Nice flash animation about freedom

[shanek]

Kind of long, but this flash animation does an excellent job spelling out the basics of freedom and what it means to have life, liberty, and property:

http://jonathangullible.com/mmedia/philosop.swf

[Tony]

That philosophy is the very antithesis of the prevailing thoughts of many of our members here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
That philosophy is the very antithesis of the prevailing thoughts of many of our members here.

I've noticed...

[Reager]

Although I don't agree with it, it certainly is a very pretty video. Pleasing to the eye and ear. It almost reminds me of a ride at EPCOT, tho I can't remember which one.

Mike

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Although I don't agree with it, it certainly is a very pretty video. Pleasing to the eye and ear. It almost reminds me of a ride at EPCOT, tho I can't remember which one.

Mike

Out of curiosity, what about out you do not agree with?

[chulbert]

I generally agree with much of it, though I tend to get a little nervous when people start raving about "defending their property."

And was it just me, or did they lift the theme music for Halloween for that?

[shanek]

That was "Tubular Bells" by Mike Oldfield.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Out of curiosity, what about out you do not agree with?

It promotes a philosophy that is based upon some assumptions and principles that I don't agree with. I'm not sure that the view of liberty espoused by that site is a) correct or b) desirable. Especially the bits about governance and property. For example, takeng to the logical extreme, there is no reason why the US Constitution should govern any of us (or anyone in the original thirteen states besides those who diectly ratified it)...since we did not assent to be governed by it. While that may be a defensible position theoretically, to have everyone in society agree on the laws and structure of government before they would be individually bound by them...how in the world could that be accomplished, practically? It's a recipe for chaos.

Mike

[Jessica Blue]

Gosh that flash is really beautiful. A Utopian vision of Randian ideals.

It should be shown in every kindergarten...

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
For example, takeng to the logical extreme, there is no reason why the US Constitution should govern any of us

It doesn't. It governs government. It watches the watchmen.

[Earthborn]

I absolutely love it! Rarely do you see such clear explanation of someone's philopsophy as this Ken Schoolland here did. I watched it many times, and I agree with most of it.

However, there are things that seem self-contradictory or at odds with reality.

In the part about protecting life, liberty and property:
"And you may ask others to help protect you."

This seems infinitely reasonable. In todays world, people will ask professionals to protect them, and in many cases this will be governmental forces, such as the police or armed forces.

However, at the end, we learn:
"The solution is for the people of the earth to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf."

It may seem that this isn't a contradiction, since the initiating of force is not the same as being protected, but there is no fine line between the two. In most cases people turn to the government to be protected, which is what the government is for. People don't ask the government to initiate force, the government however may justify initiation of force in order to be able to protect the people that asked to be protected.

"Evil does not only arise from evil people but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own end."

This is true, but it does not tell why these people tolerate it: to be protected. They will tolerate this if they feel that it is the only way to protect their life, liberty and property.

Also we should realise that this is not only true of government. When people ask others to help protect themselves, they always run the risk the person they ask for protection will initiate force.

"to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery and to take property is theft."

Yet there are situation where any of them is considered legitimate, even by libertarians. If someone threatens to kill you, you can take his life if that is the only way to protect yourself. Even in Libertarian Utopia, people can end up in jail, or have possesions confiscated if those were taken through illegimate means. There is of course the problem of defining what is illegitemate or a punishable offense. The author recognizes this:

"You have the right to protect your own life, liberty and justly acquired property from the forceful agression of others."

What is 'justly acquired' is something that is subject to a lot of interpretation. For that we will probably need some sort of government officials (or a Libertarian equivalent).

However:
"You have the right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose leaders onto others."

This will mean that if you have some government officials that are able to define what is illegitemate or just, you have no way that they can use these definitions on others. Others may simply say that it isn't their leader, since they didn't choose them, so the definitions the leader decided for you doesn't apply to them.

I can see it now: criminals who simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of the court and cannot be tried because of that. Any justice system will have to impose it's authoriy on others against their will, I see no way around it.

This idea is also in direct contradiction with modern constitutional democracies. That too imposes leaders on many others by the people who vote for the winning candidate. To achieve this Libertarian goal of people chosing their own leaders but not being able to impose them on others, requires a fundamentally different voting system and political system than the world has ever seen. I'd like to know how it might work.

"Your action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is virtuous only when it is derived from voluntary mutual consent."

But this just steps over situations in which someone cannot give any consent for any actions done to them. If I lie unconscious on the street because of a traffic accident, I expect people to make decisions for me without my explicit consent, for instance by taking me to hospital in an ambulance. They will just have to assume I consent with it, without asking and without any proof of consent. In fact it is in such a case the only virtuous thing to do it is without consent.

"you own your life.

To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do"

But there are many situations where another actually knows better what is good for me than I do myself. If I suffer from cancer and I must endure sickening chemotherapies, I might start to wonder whether the suffering is worth it and whether it isn't better to stop. I expect however that medical personel pulls me through, demands of me that I do not stop because I will be gratefull later. I need to put my life in their hands, and since I will die if I don't, it isn't really voluntarily. In many medical situations people need to learn to submit to the doctor's orders, simply because he knows better.

"Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off, or they wouldn't do it."

This assumes that both are able to assess with certainty what the value of the property they are getting is. This may not always be obvious: sometimes by deliberate fraud or by error of the other person, they are getting something that was not worth what they paid for it.

Also in many cases the person who receives the worthless thing feels too ashamed for making such a bad deal that they don't dare to ask for a refund, or the amount paid isn't enough to justify sueing the party they got it from. This is how the crappy stuff from home shopping channels gets sold.

"This is the basis for a truly free society. I tis not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical"

Wow! Not only is it good, it is also easy. However, this is in direct contradiction with the challenges that lie ahead for this to work that are mentioned at the end:

"Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk and to act."
"Especially when it is easier to do nothing..."

I think this is asking too much of many people. People will prefer easier solutions, as they will lack the courage to stand up for themselves, they will prefer to relegate hard thinking to others and hope others will act in their behalf.

So in short, I'm not buying it yet. Perhaps you can show something less propagandistic?

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


It doesn't. It governs government. It watches the watchmen.

Sigh..you completely missed the point, as usual...probably intentionally, because you have no adequate response.

Mike

[Reager]

Originally posted by Earthborn
However:
"You have the right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose leaders onto others."

This will mean that if you have some government officials that are able to define what is illegitemate or just, you have no way that they can use these definitions on others. Others may simply say that it isn't their leader, since they didn't choose them, so the definitions the leader decided for you doesn't apply to them.

I can see it now: criminals who simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of the court and cannot be tried because of that. Any justice system will have to impose it's authoriy on others against their will, I see no way around it.

This idea is also in direct contradiction with modern constitutional democracies. That too imposes leaders on many others by the people who vote for the winning candidate. To achieve this Libertarian goal of people chosing their own leaders but not being able to impose them on others, requires a fundamentally different voting system and political system than the world has ever seen. I'd like to know how it might work.

Oh, that I were so eloquent...you did a much better job of explaining this point than I did. But I still think Shanek is being purposefully obtuse, it's not *that* tough a concept to grasp.

Mike

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One error - it states that the taking of another life is murder. That is not always true. It is always killing, but not always murder.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
It may seem that this isn't a contradiction, since the initiating of force is not the same as being protected, but there is no fine line between the two. In most cases people turn to the government to be protected, which is what the government is for. People don't ask the government to initiate force, the government however may justify initiation of force in order to be able to protect the people that asked to be protected.

Wait...in the first sentence, you agree that the initiation of force is not the same thing as protecting someone else, since the force used in that protection would be in the form of defense or the justice system. But then in the last sentence, you say that the government can justify initiating force to protect them, even though you've admitted that they aren't the same thing!

No, the initiation of force to "protect" someone (e.g., the Patriot Act) is not justified. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up their essential liberties in order to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery and to take property is theft."

Yet there are situation where any of them is considered legitimate, even by libertarians. If someone threatens to kill you, you can take his life if that is the only way to protect yourself. Even in Libertarian Utopia, people can end up in jail, or have possesions confiscated if those were taken through illegimate means. There is of course the problem of defining what is illegitemate or a punishable offense.

But those are not initiations of force; they are reactions to the initiation of force by others.

What is 'justly acquired' is something that is subject to a lot of interpretation. For that we will probably need some sort of government officials (or a Libertarian equivalent).

Sure, we need government to protect property rights. I don't know of anyone (short of an anarchist) who is denying that.

I can see it now: criminals who simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of the court and cannot be tried because of that.

Again, that wouldn't count because the criminal (at least in a free society) would be the one who initiated the force, and the courts are reacting to that.

(That means that certain "crimes" like drug use and prostitution that only involve consenting adults would not be crimes at all.)

But this just steps over situations in which someone cannot give any consent for any actions done to them. If I lie unconscious on the street because of a traffic accident, I expect people to make decisions for me without my explicit consent, for instance by taking me to hospital in an ambulance. They will just have to assume I consent with it, without asking and without any proof of consent. In fact it is in such a case the only virtuous thing to do it is without consent.

But that is a perfectly reasonable assumption and in no way constitutes an initiation of force. If you're a Christian Scientist who would rather have people pray as you bleed to death, then you could carry a card or bracelet letting people know that.

But there are many situations where another actually knows better what is good for me than I do myself. If I suffer from cancer and I must endure sickening chemotherapies, I might start to wonder whether the suffering is worth it and whether it isn't better to stop. I expect however that medical personel pulls me through, demands of me that I do not stop because I will be gratefull later. I need to put my life in their hands, and since I will die if I don't, it isn't really voluntarily.

Of course it is! You could choose to do nothing, you could choose psychic surgery, or homeopathy, or all sorts of weird options. You'd only choose the chemotherapy because you yourself was convinced that it was your best, if not your only, chance for survival. It's still your choice. True, you need to defer to others with more knowledge to advise you, but the final decision is still yours.

"Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off, or they wouldn't do it."

This assumes that both are able to assess with certainty what the value of the property they are getting is. This may not always be obvious: sometimes by deliberate fraud or by error of the other person, they are getting something that was not worth what they paid for it.

But that was covered by the initiation of force or fraud. You don't have the right to defraud anybody. And as for mistakes, well, they happen. As the buyer, shouldn't you check it out to make sure you're getting what you pay for? Caveat emptor.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
One error - it states that the taking of another life is murder. That is not always true. It is always killing, but not always murder.

Good point. Killing in self-defense is not murder.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek


Good point. Killing in self-defense is not murder.

Also executions by the state are not murder. And abortions are not murder.

[Earthborn]

But then in the last sentence, you say that the government can justify initiating force to protect them, even though you've admitted that they aren't the same thing!I am sorry if I was unclear. I did not mean to imply that they are justified that in initiating force, only that they are justifying (falsely) the fact that they do. When people ask for help to be protected by others, they always run the risk that the other will go to far, especially if the other is the government.

The point was that the solution the animation presents us is in many cases not a solution at all, as people are asking to be protected by the government (a legitimate thing) but the government might use request/demand to initiate force (an illegitimate thing). The solution can't be that people simply stop asking the government to use initiation of force, because usually they don't.As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up their essential liberties in order to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."Note that he said 'essential liberties'. Apperently he recognized that at least in some situations people should be expected to give up at least some freedoms.

I think it is also a bit dangerous quote. I can imagine that one day there will be some dictator misconstruing that exact same quote to argue that the vast majority of people deserve neither liberty nor safety.But those are not initiations of force; they are reactions to the initiation of force by others.The animation makes no such distinction. You do because you realize that it doesn't adress this important point.Again, that wouldn't count because the criminal (at least in a free society) would be the one who initiated the force, and the courts are reacting to that.Again, the animation doesn't make that distinction. It argues that choosing a leader that rules over others without their consent is illegitimate. It doesn't tell us anything about the others, so we'll have to assume that anyone is implied.But that is a perfectly reasonable assumption and in no way constitutes an initiation of force.I think it does. The ambulance workers have no way of knowing what I want, even if it is a 'reasonable assumption'. It means that you give them the power to judge whether something is a reasonable assumption, and thus you allow some subjectivity to creep in. If you allow that, you might also allow 'liberating people from an evil dictator' since it can be argued that it is a reasonable assumption that these people want that.If you're a Christian Scientist who would rather have people pray as you bleed to death, then you could carry a card or bracelet letting people know that.I believe that the right to (a healthy) life is more important than freedom, I also believe that there are situations in which someone's wishes should be overruled. If someone's wishes prevent them from getting proper treatment, I think they should get treatment. Doctors have the job of saving lives.You'd only choose the chemotherapy because you yourself was convinced that it was your best, if not your only, chance for survival.But I expect the doctors to put maximum effort into it to convince me of that.True, you need to defer to others with more knowledge to advise you, but the final decision is still yours.But there are many situations where I cannot (be trusted to) make that decision for myself. I think this is one of the major reasons alternative medicine is on the rise: people are unwilling to submit to medical science and are searching for what they think is an easier way out. One that is likely going to hurt them even more, even killing them. I find that an unacceptable price for freedom.You don't have the right to defraud anybody.That does not mean it doesn't happen and it does not mean there shouldn't be some sort of authority preventing it from happening.As the buyer, shouldn't you check it out to make sure you're getting what you pay for?As a buyer you may not be able to check before you pay, for instance if you order something by mail. Or you may not have the expertise or equipment to check it and you may end up finding out much later. How would you know whether the engine in your car has microscopic cracks in it? Or whether the gaspipes in your house do? Doesn't the orginal seller have the responsibility to sell you a good product and submit to prior inspection by some sort of independent authority?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by chulbert
And was it just me, or did they lift the theme music for Halloween for that?

Close.

Originally posted by shanek
That was "Tubular Bells" by Mike Oldfield.

More commonly known as the theme music for The Exorcist.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I believe that the right to (a healthy) life is more important than freedom, I also believe that there are situations in which someone's wishes should be overruled. If someone's wishes prevent them from getting proper treatment, I think they should get treatment. Doctors have the job of saving lives.

As soon as I saw this paragraph I had to comment. This is completely unacceptable as it gives others control of your life. I don't even mean in the context of the flash animation but in general. If someone wants to commit suicide who the heck are you to stop them? If someone believes that blood transfusion is bad for them then let them live and die with that. It's the same stupid reasoning people use to outlaw marijuana and all the other drugs. You might as well say "You are not smart enough to live your life; we are going to tell you how to do it."

[peptoabysmal]

Republican: "I'll sell you some property at a good interest rate."

Libertarian: "No thanks, you can take your interest rate and shove it."

Democrat: "All property belongs to the state."

Libertarian: "Get the hell off of my property."

Republican: "The interest rate just went up."

[Jude]

I saw this maybe eight months ago, so it's not so new.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I am sorry if I was unclear. I did not mean to imply that they are justified that in initiating force, only that they are justifying (falsely) the fact that they do. When people ask for help to be protected by others, they always run the risk that the other will go to far, especially if the other is the government.

That is absolutely true. That's why the government must be absolutely constrained from doing so. Note that the animation specifically says that you don't have the right to have the government initiate force against others on your behalf.

Note that he said 'essential liberties'.

Because he recognized all liberties as being essential, just as he recognized all forms of safety as being temporary. That was his point in saying that.

The animation makes no such distinction.

Of course it does! Most of the animation, in fact, differentiates between the initiation of force and the use of force to defend life, liberty, and property.

Again, the animation doesn't make that distinction.

Yes, it does. It says that people have a right to government protection as long as that protection does not constitute an initiation of force.

The ambulance workers have no way of knowing what I want, even if it is a 'reasonable assumption'.

In the absence of any information from you on the matter, what else are they supposed to do? It is their job, after all.

If you allow that, you might also allow 'liberating people from an evil dictator' since it can be argued that it is a reasonable assumption that these people want that.

No, because those people are perfectly able to express their wishes on the matter, even if there is personal risk involved in doing so.

If someone's wishes prevent them from getting proper treatment, I think they should get treatment.

You're in favor of forced medical treatment?

But there are many situations where I cannot (be trusted to) make that decision for myself.

This is my biggest problem with you. You think people are too stupid to run their own lives and must defer to some kind of authority to run it for them. This is the basis of pretty much every single post I've seen you make. And it is the very antithesis of freedom.

That does not mean it doesn't happen and it does not mean there shouldn't be some sort of authority preventing it from happening.[/b]

When did I EVER say there shouldn't be such an authority?

As a buyer you may not be able to check before you pay, for instance if you order something by mail.

That's just lame. You can still fully check out a product before buying it even if it's by mail or over the internet.

Or you may not have the expertise or equipment to check it

Oh, and it's absolutely impossible to seek out others who have checked it out...riiiight....

When you buy a car, you can not only test drive it, but you can take it to a mechanic and have him check it out. I wouldn't buy a car from anyone who wouldn't let me do that.

[Tony]

I believe that the right to (a healthy) life is more important than freedom


This is the first time I have ever seen anyone attempt to justify slavery.

[Gem]

I believe that the right to (a healthy) life is more important than freedom

This is the first time I have ever seen anyone attempt to justify slavery.

How is the right to a healthy life slavery? An unhealthy life actually limits your freedom.

Gem

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Gem


How is the right to a healthy life slavery? An unhealthy life actually limits your freedom.

Gem

Slavery does not have to mean chains and work in the fields; it could mean complete loss of choice. Who decides what is a healthy life? And what definition of healthy will be used? I want that type of choice to be left to individuals and not society.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Gem




How is the right to a healthy life slavery?


I never said it did, and to think so is to misrepresent what I was saying.

[Reager]

Forgive me for using Earthborn's words, but I think this is a very good point, and I have yet to see a response.

This idea is also in direct contradiction with modern constitutional democracies. That too imposes leaders on many others by the people who vote for the winning candidate. To achieve this Libertarian goal of people chosing their own leaders but not being able to impose them on others, requires a fundamentally different voting system and political system than the world has ever seen. I'd like to know how it might work.

I tried to make a similar point earlier WRT the Constitution (but it can just as easily be applied to any form of government). *I* didn't voluntarilly agree to be bound by the laws of the US Government, or the state governments, or its elected leaders. Neither did most everyone born in this country for the past 214 years.

Just wondering...

Mike

[rikzilla]

Loved the flash...very nice and neat.

Too bad that in the final analysis, it's just too nice and neat to be useful in a real-world way. If we had a perfect world perhaps it would work. It seems to me that Communism is also a very appealing philosophy...yet real-world applications of it quickily became horror-stories.

I'm there tho Shanek, if only someone can find a way to make it work...without gulags, purges, fuehrers, or "cultural revolutions".

-z

[Gem]

I never said it did, and to think so is to misrepresent what I was saying.

You're right.

Slavery does not have to mean chains and work in the fields; it could mean complete loss of choice. Who decides what is a healthy life? And what definition of healthy will be used? I want that type of choice to be left to individuals and not society.

What defines "healthy" should be up to the individual. The problem is that sometimes you don't have a choice of medication either through government (prevents you from buying a drug, for example) or the free market (cannot pay for the drug). What proponents of government or free market approach argue is that it will help everyone/as many people as possible.

What Earthborn said:
I believe that the right to (a healthy) life is more important than freedom

Reminds me of the time in Germany when the nazis were saying "Free to starve." In this case, "Free to be unhealthy/die." If given the choice, more individuals would choose to give up some freedom and be healthy rather than be free but unhealthy. And aren't we giving up our freedom of going wherever we want when we want by going to work everyday? Working gives us a better life by giving up a freedom (a minor one, though). It's a matter of benefit/cost to individuals.

Gem

[Earthborn]

Shanek:Note that the animation specifically says that you don't have the right to have the government initiate force against others on your behalf.You are completely missing the point! It is irrelevant whether the government has that 'right' or not, if it can use force no matter what.

I will try to explain it really slow:
- People have a right to defend their rights
- People have the right to ask others to help them defend their rights
- People will likely ask more powerfull people to help defend their rights.
- In doing so, they always run the risk that the people they ask to help them will abuse the power they have.
- So if people are allowed to ask others to help them in their protection, they run the risk of supporting 'evil people'.
- This is why the 'solution' offered at the end of the animation is not a solution at all, as it limits the right of people asking others to help defend their rights.Because he recognized all liberties as being essential, just as he recognized all forms of safety as being temporary. That was his point in saying that.So he said 'essential liberties' because he meant 'all liberties' ? Well, if you say so...Of course it does! Most of the animation, in fact, differentiates between the initiation of force and the use of force to defend life, liberty, and property.No it doesn't! It doesn't show any use of force. Protection is depicted as putting up a magical force field that stops the force of others. It does not show taking back stolen property, and does not show putting people in jail for murder.Yes, it does. It says that people have a right to government protection as long as that protection does not constitute an initiation of force.Where did it do that? I didn't see it.In the absence of any information from you on the matter, what else are they supposed to do? It is their job, after all.Well, duh! That is my point: in the absence of any information, they are supposed to act without consent, and it even is the moral thing to do.No, because those people are perfectly able to express their wishes on the matter, even if there is personal risk involved in doing so.But you can't expect them to all be able to express their wishes on the matter. If an action is used because most were able to express their wishes, then they are forcing their wishes on the others. But they are not allowed to that!You're in favor of forced medical treatment?You can't see any situation where it might be justified? For instance in case of insanity, or in case of people carrying infectious diseases, and giving people a free choice might result in a few people not getting treatment and staying a health hazard?This is my biggest problem with you. You think people are too stupid to run their own lives and must defer to some kind of authority to run it for them. This is the basis of pretty much every single post I've seen you make. And it is the very antithesis of freedom.Please note that I am not talking about all people. I am talking about a small minority of people: those people that are actually too 'stupid' or unable to give consent or in another way cannot be trusted to make the decision that benefits them most. Surely you can imagine who they are: people with mental disabilities, psychiatric illnesses, comatose patients, criminally insane people, very small children. Most people have no problem recognizing that these people cannot (be trusted to) make the right decisions for themselves, give consent themselves ie they are 'too stupid', if you want to use that word. This does not mean they don't have a right to health like everyone else. It just means that any health decision is effectively forced on them.

Is that the antithesis of freedom, or a caring society?When did I EVER say there shouldn't be such an authority?You didn't, but it is implied in the animation. It argues that an authority cannot use force against others without their consent: it cannot demand that it is able to check whether someone is using fraud or not.That's just lame. You can still fully check out a product before buying it even if it's by mail or over the internet.How is this possible if all you see is a small picture? Or are you saying that it should be illegal for sellers to put 'all sales are final' disclaimers in their catalogs?Oh, and it's absolutely impossible to seek out others who have checked it out...riiiight....No, it isn't impossible. It should not be necessary.When you buy a car, you can not only test drive it, but you can take it to a mechanic and have him check it out.Even before you bought it?I wouldn't buy a car from anyone who wouldn't let me do that.You perhaps not. Others might, and they have just as much right to a good product as anyone else.

Grammatron:Slavery does not have to mean chains and work in the fields; it could mean complete loss of choice. Who decides what is a healthy life? And what definition of healthy will be used? I want that type of choice to be left to individuals and not society.It is perfectly reasonable to allow the vast majority of individuals to make such decisions of themselves. It is the exceptions that I worry about: how is a baby in an incubator able to make such a choice? Or someone in a coma? In the real world, society does make choices for people. It makes definitions of 'healthy' and what constitutes a 'healthy life'.

I can imagine other situations in which people should not make such decisions for themselves, for instance if religious beliefs prohibit them treatment necessary for surival. I realize that this is a more controversial idea, and don't claim my idea is a definitive answer. What is your opinion on people who refuse to immunize their children because of religious beliefs? No matter how you cut that, whether society forces immunization on these children or the parents force the kids to have a risk of getting ill, even becoming a health risk to others... someone is forcing an important decision on someone else.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Gem


Reminds me of the time in Germany when the nazis were saying "Free to starve." In this case, "Free to be unhealthy/die." If given the choice, more individuals would choose to give up some freedom and be healthy rather than be free but unhealthy. And aren't we giving up our freedom of going wherever we want when we want by going to work everyday? Working gives us a better life by giving up a freedom (a minor one, though). It's a matter of benefit/cost to individuals.




But, "the right to a healthy life" is not more important than freedom. That was my point. Taken to the logical conclusion, slavery is alright as long as the slaves are healthy.

Do you think slavery is alright as long as the slaves are healthy?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Gem


You're right.



What defines "healthy" should be up to the individual. The problem is that sometimes you don't have a choice of medication either through government (prevents you from buying a drug, for example) or the free market (cannot pay for the drug). What proponents of government or free market approach argue is that it will help everyone/as many people as possible.


Reminds me of the time in Germany when the nazis were saying "Free to starve." In this case, "Free to be unhealthy/die." If given the choice, more individuals would choose to give up some freedom and be healthy rather than be free but unhealthy. And aren't we giving up our freedom of going wherever we want when we want by going to work everyday? Working gives us a better life by giving up a freedom (a minor one, though). It's a matter of benefit/cost to individuals.

Gem

When there is no alternative yes, but if it's my choice to refuse a blood transfusion or commit suicide why should I not be allowed to make such a choice?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

I've pointed this out before, but the Libertarian conception of "self-ownership" logically entails the ability to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery.
http://home.nvg.org/~rchg/anarchy/secF2.html

F.2.1 Do Libertarian-capitalists support slavery?
Yes. It may come as a surprise to many people, but right-Libertarianism is one of the few political theories that justifies slavery. For example, Robert Nozick asks whether "a free system would allow [the individual] to sell himself into slavery" and he answers "I believe that it would." [Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 371] While some right-Libertarians do not agree with Nozick, there is no logical basis in their ideology for such disagreement.

The logic is simple, you cannot really own something unless you can sell it. Self-ownership is one of the cornerstones of laissez-faire capitalist ideology. Therefore, since you own yourself you can sell yourself.

Of course, in Libertopia it wouldn't be called "slavery," it would be a "lifetime work contract." ;)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Grammatron:It is perfectly reasonable to allow the vast majority of individuals to make such decisions of themselves. It is the exceptions that I worry about: how is a baby in an incubator able to make such a choice? Or someone in a coma? In the real world, society does make choices for people. It makes definitions of 'healthy' and what constitutes a 'healthy life'.

I can imagine other situations in which people should not make such decisions for themselves, for instance if religious beliefs prohibit them treatment necessary for surival. I realize that this is a more controversial idea, and don't claim my idea is a definitive answer. What is your opinion on people who refuse to immunize their children because of religious beliefs? No matter how you cut that, whether society forces immunization on these children or the parents force the kids to have a risk of getting ill, even becoming a health risk to others... someone is forcing an important decision on someone else.


You sure have bought the propaganda, what right does "society" (just a BS word for "the state") have to impose it's will on anybody?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I've pointed this out before, but the Libertarian conception of "self-ownership" logically entails the ability to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery.
http://home.nvg.org/~rchg/anarchy/secF2.html

Of course, in Libertopia it wouldn't be called "slavery," it would be a "lifetime work contract." ;)

It's funny, but things like that already exist. Musicians have to sign 5 year contracts where they have to put out albums, promote them, go on tours, record videos, make appearances. Yeah I know there is some difference, but they are still giving away part of their life so someone else can make a huge profit.

[Earthborn]

You sure have bought the propaganda, what right does "society" (just a BS word for "the state") have to impose it's will on anybody?The same right as anyone has of imposing his/her will on anybody: I don't know.

So how do you solve the issue of people refusing immunization on their children on religious grounds, where in both possible stances someone's will is imposed on someone else?

[Earthborn]

But, "the right to a healthy life" is not more important than freedom. That was my point. Taken to the logical conclusion, slavery is alright as long as the slaves are healthy.That's not its logical extreme. Its logical extreme is that while slavery is wrong, it is better to make sure your slaves are healthy than it is to not care for your slaves at all and that when slaves are freed, they should be garanteed the same level of healthcare as they had in slavery and lack of healthcare cannot be justified with 'but at least they are free'.

Can't see anything wrong with that logic. :p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Earthborn

So how do you solve the issue of people refusing immunization on their children on religious grounds, where in both possible stances someone's will is imposed on someone else?

Wrong or right, you defer to the parent's right to raise their child as they want.

[Earthborn]

Yes, Tony. I am. I don't believe parents should have the right to do anything with their child. There are limits, because their child is not their property: it owns itself and its self-ownership should be protected.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, Tony. I am. I don't believe parents should have the right to do anything with their child. There are limits, because their child is not their property: it owns itself and its self-ownership should be protected.


Yeah the limits are murder, and severe abuse.


Raising your child in the culture you want is your right.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Grammatron:It is perfectly reasonable to allow the vast majority of individuals to make such decisions of themselves. It is the exceptions that I worry about: how is a baby in an incubator able to make such a choice? Or someone in a coma? In the real world, society does make choices for people. It makes definitions of 'healthy' and what constitutes a 'healthy life'.

I can imagine other situations in which people should not make such decisions for themselves, for instance if religious beliefs prohibit them treatment necessary for surival. I realize that this is a more controversial idea, and don't claim my idea is a definitive answer. What is your opinion on people who refuse to immunize their children because of religious beliefs? No matter how you cut that, whether society forces immunization on these children or the parents force the kids to have a risk of getting ill, even becoming a health risk to others... someone is forcing an important decision on someone else.

Unless the parents are unfit to raise children (substance abuse problems, arrest records, abuse of children, etc.) I will leave that choice up to them, because if you think about it, babies don't really have a lot to say on many things. What if the baby is a vegetarian, shouldn't it have a right to say what food it being fed? Trumping on people's beliefs in the name of "we know what's better for you" never leads to anything good.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It's funny, but things like that already exist. Musicians have to sign 5 year contracts where they have to put out albums, promote them, go on tours, record videos, make appearances. Yeah I know there is some difference, but they are still giving away part of their life so someone else can make a huge profit.
There is also "some difference" between my low-flush toilet and Niagra Falls. :p

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

There is also "some difference" between my low-flush toilet and Niagra Falls. :p

I sure hope so :)

[Malachi151]

I finally watched this.

The great thing about that clip is that it ultimately says nothing and is full of truisms and emotional appeals so that everyone who watches it will agree with it and think that they are a good person".

Honestly the thing it reminds me of most is Communist propaganda, that is real Communist propaganda from the mid 1800s.

In practice though how does one really define liberty and what constitutes infringing on someone else's liberty?

One can easily argue, as the communists did, that ownership of property is an infringement on liberty, that was the whole basis of their ideology, which I do not agree with.

Say for example that I buy the property on each side of your house and on MY property I build giant penis sculptures 50 feet high and I dump oil in my yard and I walk around naked and have sex with dogs in my front yard.

How does that fit in with an ideology that says no one can tell anyone else what to do? How do you define where I infringe on your rights and you on mine? In reality of human existence is that these things are determined by force or consensus. Either someone will kick your ass, or enough people will band together to take action against you, or your community will accept your actions. However your community is not obliged to accept your actions.

So, what is interesting about it is that anyone can agree with that clip even of totally opposing ideologies, so it really get's you nowhere. The only part that was really good was where it said that officials have no more rights than anyone else, yes that definitely needs to be understood and is something that essentially stands on its own.

Take it to an economic level. Suppose that you develop a career producing some product. Now someone else invents a way to make that product for half the price. You now go out of business and have to sell your house because you do not have access to the new system.

Right or wrong here is not the issue, but what has to be recognized is that the actions of other people affect people other then themselves in profound ways, even if only indirectly. Because of that, that is why other people have the RIGHT to GOVERN the actions of other people.

Engels, 1846:

The French Revolution was the rise of democracy in Europe. Democracy is, as I take all forms of government to be, a contradiction in itself, an untruth, nothing but hypocrisy (theology, as we Germans call it), at the bottom. Political liberty is sham-liberty, the worst possible slavery; the appearance of liberty, and therefore the reality of servitude. Political equality is the same; therefore democracy, as well as every other form of government, must ultimately break to pieces: hypocrisy cannot subsist, the contradiction hidden in it must come out; we must have either a regular slavery — that is, an undisguised despotism, or real liberty, and real equality — that is, Communism.

You see this is what people today don't get because they try to pigeon hole everything, but the early Communists were anarchists, they also wanted the abolition of government. Its all fairy tales though. The real issue at hand is that THERE IS NO SOLUTION, hence there will always be strife.

Individuals, by nature, will always be at odds, and always be in competition, and will always tread on each other's liberties because there is no other way. Humans are animals, we are all part of a natural system created by evolutionary processes and thus we will always be part of the evolutionary process, it is inescapable. The evolutionary process works through the suppression of liberty among individuals. Competition itself is a form of infringement on liberties, and out of that struggle the "most fit" survive. The same is true of everything and always will be, hence the Communism, and the fulfillment of individual liberty for each person are both, one and the same, unattainable.

Included among them is freedom of conscience, the right to practice any religion one chooses. The privilege of faith is expressly recognized either as a right of man or as the consequence of a right of man, that of liberty.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1791, Article 10:

"No one is to be subjected to annoyance because of his opinions, even religious opinions."

"The freedom of every man to practice the religion of which he is an adherent."

Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc., 1793, includes among the rights of man, Article 7: "The free exercise of religion." Indeed, in regard to man's right to express his thoughts and opinions, to hold meetings, and to exercise his religion, it is even stated: "The necessity of proclaiming these rights presupposes either the existence or the recent memory of despotism." Compare the Constitution of 1795, Section XIV, Article 354. Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article 9, S 3:

"All men have received from nature the imprescriptible right to worship the Almighty according to the dictates of their conscience, and no one can be legally compelled to follow, establish, or support against his will any religion or religious ministry. No human authority can, in any circumstances, intervene in a matter of conscience or control the forces of the soul."

Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 5 and 6:

"Among these natural rights some are by nature inalienable since nothing can replace them. The rights of conscience are among them." (Beaumont, op. cit., pp.213,214)

Incompatibility between religion and the rights of man is to such a degree absent from the concept of the rights of man that, on the contrary, a man's right to be religious, is expressly included among the rights of man. The privilege of faith is a universal right of man.

...

i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. Let us hear what the most radical Constitution, the Constitution of 1793, has to say: Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Article 2. "These rights, etc., (the natural and imprescriptible rights) are: equality, liberty, security, property." What constitutes liberty?

Article 6. "Liberty is the power which man has to do everything that does not harm the rights of others", or, according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791: "Liberty consists in being able to do everything which does not harm others."

Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is determined by a boundary post. It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself.

...

But, the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself.

The practical application of man's right to liberty is man's right to private property.

What constitutes man's right to private property?

Article 16. (Constitution of 1793): "The right of property is that which every citizen has of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income, of the fruits of his labor and industry."

The right of man to private property is, therefore, the right to enjoy one's property and to dispose of it at one's discretion (a son gre), without regard to other men, independently of society, the right of self-interest. This individual liberty and its application form the basis of civil society. It makes every man see in other men not the realization of his own freedom, but the barrier to it. But, above all, it proclaims the right of man "of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income, of the fruits of his labor and industry."

There remains the other rights of man: equality and security.

Equality, used here in its non-political sense, is nothing but the equality of the liberty described above -- namely: each man is to the same extent regarded as such a self-sufficient monad. The Constitution of 1795 defines the concept of this equality, in accordance with this significance, as follows:

Article 3 (Constitution of 1795): "Equality consists in the law being the same for all, whether it protects or punishes."

And security?

Article 8 (Constitution of 1793): "Security consists in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property."

Security is the highest social concept of civil society, the concept of police, expressing the fact that the whole of society exists only in order to guarantee to each of its members the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property. It is in this sense that Hegel calls civil society "the state of need and reason".

The concept of security does not raise civil society above its egoism. On the contrary, security is the insurance of egoism.

None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society -- that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bound holding them together it natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves.

It is puzzling enough that a people which is just beginning to liberate itself, to tear down all the barriers between its various sections, and to establish a political community, that such a people solemnly proclaims (Declaration of 1791) the rights of egoistic man separated from his fellow men and from the community, and that indeed it repeats this proclamation at a moment when only the most heroic devotion can save the nation, and is therefore imperatively called for, at a moment when the sacrifice of all the interest of civil society must be the order of the day, and egoism must be punished as a crime. (Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc., of 1793.) This fact becomes still more puzzling when we see that the political emancipators go so far as to reduce citizenship, and the political community, to a mere means for maintaining these so-called rights of man, that, therefore, the citizen is declared to be the servant of egotistic man, that the sphere in which man acts as a communal being is degraded to a level below the sphere in which he acts as a partial being, and that, finally, it is not man as citizen, but man as private individual [ bourgeois ] who is considered to be the essential and true man.

"The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man." (Declaration of the Rights, etc., of 1791, Article 2.)

"Government is instituted in order to guarantee man the enjoyment of his natural and imprescriptible rights." (Declaration, etc., of 1793, Article 1.)

Hence, even in moments when its enthusiasm still has the freshness of youth and is intensified to an extreme degree by the force of circumstances, political life declares itself to be a mere means, whose purpose is the life of civil society. It is true that its revolutionary practice is in flagrant contradiction with its theory. Whereas, for example, security is declared one of the rights of man, violation of the privacy of correspondence is openly declared to be the order of the day. Whereas "unlimited freedom of the press" (Constitution of 1793, Article 122) is guaranteed as a consequence of the right of man to individual liberty, freedom of the press is totally destroyed, because "freedom of the press should not be permitted when it endangers public liberty". ("Robespierre jeune", Historie parlementaire de la Revolution francaise by Buchez and Roux, vol.28, p.159.) That is to say, therefore: The right of man to liberty ceases to be a right as soon as it comes into conflict with political life, whereas in theory political life is only the guarantee of human rights, the rights of the individual, and therefore must be abandoned as soon as it comes into contradiction with its aim, with these rights of man. But, practice is merely the exception, theory is the rule. But even if one were to regard revolutionary practice as the correct presentation of the relationship, there would still remain the puzzle of why the relationship is turned upside-down in the minds of the political emancipators and the aim appears as the means, while the means appears as the aim. This optical illusion of their consciousness would still remain a puzzle, although now a psychological, a theoretical puzzle.

- Karl Marx, 1843

And of course I'd like to comment on the issue of Fraud that was raised in the clip. Much of modern capitalist society, as all society has been, but now perhaps more so, is based on fraud. Religion is fraud. Most advertising is a type of fraud. Politics is fraud. Almost all of the foundations of our society are fraudulent.

Its also not exactly true that any free exchange of goods or values is beneficial to both parties. That can only be assumed in a supernatural and just universe or rational beings, and is not true in a material and unjust universe of irrational beings, i.e. reality.

Desire can be promoted in the minds of others, in fact it is an every day occurrence. The mechanisms of this become more well understood as we examine the mind as a machine. Take the most simple example though of addictive chemical substances. We are all machines, over which we have no supernatural control. As an example of this any person may become addicted to a chemical substance, the effects of which are determined by the physical composition of the brain and body itself.

What really constitutes free will? Free will itself is a purely supernatural concept, the concept that there is some "will" of a human that transcends the physical and that that will is what we believe is to be served by liberty, yet that will does in fact not even exist. We are all biological machines performing in deterministic ways and reacting to an environment that is created by others, hence the actions of others by definition always have a defined impact on ourselves, and our actions a defined impact on others. It is ultimately no different than addictive substances. When someone is addicted to a chemical that addiction determines their actions, desires, and motivations, yet the only difference between the reaction to addictive substances and normal action is the object of the action and its finite definition.

In other words, its all the same, having a craving for an opium fix or making the decision to move your hand or type words on the keyboard are all things determined by chemical reactions over which there is no external supernatural will at work governing.

Thus, ultimately there is no such thing as free will and there is no such thing as liberty. So, my conclusion is that the very concept of freedom itself is flawed, there is ultimately no such thing at "true" or "ultimate" freedom, there are only degrees of freedom, and thus only degrees of liberty, which is why extremists trying to "solve the riddle of liberty" will never find a solution. All that can be hoped for is a moderation of infringement, but there will always be infringement on everyone's liberties, and power is the way in which people ensure that more often than not it is not their own liberties that are infringed on, and it is power, the insurance that that your liberties take priority over others, which is the driving force of social evolution. However no amount of humanly attainable power is enough to produce true freedom, because true freedom is impossible to attain in a natural, material, and determined universe, i.e. reality.

Hence religion, the illusion of power, and illusion of freedom and liberty.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

Of course, in Libertopia it wouldn't be called "slavery," it would be a "lifetime work contract." ;)

Thanks for the link, I thought I was the only person that figured this out!

What many Libertarians don't seem to understand is that if a society doesn't prohibit certain behavior and said behavior is adventageous to the individual, people are going to do it. Regardless of any morality issues. If it gives an individual an avantage in the aquisition of more property (which is all Libertarians are interested in anyway) then others will soon follow suit.

Since Libertarians oppose the minimum wage and any regulation of labor contracts, there is nothing preventing someone from paying an employee in room, board and food in lieu of a salary. The work contract would be for the duration of the employee's life with corporal punishment or death for any breach of terms. Children born of employees are considered contractually bound to the same agreement.

Sounds just like slavery to me and nothing in the Libertarian philosophy prohibits it.

[Grammatron]

Malachi, please sum up your point because I lost it as I was reading through your post.

[Cain]

Quoting earthborn (quoting the silly flash):

"You have the right to protect your own life, liberty and justly acquired property from the forceful agression of others."

A serious problem arises in the indoctrination video when we shift from self-ownership to ownership over the external world. Any who studies libertarianism (a misnomer in popular American discourse) quickly realizes the market's most ardent defenders have no answer. How is land, for example, "justly acquired"? *

___________________________
* The exception here is utilitarianism, obviously. Private property increases overall happiness. That premise, however, often conflicts with libertarian rhetoric, especially ideologues who fanitically insist on couching the debate in terms of rights. More than a few libertarian minded folks are even inclined to deride utilitarianism as "collectivist," which it certainly is.

Why is Libertarianism discussed so frequently on this forum? Even creationism isn't as talked about on the science board. :rolleyes:

[Earthborn]

How is land, for example, "justly acquired"?I think the animation makes that perfectly clear: property is that part of nature which you put to valuable use. If there is a piece of land that belongs to no one, you can put it to valuable use by taking it, (clearing it of worthless natives) and doing something that gives you a means of living. That makes it 'justly acquired'.

In this view, there is supposed to be a clear distinction between nature, which belongs to no one, and property that belongs to someone. The only thing you are allowed to use for living is what belongs to no one and what belongs to yourself.

The problem with libertarian philoshophy arises when using something that belongs to no one (such as air) is used in such a way that it hurts someone else who is also using it (pollution). Instead of trying to make sure collectively that it is protected so people can continue to use it as if it belongs to no one, it should be divided between the people who use it in some way, so all of them will have a personal incentive to protect it.

The dividing should of course not be done by the government. It should be done the same way land is acquired: by conquering it in competition with others. What possible incentive people might have of doing that, and not keep treating natue as something that belongs to no one, and you can use (pollute) as much as you like, is beyond me.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Malachi, please sum up your point because I lost it as I was reading through your post.

The clip was an idealistic load of crap.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Earthborn
[B]I think the animation makes that perfectly clear: property is that part of nature which you put to valuable use. If there is a piece of land that belongs to no one, you can put it to valuable use by taking it, (clearing it of worthless natives) and doing something that gives you a means of living. That makes it 'justly acquired'.

I understand this (above) paragraph is tinged with sarcasm. Let me just say that's completely arbitrary; lacking substance. I viewed the video; I saw the river and tree picture getting converted into an automobile. The clear cut problem deals with what we value, as individuals and society. No economist denies the economic value of untouched expanes of wilderness.

In this view, there is supposed to be a clear distinction between nature, which belongs to no one, and property that belongs to someone. The only thing you are allowed to use for living is what belongs to no one and what belongs to yourself.

And this view is rather indefensible. Even Locke, who argued that a person justly acquires land by combining her labor with it, tacked on a provision requiring the person's actions leaves everyone "better off."

The problem with libertarian philoshophy arises when using something that belongs to no one (such as air) is used in such a way that it hurts someone else who is also using it (pollution). Instead of trying to make sure collectively that it is protected so people can continue to use it as if it belongs to no one, it should be divided between the people who use it in some way, so all of them will have a personal incentive to protect it.

This goes back to the "tragedy of the commons" (covered in many other threads).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
What defines "healthy" should be up to the individual. The problem is that sometimes you don't have a choice of medication either through government (prevents you from buying a drug, for example) or the free market (cannot pay for the drug).

Well, the only other alternatives I can think of are to force people to produce the medicine at a loss or force other people to pay for it. Either way, it amounts to theft and/or slavery.

If given the choice, more individuals would choose to give up some freedom and be healthy rather than be free but unhealthy. And aren't we giving up our freedom of going wherever we want when we want by going to work everyday?

But that is a voluntary action; a choice that we make based on the things we want in return. That is not anywhere near the same as being forced to work, as in slavery. Freedom means we can make that choice. So no, it's not giving up freedom at all.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I will try to explain it really slow:
- People have a right to defend their rights
- People have the right to ask others to help them defend their rights
- People will likely ask more powerfull people to help defend their rights.
- In doing so, they always run the risk that the people they ask to help them will abuse the power they have.
- So if people are allowed to ask others to help them in their protection, they run the risk of supporting 'evil people'.
- This is why the 'solution' offered at the end of the animation is not a solution at all, as it limits the right of people asking others to help defend their rights.

What you're ignoring is the fact that Libertarianism promotes mechanisms to prevent people from having that power in the first place. They would only be able to use it for defense of others.

So he said 'essential liberties' because he meant 'all liberties' ?

He was emphasizing the fact that liberties are essential while safety is temporary. He never thought that there were some liberties that were essential and others that weren't. This is clear from the totality of his writings.

No it doesn't! It doesn't show any use of force. Protection is depicted as putting up a magical force field that stops the force of others.

I think that's just so kooky it stands on its own...

It does not show taking back stolen property, and does not show putting people in jail for murder.Where did it do that? I didn't see it.

Do you really have to see it explicitly to understand that this is included in what it is referring to?

Well, duh! That is my point: in the absence of any information, they are supposed to act without consent, and it even is the moral thing to do.

"Consent" to what? Ordinarily, you would need "consent" to interfere or "consent" to let them die. The only question is, which one defaults. Remember the little animation talking about life being an essential freedom?

You can't see any situation where it might be justified? For instance in case of insanity, or in case of people carrying infectious diseases, and giving people a free choice might result in a few people not getting treatment and staying a health hazard?

That has to do with the defense of others from a valid threat. You know this, as we've had this discussion before. Why do you constantly make me repeat points I have already made to you?

Is that the antithesis of freedom, or a caring society?

A caring society??? People who care do not initiate force against others!

You didn't, but it is implied in the animation.

Bull! It directly states otherwise. It specifically says that people have the right to enlist the help of others to respond to the initiation of force.

Amazing how you insist that this is "implied" in the animation when above you refused to consider implications in the animation, resorting to only what it said. How convenient for you.

How is this possible if all you see is a small picture?

If you think that the only information you can get about a product online is a "small picture" you must be willfully ignorant.

No, it isn't impossible. It should not be necessary.

Says who? You? You want to impose force on the rest of us just because you can't be bothered to fully check out a product before you buy it?

Even before you bought it?

Yes, even before you bought it. Even a poor dealer would be happy to let you do that.

You perhaps not. Others might, and they have just as much right to a good product as anyone else.

But that is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. No one has any right to force a decision on me simply because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
So how do you solve the issue of people refusing immunization on their children on religious grounds, where in both possible stances someone's will is imposed on someone else?

Because the parents assume responsibility for the children, so it should be their decision. These vaccinations (particularly MMR) are quite possibly responsible for my son's autism, or at least the vaccinations were a contributing factor. There are also studies showing possible links between MMR and Cerebrak Palsy. Granted, this isn't known for sure, but as a parent shouldn't I have had the right to make that evaluation? As it is, the government is forcing possibly harmful vaccinations on our children.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
What if the baby is a vegetarian, shouldn't it have a right to say what food it being fed?

If you've ever raised children, you know that they absolutely exercise that right to the frustration of the parents. ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
What many Libertarians don't seem to understand is that if a society doesn't prohibit certain behavior and said behavior is adventageous to the individual, people are going to do it.

We don't understand it because it's not true. For example, I don't do drugs. Any drugs. Not even caffeine. With the exception of medical uses, I don't take drugs at all. That has nothing at all whatsoever to do with what "society" prohibits. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, but I don't do them. I don't even do caffeine, and in many circles that actually makes me somewhat of an outcast. Evidence has shown that people don't change the speed at which they drive all that much just because the speed limit changes. Your point is complete balderdash.

If the only thing stopping you from killing a whole bunch of people is what "sociaty" prohibits, you need severe and immediate psychiatric help.

Regardless of any morality issues. If it gives an individual an avantage in the aquisition of more property (which is all Libertarians are interested in anyway)

Provide evidence that that is "all" that we are interested in. If you can't, then you confess yourself a bigot.

Since Libertarians oppose the minimum wage and any regulation of labor contracts, there is nothing preventing someone from paying an employee in room, board and food in lieu of a salary.

If the employee agrees to that arrangement, why not? I know people who would be much better off under such an arrangement.

The work contract would be for the duration of the employee's life with corporal punishment or death for any breach of terms.

How would they have any kind of authority to do that? They could terminate the contract, and seek restitution for any damages, but that's the extent of what they could do.

Children born of employees are considered contractually bound to the same agreement.

No, they couldn't. You're just talking crap again.

Sounds just like slavery to me and nothing in the Libertarian philosophy prohibits it.

That is absolutely untrue and you know it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If there is a piece of land that belongs to no one, you can put it to valuable use by taking it, (clearing it of worthless natives)

Wouldn't the land in such a case belong to the natives? In many if not most cases, land was acquired either with the consent of the natives or was purchased from them. I know that fact flies in the face of the current politically-correct view of the situation, but that's still largely the way it happened from the very beginning. The very first attempt to establish a colony in the New World in the late 1500's was at Roanoke, and the very first thing they did was establish peaceful relations with the nearby Croatan tribe.

The problem with libertarian philoshophy arises when using something that belongs to no one (such as air) is used in such a way that it hurts someone else who is also using it (pollution).

This has been addressed so many times in this forum it's dishonest to keep presenting it as a problem that Libertarians have no answer for.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek


Because the parents assume responsibility for the children, so it should be their decision. These vaccinations (particularly MMR) are quite possibly responsible for my son's autism, or at least the vaccinations were a contributing factor. There are also studies showing possible links between MMR and Cerebrak Palsy. Granted, this isn't known for sure, but as a parent shouldn't I have had the right to make that evaluation? As it is, the government is forcing possibly harmful vaccinations on our children.

Anda parent... who may be a shoe salesman, if to make that decision, instead of a doctor?

Here is a better one. Let's say that there is an outbreak of a contagous disease and you decide that you don't want to have anyone in your family vacccinated against it, but by doing so you pose a risk to other people because you are then a possible carrier and spread of the disease.

So who's "liberties" take prioristy? Do you force the person to become vaccinated? Do you allow then not to become vaccinated but tell them they have to stay in solitary confinemnt? (in which case you are still forcing them to do something) or do you do nothing and then have then exist as a threat to the community?

Military draft is the same issue. 69% of all Americans that fought in WWII were drafted. Many did not want to fight, many thought that the Germans wee the good guys.

Now, in a situation like that if they choose not to fight then they put other people at risk. Do they have that choice?

To put it on more simple terms. A person is trapped under a car, it required 5 people to lift the car to save the person inside. 3 people are ready to help, the other 2 decide they don't want to. Do they have the "right" to allow someone else to die because they don't want to help them? War can be essentially the same situation. Were Americans in WWII improperly forced against their will to fight to save the world from fascist domination?

Libertarianism is a load of crap.

[Earthborn]

These vaccinations (particularly MMR) are quite possibly responsible for my son's autism, or at least the vaccinations were a contributing factor. There are also studies showing possible links between MMR and Cerebrak Palsy.I believe that children should be protected against the latests health scrares and should be treated with the best care science has to offer.Granted, this isn't known for sure, but as a parent shouldn't I have had the right to make that evaluation?You are basically asking to do your own medical experiments on your children. If you are not an expert in these matters, and haven't researched the issue fully; no, I don't think you should have that right. Parents should stick to their area of expertise and not make decisions based on data they cannot evaluate, and they cannot assess the consequences of.

I wouldn't even want such a right for myself. I certianly don't want such a right for someone else.As it is, the government is forcing possibly harmful vaccinations on our children.Or is protecting children against possible health scares with good science. It is a matter of perspective.Wouldn't the land in such a case belong to the natives?Well, they will probably think so. But that does not necessarily mean that the colonists recognize that property, or even the humanity of the natives. It requires a government-like institute that covers both sides in order to even start to talk about property.The very first attempt to establish a colony in the New World in the late 1500's was at Roanoke, and the very first thing they did was establish peaceful relations with the nearby Croatan tribe.Of course, that's how all colonisation starts. But after a while and a lot of misunderstandings between the two sides, things can get really out of hand. One side may get the upper hand, stop recognizing the other as humans and start to clear pieces of land of them for their own benefit. If there is no government with laws defining that this is illegitemate, then what makes it illegimate?

Government defines what is property, what can be done with it and from what or who you can take it. The whole idea that 'property is that part of nature you put to valuable use' hinges on an arbitrary defintion of nature.This has been addressed so many times in this forum it's dishonest to keep presenting it as a problem that Libertarians have no answer for.Please repeat it if you will. You can't expect me to keep up with all your posts. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Libertarianism is a load of crap.


It is to commu-fascists like you, libertarianism and freedom stand in the way of people like you implementing your extreme authoritarian ideology.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Anda parent... who may be a shoe salesman, if to make that decision, instead of a doctor?

Here is a better one. Let's say that there is an outbreak of a contagous disease and you decide that you don't want to have anyone in your family vacccinated against it, but by doing so you pose a risk to other people because you are then a possible carrier and spread of the disease.

So who's "liberties" take prioristy? Do you force the person to become vaccinated? Do you allow then not to become vaccinated but tell them they have to stay in solitary confinemnt? (in which case you are still forcing them to do something) or do you do nothing and then have then exist as a threat to the community?

Military draft is the same issue. 69% of all Americans that fought in WWII were drafted. Many did not want to fight, many thought that the Germans wee the good guys.

Now, in a situation like that if they choose not to fight then they put other people at risk. Do they have that choice?

To put it on more simple terms. A person is trapped under a car, it required 5 people to lift the car to save the person inside. 3 people are ready to help, the other 2 decide they don't want to. Do they have the "right" to allow someone else to die because they don't want to help them? War can be essentially the same situation. Were Americans in WWII improperly forced against their will to fight to save the world from fascist domination?

Libertarianism is a load of crap.

So is communism but that's not the point of my response.


If a person poses a risk to other his rights that person needs to be contained (i.e. a mental patient).

Anyone can get out of a draft with a reasonable excuse, so yes, they have a choice.

Unless those 2 people put that person under that car there are not responsible for getting that person from under that car. Yes it would be the right and human thing to do, but if they want to be a-holes like that it's their right.

[Malachi151]

Wouldn't the land in such a case belong to the natives? In many if not most cases, land was acquired either with the consent of the natives or was purchased from them. I know that fact flies in the face of the current politically-correct view of the situation, but that's still largely the way it happened from the very beginning. The very first attempt to establish a colony in the New World in the late 1500's was at Roanoke, and the very first thing they did was establish peaceful relations with the nearby Croatan tribe.

More fantasy.

No it was not the first attempt by any means.

The first known attempts were by the Vikings, after that the Spanish colonies in the Carribean and Florida.

The facts are quite obvious at this point are they not? About 95% of all native ethnic groups in the Americas are now extinct, a few tribes line in North America on reservations, they represent a very small protion of the origional tribes though, most of which were killed off one way or another.

The truth is that the Natives in most places were friendly at first, but after being taken advantage of they typically turned to violence. The Croatans are now extinct in fact, so little good it did them to be freindly.

If totally "fair" treatment were given to the Natives then the United States would not even exist today.

The majority of land in the US was NOT purchased from Indians, it was taken by force, fraud, or threat of force. Even most of the "sales" of land were sales where the Natives had no choice, it was either sign this contract of sale and get something in return, or we will simply kill you all.

When sales did take place, how does that still even figure into a "libertarian" view? How does the "chief" of the tribe have the right to make a contract that will then result in him getting something in exchange , the rest of the people got nohting and they may have not agreed to the exchange.

Take the purchase of Long Island for example. A few trinkets worth virtually nothing were traded for land because the Natives didn't really understand what it was they were doing and they were initially amazed by something new, which after a few days they realized was pretty much worthless. Again you also have the fact that Natvies had never used alcohol before and were easy to get drunk, which whites typically did and then made deals with them. How exactly is that fair? They "agreed" to sell someting, while incoherent because they have a chemical suceptability to alcohol. Yeah, that's real "libertarian" values for you.

Obviously the Natives got a totally raw deal on virtually everything. If they didn't they would still be here.

The fact of the matter is that all of human civilization and all progress has come at the expense of the majority of people's liberties.

The modern world would not exist without infringement on people's liberties. The only way for a truely libertarian society to exist is one where there is no human interaction at all, and even then you would have to deal with the natural world, which would infrince on your liberties, like lions trying to eat you and such.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Anyone can get out of a draft with a reasonable excuse, so yes, they have a choice.


LOL, yeah, that's why people either fled to Canada or got shipped off to Vietnam or went to jail... or pulled politcal strings...

Its still totally evading the point though. None of the libertarian diatribe holds up to serious scrutiny. Its a fantasy for people living in a fantasy world.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony



It is to commu-fascists like you, libertarianism and freedom stand in the way of people like you implementing your extreme authoritarian ideology.

LOL, what an idiot. If you can point to anything authoritarian I've ever promoted I'll give you a cookie.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Anda parent... who may be a shoe salesman, if to make that decision, instead of a doctor?

I never said instead of a doctor. Can it with the strawmen.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151


LOL, what an idiot. If you can point to anything authoritarian I've ever promoted I'll give you a cookie.


Communism and taxes come to mind.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I believe that children should be protected against the latests health scrares and should be treated with the best care science has to offer.

Well, this statement proves the Babylon 5 adage: While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.

You are basically asking to do your own medical experiments on your children.

No, I'm not. I'm simply asserting the right not to have a possibly harmful medical procedure forced on my children by the government.

If you are not an expert in these matters, and haven't researched the issue fully; no, I don't think you should have that right.

And since when is the government an expert?

It requires a government-like institute that covers both sides in order to even start to talk about property.

And when have I ever denied that?

But after a while and a lot of misunderstandings between the two sides, things can get really out of hand.

Which is what happened at Roanoke. But that doesn't say anything about the recognition of the natives by the colonists.

One side may get the upper hand, stop recognizing the other as humans and start to clear pieces of land of them for their own benefit.

That actually is what happened at Roanoke, but in the opposite way you're portraying it. It was the Powhatan, a violent tribe who were enemies of the Croatan, who began attacking the settlers because they saw their alliance as a thread (amazing how some things seem universal). By the time John White returned, there was no colony left; most of them were killed, and the remaining survivors apparently assimilated by the Croatans.

So, did the Powhatans recognize the colonists as people with rights?

Please repeat it if you will.

There's a whole thread on it. Look for the thread on the Tragedy of the Commons.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
More fantasy.

No it was not the first attempt by any means.

The first known attempts were by the Vikings, after that the Spanish colonies in the Carribean and Florida.

Those weren't in the late 1500's. Read my post again.

The Croatans are now extinct in fact, so little good it did them to be freindly.

They were all killed by the Powhatan, not by white men. Bad example.

The colonists had little problems with sharing the land with the Indian tribes. It was government that caused the trouble.

The only way for a truely libertarian society to exist is one where there is no human interaction at all,

You've already been corrected on this several times. Please do not repeat this lie any further.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Its still totally evading the point though. None of the libertarian diatribe holds up to serious scrutiny. Its a fantasy for people living in a fantasy world.

How is a draft a part of a Libertarian society? Libertarians are opposed to the draft. How can you claim that something is a "fantasy" when it's obvious you don't know the first thing about it?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony



Communism and taxes come to mind.

What about communism and what about taxes? I've said repeatdly that I don't agree with communist ideology. The only thing I have said about it is that communist ideology is much different than what has been protryed in American propaganda during the Cold War, ie.e from 1945 to today essentially. Most American have a misconception about what Communist ideology actually is, because their views of Communism are nothign more than Cold War propaganda.

What about taxes? I think that any modern econmically driven society has to use taxes to fund public programs, and I agree that public programs are an essential part of civilization. What else? I think that taxes are too low on the wealthy and too high on the poor and Middle Class. So? Lots of people agree with that, and in fact our tax structure is regressive and the most regressive it has ever been in American history asside from the 1920s, whcih led to the Great Depression.....

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek


How is a draft a part of a Libertarian society? Libertarians are opposed to the draft. How can you claim that something is a "fantasy" when it's obvious you don't know the first thing about it?

Exactly, I SAID that libertarians ar opposed to the draft that IS the point. I support the draft in time of democratically supported need. If not for the American draft Hitler would have won WWII, and the South would have won the Civil War.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek

They were all killed by the Powhatan, not by white men. Bad example.

The colonists had little problems with sharing the land with the Indian tribes. It was government that caused the trouble.


http://www.native-languages.org/lumbee.htm

History: The Lumbee don't entirely understand why people persist in calling the Roanoke colony the "Lost Colony," since they left an explicit note telling where they were going (Croatan, the lands of some friendly Cheraw Indians) and since the descendents of the Croatan Cheraw were found some 50 years later speaking English, practicing Christianity, and sporting about 75% of the last names the colonists had brought with them. By all accounts, though, those descendents--who called themselves "Lumbee" Indians, after the river running through their traditional lands--were mixed-race, so mixed-race they were not sent to Oklahoma with the other Native Americans of North Carolina in the 1820's and 30's. North Carolina was not the most pleasant place to live in the 19th century if your skin was dark, though, and increasing violence against Lumbees and free mulattos set the stage for the Lumbee folk hero Henry Berry Lowrie in the 1860's. Called the "Indian Robin Hood" by some, Lowrie, enraged by the assault and murder of his family, spent the next decade wreaking vigilante justice on those who harassed Indians and stealing supplies to give to the disenfranchised. He was never caught, and his legend--brave, proud, dangerous when provoked, and above all else free--remains a powerful tribal metaphor.

Timeline:

http://www.lumbee.org/history2.htm

As for "government", what do you think governement is? Its is made up of people. The Colonists WERE the government.

Obviously the colonists had some major problems with sharing the land with the Natives, that's why the banded together to take action against them.

[Malachi151]

shanek's problem is that he is ultimately pro-establishment but does not realize that the establishment get's its power from the antithisis of his own ideology.

According to his own ideology we would all still be in the stone ages, yet at the same time he supports the power structure that has been created through the means in opposition to his own beliefs.

[Earthborn]

No, I'm not. I'm simply asserting the right not to have a possibly harmful medical procedure forced on my children by the government.Call it whatever you want. It still means that you pretend to know better than hundreds of government experts who actually have studied the subject, and have the specific job to protect people.

If you object to 'performing medical experiments on your kids' maybe 'practicing a medical profession without a license' is more to your liking.And since when is the government an expert?The government isn't an expert, it has experts. Because politicians are in the job of weighing many different sides of issues, they don't always listen well enough to the right experts (concerning healthcare they often listen too much to economists and too little to doctors), but it still beats having to make such decisions by yourself based on newspaper articles.And when have I ever denied that?No, you haven't. I am just stating it very clearly again.So, did the Powhatans recognize the colonists as people with rights?Apperently not.There's a whole thread on it. Look for the thread on the Tragedy of the Commons.You mean this one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25674)?

In it you don't make clear at all how you think the fundamental problem should be solved. You even manage to misrepresent it. The only thing that comes close to giving a Libertarian is this:There are still methods of dividing them up. They aren't "fundamentally common."This is true: commons can be divided up so each person needs to care for their own portion of it. It is even possible to do this with the air to regulate airpollution: tradeable emission rights. A rational and smart solution, however... Like all property, it is ultimately enforced and defined by some sort of government.

In the Netherlands we have a ridiculous amount of livestock: millions of cows, pigs, chickens, etc... All these animals produce manure, and to manage it the government sets quotas, which are basically tradeable emission rights. The free trade of these rights prevents the Tragedy of the Commons (to some degree) and prevents The Netherlands from becoming one steaming pile of poo. I cannot think of a more Libertarian solution to this problem.

It is also exactly the type of government interference farmers complain most about... Can you think of a solution that requires less government interference?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
http://www.native-languages.org/lumbee.htm

The Lumbee are not the Croatan, though. Just as the survivors from the Powhatan attack were assimilated by the Croatan, after the Croatan were attacked by the Powhatan the survivors were assimilated into the remnants of some Cheraw and Sioux. They live in a different area, over 100 miles from Roanoke, in the mainland of NC. Although the state of NC officially recognizes them as a tribe, the US government refuses to do so, although lobbying continues.

Most of this is speculation. We know that there were white influences with the Lumbee, both genetically and culturally, and it stands to reason that they must have been descendents from the Lost Colony at Roanoke. When John White left the colony to go to England to replenish their supplies, he told them that if they had to abandon the colony they were to carve the name of the location in a tree. He was delayed from returning for six years due to a war between Britain and Spain, and when he finally managed to return he found carcasses of many of the colonists, killed by Indians (presumably the Powhatan), and the work Croatan carved into a tree. The thing is, Croatan is the name of an island as well as an Indian tribe. Britain refused to finance an effort to search for them, andby the time White managed to get the resources to search for them on his own several years had passed. When he went to Croatan island, he found no one. So it's presumed that the remaining colonists were assimilated into the Croatan, and that is where the white influences of the Lumbee come from.

Don't mess with me on this subject...I live here! :D

As for "government", what do you think governement is? Its is made up of people. The Colonists WERE the government.

That's bull$#!7 and everyone here knows it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
shanek's problem is that he is ultimately pro-establishment

:rolleyes:

That's the first time I've ever been accused of that...

According to his own ideology we would all still be in the stone ages,

More of your bull$#!7. I've been advocating the "ideology" that lets technological and scientific advances flourish.

yet at the same time he supports the power structure

Do you know anything about my stance on the issues?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Call it whatever you want. It still means that you pretend to know better than hundreds of government experts

"Government experts"??? How clueless can you get!!!

I'll choose my own experts, thank you very much. I refuse to accept that choice as being forced on me.

If you object to 'performing medical experiments on your kids' maybe 'practicing a medical profession without a license' is more to your liking.

Now this is coming dangerously close to libel! When have I EVER advocated this??? I want to be able to make the choice based on the advice of whichever medical professional I choose! That is IN NO WAY "practicing a medical profession without a license!" And I ask that you publicly retract this accusation of a felony.

The government isn't an expert, it has experts.

And so does the free market. Why should my choice of experts be forced on me, especially when it's the heath of MY children that's at stake?

but it still beats having to make such decisions by yourself based on newspaper articles.

:rolleyes:

I'm basing this decision on what the DOCTORS WHO HAVE EXAMINED AND TREATED MY SON told me!!!

You mean this one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25674)?

Oops, no. That one was fairly worthless. Try this one. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25706)

This is true: commons can be divided up so each person needs to care for their own portion of it. It is even possible to do this with the air to regulate airpollution: tradeable emission rights. A rational and smart solution, however... Like all property, it is ultimately enforced and defined by some sort of government.

And again, I have never denied that. Take that point up with an anarchist, not a Libertarian.

[Earthborn]

"Government experts"??? How clueless can you get!!!So aren't these people (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/autism/) experts, or don't they work for the government?I'll choose my own experts, thank you very much.On what criteria do you base your choice on? Are you able to judge the expertise of them yourself? If so, how?I'm basing this decision on what the DOCTORS WHO HAVE EXAMINED AND TREATED MY SON told me!!!Alright, I'll retract what I said about you performing medical experiments or practicing without a license.

Do those doctors keep up with latest research (http://www.nature.com/nsu/020603/020603-16.html)?Oops, no. That one was fairly worthless. Try this one.That one wasn't much better. No where did I see you give a solution to the Tragedy of the Commons. In between the mud-slinging between different debaters, few actual arguments were made. You made a few proposterous claims, like the idea that free market companies stopped making asbestos when it was discovered that it was dangerous, and I showed you that its harmfull effects were known thousands of years before. Or the claim that free market companies don't pollute their own land (I'm sure they are less likely to if they know that government regulations are going to be enforced).And again, I have never denied that. Take that point up with an anarchist, not a Libertarian.I think you don't try hard enough to differentiate yourself from anarchism. You can start by telling us what you think of tradeable emission rights: 'Libertarian Solution' or 'Unfair Government Intervention'.

[a_unique_person]

One thing that disappoints me about this presentation is that it reduces human interaction to economic transactions.