Freedom

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your definition of freedom doesn't gel very well with the conception anyone else has.

[/ QUOTE ]
If "anyone else" means you and Quadsoverquads then I agree. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Although mine is pretty much standard in libertarian circles.
[ QUOTE ]
Particularly problematic is that it seems that freedom is some sort of legal construct that applies only in certain types of societies and is open to some sort of argument about reasonableness of certain complaints.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about mine? Legal constructs certainly don't apply to my defintion, in fact I can't stand them. Here's a little bit of explanation behind mine.

Now we could say it's total freedom to do what you want. But that's oxymoronic. If I have the freedom to kill you, you no longer have any freedom. If you have the freedom to coerce me or violate me in any way, shape, or form, that's restricting MY freedom. The only reasonable compromise seems to be that I can do whatever I want as long as I don't restrict your ability to do the same.

I am admently against legal constructs of freedom. Legally, I have no right to smoke weed. Morally, I do. In early American history legally, slaves had no rights. Morally, they do.

I'd be interested in hearing how any part of what I said is open to argument though.

edit: By legal constructs of freedom, I mean involuntary ones, such as by a monopoly of force or legality. Contracting, or voluntary constructs of freedom are certainly OK.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I said you can do whatever the hell you want with your property, but in this case if your tree is harming my property (not allowing me to grow plants in the example Xorbie gave) how it that not violatiing my property rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shake, not playing gotcha, just curious: by harming property, do you mean just physically affecting? Would painting a giant swastika on my house next to yours (if easements and all that didn't exist) be ok, even if it offends you and cuts your property value by 75%?

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO no. I don't have a right to you not acting like a jackass on your own property, and as I said, you are not physically affecting my property. If it was against the rules of contract we've entered into (such as a HOA) that's entirely different and is the common defense against such actions.

Voluntary solutions FTW! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please explain to me how free I am.

[/ QUOTE ]
By my defintion you are free. By your defintion you're probably not. Your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that you have no answer for this critique, except to redefine the word "freedom" in the fine print.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't make a critique; you made a ridiculous appeal to emotion with no substance. And I'm not sure how I can redefine a word when the OP is to give your defintion of the word. Just because my definiton differs with yours (you haven't gave one to remind you) doesn't mean I'm redefining it, and I'm certainly not doing so in the fine print.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
If a) is done well, b) gets solved for free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's convenient, so I'll just take your word for it...

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Although mine is pretty much standard in libertarian circles.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it correct or helpful. The problem is that you are essentially riding on the coattails of the general conception of "freedom" (which most believe to be good), while using a rather erroneous and problematic definition.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although mine is pretty much standard in libertarian circles.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it correct or helpful.

[/ QUOTE ]
When did I claim it did? I was only debunking this claim you made-
[ QUOTE ]
I think your definition of freedom doesn't gel very well with the conception anyone else has.


[/ QUOTE ]
And I don't know why you would make that statement if not to imply that it's some type of measurement for "correct or helpful".
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that you are essentially riding on the coattails of the general conception of "freedom" (which most believe to be good), while using a rather erroneous and problematic definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not riding the coattails. It's nearly word for word.

And I've yet to hear why my defintion is "erroneous and problematic". I already answered the questions you asked.

[xorbie]

You responded to my questions, I wouldn't really say you answered them.

Your definition is erroneous and problematic for reasons I did mention.

1. It doesn't apply to all societies. A society with no conception of property apparently can't have free action whatsoever, which seems absurd. A society with certain conception of property (say one not including land) would also have a very different definition of freedom. From the questions you asked about ownership of land and resources, it seems your notion of freedom actually only applies within a society in which everything is privately owned, which makes it rather something of a tautalogy to say these are the only free societies, thus weakening that line of argument.

2. Situations in which something I do bothers someone else are problematic. If I grow plants that smell quite bad, that doesn't necessarily preclude you from doing what you like, but it certainly is invasive. Nearly everything we do affects others to some degree, and as soon as we begin to include body and mind along with other property, the actions of ours which do not "infringe on the rights of others to use their property as they want" are almost non-existent.

You also make no effort to give a rigorous understanding of "what I want". Does a crackhead "want" crack? Does he "want" to be clean?

I also still take issue with the tree/plant example. Why must my freedom be conditioned on the wants of my neighbor? If I already have a tree in my yard, and a neighbor moves in and demands I cut it down so that he can grow plants, it seems I am rather "unfree".

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear a lot of talk about it, particularly as it relates to AC/communism, but there isn't really much of a discussion about freedom itself. I don't want to set up any straw men, so I'd like to hear some of the main proponents of AC give a defintion.

[/ QUOTE ]

to me being is free is not to be forced to do anything.
however, humans decided that civilization is better than total freedom and thus we gave away some of our "Freedom" to have civilization.

According to Locke (a famous philosopher)

Freedom is having a right to EVERYTHING (even bad stuff)and, that is why humans in their natural state according to him live in anarchy, where everyone is in civil war with everyone.

Locke goes on to say that humans have made a convenant to give up some of our freedom in return for securoy (at the time he we reffering to legitmize monarchy)

P.S. If you are interested you should read one of his books called Leviathan.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

to me being is free is not to be forced to do anything.
however, humans decided that civilization is better than total freedom and thus we gave away some of our "Freedom" to have civilization.

According to Locke (a famous philosopher)

Freedom is having a right to EVERYTHING (even bad stuff)and, that is why humans in their natural state according to him live in anarchy, where everyone is in civil war with everyone.

Locke goes on to say that humans have made a convenant to give up some of our freedom in return for securoy (at the time he we reffering to legitmize monarchy)

P.S. If you are interested you should read one of his books called Leviathan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me this is sarcastic.

edit: Actually it's not so bad if you just confused Locke and Hobbes entirely.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]

a) Define property (and what if you don't have it)?


[/ QUOTE ]

How does the state define property? Note: I'm not baiting but asking genuinely. I have no idea how our state defines property.