Because I point out some critical differences, the analogy is not valid. It's the difference between borrowing and theft. Theft is not analogous to borrowing. Forcibly being part of a group is not analogous to voluntarily being part of a group. :lol: Now the truth is finally coming through from your own words. Your conception of freedom is simply communism. Individuals are slaves to society (via the State) and are duty bound to support it. No matter whether their parents paid for their upbringing. No matter where or how they got educated (travelling overseas, paying private tuition, self taught etc), no matter how much benefit they bring to others by the voluntary trading of their labour and skills, you claim that people are fundamentally indebted to the State and this justifies the ongoing confiscation of some 30+ per cent of their income every year of their working life. People are born indebted to the State merely by daring to be born or live in a certain location. In your world anything they achieve is due to the State and the State therefore has the right to take whatever share of their life, liberty and property that it desires and to even indebt the unborn and the non-voting. That is not "freedom". That is slavery to a non-existent entity. An entity which magically has more rights than any of the individuals comprising it. It is anti-freedom - especially anti-economic freedom. Just because I may benefit from the past decisions and actions of people (including those long dead) does not mean that they are entitled to my life, liberty or property. I don't owe Newton or Leibniz for being the first people to figure out calculus even though it benefits me massively. I don't owe the Australian Government for slaughtering thousands of indigenous people even if doing so allowed the benefits of calculus to be realised in Australia. I don't owe my neighbour for their fantastic garden display that I get to enjoy looking at (and it really is quite good). I voluntarily trade part of my liberty or accumulated property with others to obtain access to the accumulated knowledge of the benefits of calculus or to trade with others to obtain the pots, plants, soil and other materials to make my own garden display. Capital gains tax and stamp duties for starters. And yet you are willing to enslave others to forcibly supply the time and resources needed to provide education (and other things) to people who potentially don't want it or won't benefit from it even though that time and resources may be better utilised elsewhere. That thousands of people's lives may be saved by the "sacrifice" of a few is not tenable in your opinion and yet the loss of a small amount of thousands of people's lives to save a few is okay. If the maths isn't commutative then it is subjective as you are valuing net changes in freedom differently depending on circumstances. It has no place in a legal system.
BINGO!!!! :lol: And how well did the Soviet Republic go in protecting the freedom of its citizens by adopting such an inspiring piece of literature? Not too well, but they had a "get out clause": All you had to do was tow the party line and the State would provide for freedom in all manner, for without question And finally: Let's not throw blame on the Soviet Union alone, there are very few nation States in the world who do not "help maintain and strengthen world peace", as long as it is not "to the detriment of the interests of society or the state", or rather, to those who have a vested interest in prolonging the existence of the State. * my emphasis Edited because it's hard to read something with a crotch in your face.
Worth noting that the economic freedom of citizens were near zero (see Chapter 2) in order to have these other rights/freedoms. Slaves to the State.
Yeah, USSR's disastrous policies are a great case to feed the "liberal's religion". Looking at it, one might even think for a moment that the liberals are right in their claim for more freedom.
You're a turtling Communist mate, as communist as they come. I know, I lived under their rule for a while. Comes Revolution or Civil War, just identify yourself clear, so I know there to aim. You're on different continent though, so I guess it's not gonna happen, sigh... Same goes for lgf. I think he's a bit closer. I've got a feeling that he's a trolling account of one of the resident socialists.
Now you're revealing the true anarchist (with a "liberal mask") you really are. You don't want freedom. You want more freedom for you and less for others. The person that left this debate right on the beginning and who couldn't give a single argument is calling another a trolling account. How ironic...
Just because your arguments were destroyed by us, you don't need to lower to that level. It just reveals your weakness.
First of all, sorry to take so much time to answer you. I've been quite busy the last days. No, but voluntarily being part of a group (democratic State) is analogous to voluntarily being part of a group (company). That was the critical aspect that we were analysing (and that you have just mentioned in this last post of yours). In that regard, they are analogous. Your point of not being able to sell your stocks in the State is just a difference that confirms it is an analogy and not the same exact case. Errr...no. Do you really know what communism is? I don't think so. Communism is structured upon common ownership ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). I have been talking in all my posts about a Democratic State, which has always in history resulted in Social Democracy (ever more social, indeed). Why has it never resulted in Libertarianism? Why would that be?... (something I leave for you to think about) Coming back to my point, I was just talking about equal opportunities. I wasn't even talking about solidarity (which again would not make me a communist, but a social democrat). I have to say, your extremism is blinding you. Your parents decided to raise you in this society, so no matter what, of course you are in debt. If they decided to raise you without the society's resources, then fine. But they haven't. Why? (another question I leave for you to think about) Also, just because your parents paid everything for you, it doesn't mean you paid that. In a meritocracy, you would also be in debt. But I know, you're not meritocrat. Of course not. Never said that. I've just said that it was your parents' choice to raise you with the resources of the society (i.e. of other people), so you owe to that people (not to Newton, not to Leibniz). Still you would leave with something. Indeed, with most of it. So, even indebted, you would leave with goods. We aren't enslaving anyone. Paying a percentage of your wealth is not slavery. Slaves have no choices. People in a democratic state have plenty of choices. Children cannot know what they want while they are not educated. That's the first step to give them freedom. So, even if they "don't want it", it's our duty to provide it, like a father makes his child eating vegetables and fruit. Perhaps you let your kids pampering themselves with sweets, just because that's what they want. You have to tell me how you would utilize resources better than in Education. Perhaps the yacht of a millionaire is more important than the education (i.e. freedom) of thousands of children. I didn't express my opinion regarding your example. I've just pointed your mistake. You should say "a small amount of thousands of people's lives to save several people". Public Education and Health save many millions of lives. Mine may indeed be commutative. Yours definitely isn't.
"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger.
Well you're obviously not referring to the Building the Education Revolution or the Digital Education Revolution programs then are you? :lol: :lol:
Perhaps if I talked about the libertarian's disastrous ideas you would call me libertarian then. I'm as much communist as I am libertarian. To both systems I say "no thanks". I'd much rather have freedom and justice. Things that can only be maximized through equal opportunities (not capitalism or anarchy) in a meritocracy (not communism). Like lgf said, your blindness prevents you from seeing the truth. In an attempt to maximize freedom, you care only about the negative rights (as if in an attempt to maximize the area of a rectangle you cared only about its length). Communists on the other hand make a similar mistake, overvaluing the positive rights (as if in an attempt to maximize the area of the same rectangle they cared only about its width). In the end, your rectangles will have a very small area, once their length and width will be very unbalanced. I, for one, attempt to get a square, since I value the positive rights as much as the negative. And that's the only way to maximize freedom. Libertarians (like you) and communists are all about the same. Thank god you're not in power. Comes revolution or civil war and extremists like you will most probably end up in jail. If they ever get to power, then I believe it will just take a few decades for people to repudiate that "free system" so much that they will, once again, turn to communist ideas. That's how communism was created and that how it can be invigorated. I just hope it never happens.
Except you can't. Negative rights are easily quantifiable, you either have freedom from aggression for yourself or your property or you don't. The positive rights (which are not freedoms, you continue to confuse the defintions)* are not easily quantifiable. How much education should a person receive? What level of health care should be considered adequate in order to achieve freedom? These are questions that cannot be answered, therefore you can not plan public policy to achieve your "square". Edit to add: To those that think that the function of government is to provide education and health care I ask: What constitutes a basic level of education? What services constitute basic health care? I put it to you that it is impossible to reach consensual agreement and furthermore, a basic level of education and health care does not actually exist because in one person's eyes anything less than basic is negligence, anything more is excessive. Edited because it was lgf not you who said positive rights are freedoms
Yes we can, and the first step is to quantify freedom, something you refuse to do, since it would be the gateway to prove you wrong. Freedom is a matter of choices. So far, I haven't been able to deny this. You just avoid the subject, coming with 20 useless (not quantifiable) definitions of freedom. So, let me say it again and put it even more clear: freedom = quantity and relevance of choices. A starving man, who is about to die, has very little freedom. An old man with little vitality (so that he can't even take a shower by himself) has little freedom. A healthy man that is enslaved and not allowed to take a shower has the same lack of freedom. A person with a lot of money has a lot of freedom. A young graduate from a degree with a lot of demand (companies offering him different and appealing opportunities) has more freedom than one from a degree with so little demand that he is lucky to find 1 opportunity (and it won't be appealing at all). No matter how the choices are given or taken away from you, freedom is just that (the options you have in life). Freedom isn't something like reputation, in which once you take a little piece everything falls apart. Freedom is something so progressive that even rankings are created about it (like the one from the video of the opening post). Otherwise, if your freedom got destroyed once the State took a piece of bread from you, that would mean your freedom would remain the same if the State took more goods from you. Do you think so? All you're saying is that it's hard to get a perfect square. I agree. But the simple fact that I'm regarding both dimensions makes my rectangle far closer to a square than yours (since you totally neglect the "width"). Consequently, my rectangle will inevitably have a bigger area (freedom) than yours. How much more freedom? Hard to tell, I agree with you. But definitely more, far more.
136 posts in and we still haven't come to an agreement on a definition of freedom. :/ Your definition of freedom: The power, right, or liberty to choose. What I refer to ie my definition of freedom: The absence of coercion. Yours is actually the definition of "choice" not "freedom". By the way, you really should drop the analogies out of your debating arsenal - yours are hollow. They sound clever, but they are meaningless.
I'm not a fan of concepts being reduced to a linear spectrum between two points, which is the reality of the "square" analogy, just using a pair of perpendicular lines in exchange of the two points. The "square" would be better explained as intersected by an x and y axis over the centre in the ranges of -1 to 1 as below - Adding a third dimension (cube) allows a third factor to be introduced, which is better than seeing things only in black and white or the shades between. Monochrome becomes RGB, and we get a clearer picture of the situation. Combining an xyz co-ordinate space with RGB symbolisation allows up to six factors to conveyed in terms we can perceive with our physical senses, but this level of understanding takes some effort to decode mentally. Attempts to represent more than six factors are a real challenge, as we are not equipped to visualise beyond this. We can cheat by abandoning the convention of perpendicular axes. Source: http://pcjohnson.net/311PROJ/Icosahedron.html There are plenty of internal and external axes (factors) available using a dodecahedron to encompass a concept and the relationships between the conceptual details. Apologies if this hurts your brain, but reading about complex concepts such as freedom in the reduced context of fewer dimensions than we exist in hurts mine.
I'm not happy with the Greens being where they are. They are Fascist, not anarchist. Edit to add: or I should say, they are authoritarians.
