - magic, if you will, have nothing to do with it. Murder is not physically impossible. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
I disagree. Communism and socialism, perhaps view the collective state as being more important than the individual, but none of the other parties do. They just disagree on how freedom is preserved.
blowero somehow we have entirely failed to understand each other again. I am going to concentrate on just one or two points because I think it is important, and it demonstrates how our misunderstandign gets in the way.
The second part of what you just wrote is another way to say exactly the point I was getting at in my post. I am saying exactly that two political philosohpies can disagree on how important personal freedom is. Some believe that it is so important that “common good” must come second. Others believe that sacrificing a little personal freedom for the “common good” is not at all a bad thing. I am saying that both philosophies can be said to believe in personal freedom. They simply place it in a different position in the hierarchy of values they define.
Yes, I understand this. But what does this mean when we are talking about a common definition of freedom which has to apply equally to both parties? Again, I ask you to consider the context of a social or political philosophy. What does it mean for both parties to be free to murder the other? In what way can that be considered an increase of either parties personal freedom.
I think I have been unclear when talking about your use of the phrase “absolute freedom” as it applies to murder. I never meant to insinuate that you personally advocate a right to murder. If I have ever said anyting like that I was refering to your use of the term rather than your personal beliefs. FTR I do not think you advocate murder. I simply think that you are including it in your definition of “absolute freedom” as a rhetorical tool.
Yes, I do. What you fail to understand is that by defining absolute freedom this way you do not get to claim that libertarians advocate doing whatever we want.
I really think that we are talking about absolute freedom from two different perspectives. I think that you are using a metaphysical or physical perspective. That is freedom is only absolute if it includes any possible action or any physically possible action. I am using a social or political philosophy perspective. That is freedom is only absolute if it includes all possible actions which can be equally applied to all members of the society or body politic.
In this sense, I am introducing an additional qualifier to the definition of absolute freedom. But it seems to me an entirely reasonable one since the topic of discussion is a political philosophy, not a metaphysical doctrine.
BTW, as per your advice I did look up absolute. I found this: “*adjective: complete and without restriction or qualification; sometimes used informally as intensifiers (Example: “Absolute freedom”) *” Perhaps you read something else into this word?
For conciseness, I also looked up freedom, “noun: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints”.
pervert, mind if I make a suggestion or two? Yes? Well, I will anyway…
You can’t try to define libertarianism wrt absolute freedom, other than to point out that if two people exist, they can’t both have it. The point is to recognize that they are both equally entitled to it, in the same way that they are equally entitled to life. Libertarians don’t believe anyone can have absolute freedom; libertarians believe that everyone should have an equal amount–even those that work for the government. This basically resolves the fist-swinging question, but not the owning a gun question. The gun question is a misdirection because of the phrasing “freedom from fear of gun violence”. I would say, good luck creating a society that manages to keep everyone free from fear. What about my fear of someone breaking into my house and eating my family?
The next issue is that of how your exercise of your freedom “affects” others. If you recall, Clairobscur and I went round and round about this in the inalienable rights thread. When you breathe, it affects everyone else, because they can’t burn the oxygen you took from the air. When you eat a potato, it affects everyone because they can’t eat that potato. When you’re not talking about actually harming someone, what you’re talking about is how to address the fact that all resources in the world are “scarce” in the economic sense–i.e. they are not infinite. Dealing with this is what requires a notion of property. And this idea of equally entitling everyone is why libertarians believe in individual ownership.
Anyway, this is the way I would approach it. As long as you are debating the definition of the word “freedom”, you’re just not going to get anywhere.
-VM
Of course not.
But this is exactly the problem. People like blowero want to define society as that which restricts freedom. They say that you can’t have absolute freedom (in the metaphysical or physical sense) so all society is just a decision about which and how much freedom to restrict. I happen to think that this is exactly the wrong formulation. I do not believe that a freedom to murder makes any sense in anything other than the physical sense of the word freedom. It makes no sense to me in the sense of a political philosophy. My only point being that I don’t want to define libertariansim in terms of this sort of absolute freedom. That’s the sort of logic that gets us invariably into the “Libertarianism is not anarchy” discussion.
To be honest I did not follow that thread very closely. I understand what you are saying regarding scarcity. I do not, as it happens, agree with the formulation of libertarianism you suggest in that last sentence. I’m not sure exactly that very many libertarians wish to “equally entitle everyone” to the property which exists.
Truth be told, I understand that. The problem is that once we give up this particular battle we have lost the war. Once we say that the amount of freedom each person has is simply a social convention like which side of the road to drive on everything is up for grabs. With enough votes every freedom is on the table.
What I am suggesting is that there is a sense of the word “freedom” which does not simply imply a limitation of the physical capability to move in one way or another. There is a sense in which a society of people could be absolutely free without anarchy or some “freedom to murder”. I’m sorry, but the truth IMHO is that most actions do not, in fact, limit or impinge on the freedoms of others.
For instance, the formulation of you eating a potato depriving me of that potato assumes that we both have equal access to that potato. In any sort of real life societal model this will not be the case. Either you grew the potato, found the potato, or were responsible for discovering that it was edible. I on the other hand was not involved in one way or another with that potato. I.E. we did not have the same access to it. Barring the idea that your privileged access was gained through force, we are left with the conclusion that most potatoes actually belong to one of us in some way.
It seems a perversion of the term for me to say that you eating your property is an impingement of my freedom. Just as it would be a perversion to say that your living your life is an impingment on my freedom to murder you. If blowero is right, then those two sentences make sense in some way.* They do not to me. My point, is only that “freedom” in the sense of physical movement is not the same thing as “freedom” in the sense of political action or thought.
I’m rambling somewhat. Sorry about that.
*Just in case, blowero, I am not saying that you support any sort of muder freedom. I meant, again, if you are right in your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase “absolute freedom”.
Um. Only if we extend the definition of “functioning state” to include “de facto Syrian protectorate”. You’re not a sovereign state if you don’t have a monopoly on the use of military force in your territory. If you have thousands of foreign troops on your soil, large portions of your country outside the control of the central government, no ability to make foreign policy independent of your large, (relatively) powerful neighbore, and an active, influential terrorist group - you’re not a functioning state as I understand the words.
Hmm. Was I just talking about Lebanon or Iraq? 
Other than the “Syrian protectorate” bit, obviously.
Well, in a libertarian state the citizens of the state are the highest authority. In Beirut, arguably, the Syrian government is the highest authority.
I’m sorry - I don’t mean to keep beating up on Lebanon.
Well, I’ve head a hard time following all of the exchange between you, but if this is **blowero’s ** position,then it makes perfect sense to me. There are plenty of things I’d like to be doing that do not fall within the bounds of society (and yes, that includes the occasional murder). Thing is, while there are things I’d like to do, I also want the protection society affords me from my neighbors doing whatever they want to do (which might include murdering me). I don’t like the idea of constantly having to watch my own back, or having to rely solely on my physical or financial strength to ensure that I am not victimized.
So it’s always a tradeoff…I don’t see how you can have a society of any scale without that philosophy. People like laws governing most interactions- if only so they know what to expect.
As I asked before, how long do you think a libertarian state will last without legislation cropping up that renders it remarkably similar to what we have today? How would you prevent that from happening?
But again, this is the wrong formulation. You don’t want society’s protection from your neighbors doing “whatever they want to do”. They might want to give you a million dollars. You want society’s protection from them doing harm to you. In exchange you are willing to give up your option to do harm to them. I understand this social contract formulation for society. I happen to agree with it. I simply disagree that it amounts to an impingement of your freedoms within such a society.
Let me see if I can put it this way. If we imagine some alien super being coming down to Earth telling each person what he may and may not do (and enforcing it in some way), then I understand the idea that such edicts restrict freedoms. They amount to outside restraints.
At the same time, if we look at an individual who chooses not to perform a certain action, I think we can all agree that this is clearly not a restriction of his freedom. Even if that action precludes others. As an example, I agree not to murder you in exchange for your agreement not to murder me (assume we agree on some enforcement method). We each are precluded from murder, but I cannot see any formulation of “freedom” for which this amounts to the same sort of outside restraint described above.
Finally, if we recognize that society is a group which includes the individual, the line between internal and external restraints becomes blurred. Political philosophy is concerned with this sort of group. A political ideal seeks to define a rule set which applies to all members of such a group. Even if the conclusion is “Everyone must obey the King.”
All that I have been trying to say is that not all choice restrictions imposed by a society rise to the level of outside restrictions necessary to make them an impingement on an individual’s freedom. I am not saying that none of them do. I’m simply saying that the principle that some choices are given up as a necessary condition of membership in a society is not the same thing as an impingement of freedom.
Just for reference so that we don’t get bogged down in semantics, I am using these definitions.
absolute: *adjective: complete and without restriction or qualification; sometimes used informally as intensifiers (Example: “Absolute freedom”) *
freedom: *noun: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints *
restraints: *noun: a rule or condition that limits freedom (Example: “Legal restraints”) *
This depends entirely on the mechanics of how such a thing would be instituted.
I think the American Constitution is a good model. If you constituted a libertarian state then it would take a significatn political movement to change that. Think about what it would take to significantly reduce Congress’ power today. We’d need a couple new ammendments at least. The mechanism of Constitutional Republic seems pretty stable to me.
I agree. But I think that you’ll have a hard time getting two people to agree on the proper threshold. You choose to err on the side of total consensus, it seems; however, I think that there are issues that trump this as a priority. And I suppose that as long as I can muster sufficient political will, that’s how it will go. Of course, the same goes for you- and we certainly live in a society that does less for its citizens that I would have it.
As someone mentioned in one of the Social Security threads, no matter how much some dislike takings, we as a society are not going to let people starve in the streets. If private charities don’t pick it up, you can bet that there will be legislation to fund soup kitchens, housing, pensions, etc. And i think this is the right thing to do, and the only recourse of a civilized society. Can you not see how some might be skeptical of libertarian thought when so much of their philosophy is process based at what seems to be the expense of outcomes?
I also agree with you that the American Constitution is a good model. But are there not those that claim that things would be great if we went back to the ‘plain meaning’ of the Constitution, claiming it as the Libertarian ideal? How’d we get here from there?
Well, yes, at some level enough political support trumps any principle if for no othe reason than enough people can always subject a much smaller number. The point I am trying to make is not that there is some consensus as to where the line between freedom impinging limitations and simple society participation limitations, but rather that there is such a line. If we agree that there is such a line, then we can look for it in good faith and attempt to organize society accordingly. If we do not agree that such a line exists, then no actions of sociey are different in kind from any others. Under such a formulation if society votes to enslave all readheads, that is just another limitation put on individuals (in this case redheads) by society. No qualitative difference at all. If you see what I mean.
Of course. I understand the skepticism entirely. I think there are answers to all of them (of course I do, otherwise I would not identify myself as a libertarian ;)).
I have to say, just for the record, that there are far fewer people “starving in the streets” than may be assumed. And that some of the government programs which are supposed to prevent this may in fact increase the amount of poverty rather than decrease it.
I don’t know if there are that many who think “things would be great…” I think some think things would be better. Just as there are those who think things would be better if we scrapped the constitution entirely and simply went to a direct democracy. I don’t think there are many who view the constitution as it stands as the libertarian ideal. There were not enough restrictions on the regulation of trade. A couple too many loopholes for congressional power.
In the “change the constitution” thread Smartass made a pretty good post about what a libertarian constitution would look like. I’m not saying I agree with every letter. But it might give you a good idea.