In the context of a political discussion, no it’s not non-standard. Your definition requires that we accept that every single person in the country has a different degree of freedom. What use is that definition?
And that’s fine. But you don’t go around calling yourself a libertarian, as **Gadarene **appears to want to do. We were not debating the goodness or badness of libertarianisn, but what the fundamental tenets are.
Fine. We can disagree. But again, keep in mind that I’m speaking in a political context. Of course I might say: “I didn’t want to see Star Wars, but **Gadarene **coerced me into going”. I don’t mean that anything illegal was done, but then I’m not talking in a political context.
No, I as trying to understand how your principle is developed. If coercion consists of a threat to fire someone, why isn’t the threat to shut down a factory also coercion? If you prefer, I’ll leave it as an open question and ask you to clarify the difference.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at there, but there’s no need to explain unless it’s central to your argument.
I think the term you are looking for, judging from what you’ve written thus far, is not ”left-libertarian,” but rather, anarchist, or possibly anarcho-syndicalist. This:
…actually, strikes me as quite “socialist.” That view, at least, is certainly one of the basic tenets of social democracy as it’s practiced in Sweden.
Combine this view with the realization that we live in a world of scarcity, and you actually do arrive at a kind of de facto ceiling as well; a point at which one individual (or class) has, by hook or crook, begun to acquire so much wealth that it encroaches upon the “minimum level of choice” you promote – whatever that level might be. Hence the argument for a graduated income tax. Sam:
Your reply to Princhester is so silly I hardly know where to begin. After all this time I find it simply mind-boggling that you continue to believe some of the “facts” you proffer. In fact, I’m pretty sure you don’t even believe them yourself – you simply post them to win debating points.
Anyway, since Hentor has already pretty much made mincemeat of you post, I’ll just respond to a couple of statements that jump out at me.
Start by comparing this, which you posted on the previous page:
…with this:
I asked you to produce such a report, since you said that you could easily do so; a day or two later, and not only can you not easily do so yourself, you can’t even find an example of such a biased report.
But it doesn’t matter, really, because in order to make your case, you must submit the PIPA report to a critical review which clearly demonstrates its bias. You have thus far completely failed to do so.
Oh, these are fun word games.
We know that there were a couple of meetings between representatives of al-Qaida and Hussein’s regime over the course of about two decades. This hardly constitutes a “relationship,” let alone “cooperation.” If you believe otherwise, then it is you, I fear, who labors under a misperception. There is, to this date, absolutely no evidence whatsoever of cooperative relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq.
The rest of your analysis here makes no sense either. Certainly, the 7% who said there was no contact between Iraq and al-Qaida are wrong (albeit, just barely!), and they all probably supported the war; but the study did not set out to demonstrate that absolutely every opponent of the war knew absolutely everything about the issues involved. Rather, the study demonstrates (if I remember correctly) that there is a significant, almost overwhelming, correlation between those who were misinformed about the war and those who supported it. If you wish to win this debate, you must prove this correlation spurious. I doubt you can.
Another one of your favorite suppositions, only this time you must know it for a bald face lie. We both read the NIE, as I remember, went through it with a fine-toothed comb, and I know damn well you are aware of how many dissenting opinions it contained. I don’t think it contained a single uncontested judgement. Shall we go back over it again?
[QUOTE]
Look, this is not a ‘the right is stupid, the left is smart’ thing.*
[QUOTE]
I agree with you on this point: the PIPA study doesn’t lead to such a conclusion. But it does lead one to the conclusion that, in general, those who supported the invasion were more ignorant than those who opposed it.
No. Rather, it demonstrates that those who supported the invasion were more ignorant than those who opposed it.
No idea. Why don’t you cite a report that provides some basis for your supposition, rather than ask hypothetical questions?
My apologies. I meant to write that this 7% probably opposed the war. John:
You contradict yourself if you believe that 1) the definition of coercion should be restricted only to physical coercion, yet 2) argue that ”In fact, forcing the business owner to remain open IS a form of coercion.” Unless, of course, you mean that the owner is forced to remain open at gunpoint.
Regarding this:
On the contrary, in my experience it is a very standard definition.
I think that it could be a very useful definition. Freedom, as a quality, is very hard to define, and can imply different things in different contexts. Americans are “free” politically, in that they can vote for anyone they like; but less free culturally, and many are economically enslaved.
I don’t think we gain anything by reducing the concept to a simple slogan that also, by chance, disqualifies any point of view other than your own.
You really expect him to develop, implement and publish a survey of his own within a couple of days? I don’t know what the results would be, but your expectations are a wee bit unrealistic.
Apparently so.
An oversimplified but largely accurate definition of “libertarianism” of the right (and to some extent, left): the haunting fear that a group one does not approve has or will acquire government-protected rights that result in a better quality of life.
I’m sorry, I disagree. A definition of “freedom” that doesn’t include what people are or are not free to do, makes no sense.
Well what use is a definition that doesn’t address the actual amount of freedom people have in the real world?
I believe you are the one who expanded the parameters of the discussion when you wrote: “A person’s survival is rarely, if ever, tied to one particular job”. Sorry, but I couldn’t let that one go unchecked.
I just don’t believe you have a monopoly on the “libertarian” label. One does not have to be 100% as radical a libertarian as you in order to have the privilege of using the word.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. You seem to be saying that by labelling this as a “political” discussion, that it entitles you to enforce your own extremely narrow definitions of words and insist that nobody else use the standard, reasonable definitions of those words. And again, you’re sort of making another strawman - I never, ever said nor implied that the simple act of trying to persuade someone to go to a movie constitutes “coercion”, in any context. If he said, “Go to Star Wars with me or I’ll kill your dog”, then yes. But otherwise, no.
It could be; it would depend on the context. I don’t know if this is really the place for such hypotheticals. I really didn’t intend to get into an exhaustive discussion of every possible thing that could or could not constitute coercion. You do understand that it’s not always complete cut & dried, don’t you?
It was a response to what you wrote. You suggested that if an employer is not allowed to use X as leverage to intimidate employees, that it’s equivalent to banning the business from doing X. My point was that those two things are not equivalent. For example, an employer is allowed to fire an employee, but he must have a valid reason. He is not allowed to fire an employee for refusing to give him a blowjob, for example. You may believe that this is unneccessary coercion of the employer, and that employers should be free to demand blowjobs, but I don’t find it unreasonable for a person to view this as sound public policy, and even for a libertarian to see it that way.
I do. If it’s illegal to shut the factory down, how do you think the government will enforce the law, except by use of physical force.
This is exactly what I object to. Again, “slavery” has a specific meaning, and when you stretch it apply to workers in America, it ceases to have meaning. We then need to invent a new word to describe people, like Blacks in the antibellum south, who were litterally owned by other people.
Since Sam offered that he could create one quite simply, I would say that the onus was on him. However, I have no expectations that he really would, since his intentions were more to hand-wave away the results of the study with a summarily dismissive comment.
Sort of like looking at studies linking smoking and lung cancer, and saying “Pffft. I could easily design a study that would prove that smoking does not cause lung cancer.”
Exactly. What about “indentured servants”, for example? Technically free, but slaves for all practical purposes. What use is a definition of “freedom” that ignores reality.
But indentured servants are NOT free. Neither are people serving time in jail.
The real issue here, though, is that libertarians define freedom in a certain way, and you cannot invalidate that philosophy by simply claiming a different definition of freedom (or coercion). Go ahead and create a new or different philosophy using your definition of freedom. That’s really all I’m getting at.
They both, for instance, have no problem with gay marriage.
I didn’t say they WERE libertarian. Given two boxes, one lableled “conservative” and the other “libertarian”, I think they’d actually fit in the libertarian one better. Neither is a social conservative in the mold of George Bush, Pat Robertson, or Rick Santorun.
That’s just it - by your definition of freedom, they are, because they have “voluntarily” agreed to work under the conditions of the contract. By your definition, we would have to ignore the reality that they had no other choice, and agreed to the conditions under duress, since you don’t recognize any kind of coercion other than physical.
No, they rarely “volunteered” as they were not coming from societies that were free. Keep in mind that we’re talking about 16th and 17th century England, which still had a rigid class system in place. It might have been relatively free, compared to other countries of the time, but it was still a monarchy, and landless peasants did not have much access to the political system (such as it was).
A common reason they “volunteered” was in order to obtain the relatively higher level of freedom they’d get afterwards.
Why? You’re trying to apply libertarian principles to a country where people simply aren’t free. I wouldn’t agree to libertarian processes if I lived, for instance, in the former USSR.
Sorry, but they are mainstream social conservatives. (Pat Roberstson is a nut). Gay marriage is only one issue. If you listed a bunch of issues that makes one a social conservative, they would agree with most of it. Religious zealousness, Role of religion in society/government, Abortion, Role of government in promoting social norms, Role of media, Role of parenting etc.
I don’t have a link to the thread, but I clearly remember listing a serious of socialy “liberal” issues that I supported, and Shodan agreed with (IIRC) all but one-- the death penalty. But come on, even Kerry supports the death penalty under some circumstances. Does that make him a social conservative? I do think you’re wrong, but without the participation of those two guys, we won’t resolve it. Maybe in another thread…
I will concede that **PR **was a bad example of “social conservative”, since he’s waaaaaay over on the right in that area. But come on… “religious zealousness”? What does that mean, and how can **Bricker **and **Shodan **be charactized that way.
