The Everlasting CCCP !

[GeneralTacticus]

No. You have to explain why one can onyl be free, or not.

[Jamski]

Free = without restictions.
Not free = with only one (or more) restriction(s).

Slightly free = with less than 1 & more than 0 restrictions = impossible.

Therefore one has either at least one restriction, or not. Its a simple OR function. If one is restricted, in any way then one is not free. Liberty is the state of freedom. Therefore one is either at liberty, or not, depending on whether one is free or not.

The introduction of just one limitation on my freedom results in my having no freedom at all.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

The introduction of just one limitation on my freedom results in my having no freedom at all.

You haven't demonstrated why that is.

[Archaic]

Bull ****ing ****. So if I give you $100 and tell you that you can buy anything you like *except* for one specific thing, you're saying you have no freedom to do what you like within that one restriction?

If you have no freedom, then you're given a liberty, aren't you now more free, even if you're not completly free?
If you have complete freedom, then you're given a restriction, don't you now have less freedom than you did before, though you're not completly restricted?

Freedom isn't a binary. It's a measurement of liberties.

[GeneralTacticus]

And thta becomes especially true when, as I have been saying for days, you find that granting others certain liberties will infringe on your own; e.g. giving others the right to kill you will infringe on your right to life.

[Jamski]

So...

Firstly freedom is a binary function. To be free one must be free from something. Whether or not one is free, is determined by the presence or absence of this "something". We can call this, for the sake of this discussion, "specific freedom". For example, I am free of debt, or not, depending on whether I owe money or not. This is clearly a binary function. I am either in debt, or not. I am free from debt, or not free from debt. The other kind of freedom we can call "general freedom". This depends on me being specifically free in all cases Again this is a binary function. Either I am specifically free in all cases, in which case I am gererally free, or I am not specifically free in some cases, in which case I am not generally free. Anticipating the situation in which one is specifically free in some cases, and not in others, which is generally the case in real life, then one is not free at all, as the condition of general freedom is voided.

We cannot speak in terms or "more free" or "less free", as we are either free or not. If I am not free, and you grant me one liberty, then I am still not free.I am not even "more free", in fact it could be argued that your "gift" of a single liberty has merely confirmed me in my lack of true freedom. We should instead use terms such as "closer to freedom" and "further from freedom"

You two (Archaic & GT) are of of course specifically free to disagree with me.

-Jam

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And that becomes especially true when, as I have been saying for days, you find that granting others certain liberties will infringe on your own; e.g. giving others the right to kill you will infringe on your right to life.

Giving someone the freedom to kill me is not the same as giving them the right to kill me. Do not presume to clutter up our com channels with this garbage. We did not come here to discuss my or your "right to life". Unless you are a religionist, then we have no "right" to live at all. It is an ungranted privelige.

[/voice=yang]

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Your problem here appears to be a failure to recognize that:

a) One of the things which one should be 'free from' is freedom from others using their freedom to violate yours; e.g. killing you.

b) Restriction of freedom in order to ensure the liberty of others (e.g. restraining an insane person to prevent him from harming others) does not mean you are not free, ebcause it frees you from soemthing else.

c) Semantics don't mean a damn.

[GeneralTacticus]

Giving someone the freedom to kill me is not the same as giving them the right to kill me. Do not presume to clutter up our com channels with this garbage. We did not come here to discuss my or your "right to life". Unless you are a religionist, then we have no "right" to live at all. It is an ungranted privelige.

If one has no rights, how can one have liberty? Why shoudl liberty even matter, hmmm?

(note: if you were being sarcastic, I'm afraid I don't see the point)

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


If one has no rights, how can one have liberty? Why shoudl liberty even matter, hmmm?

If one has no apples, then why is the Eiffel tower made of iron?

I fail to see the connection.

Semantics matter a lot. We think in words, at least I do, and it is vitally important that words have a fixed meaning. How else can we communicate about ideas? If we have a different idea of the meaning of freedom, then how can we argue the case as to what kind of society comes closer to freedom?

With regard to your endless harping on the question "How can I be free when someone could kill me?" - I paraphase slightly - I must first ask you something myself. Is there anyone that wants to kill you? Or any normal person? Almost all of us are in absolutely no danger of being murdered, except completely at random by (probably) mentally ill persons, or in an accident. We should see the action of being purposely killed by another human being in the same way as we view being killed by a wild animal. The chance of both are very low and we are not any less free for the possiblity of being bitten by a snake. Please do not think that the fact that it is possible for you to kill me restricts my freedom in any way.

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by War of Art
Semantics matter a lot. We think in words, at least I do, and it is vitally important that words have a fixed meaning. How else can we communicate about ideas? If we have a different idea of the meaning of freedom, then how can we argue the case as to what kind of society comes closer to freedom?

-Jam

I totally agree with that, butit seemed GT and Archaic have rather an habit to think by numbers -- especially with the "$" symbol before those numbers --, like "educated economists", unlike us "nitpickers philosophers".

[Maniac]

"Words define your thoughts."

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac
"Words define your thoughts."

If that were the case, symbols wouldn't be the key to telepathy.

War of Art, when are you going to give up trying to change the meanings of words to suit yourself? Semantics and sophistry do not an arguement make.

Pan, when are you going to get off the Ad Hominem attacks and actually make a sensible arguement?

[GeneralTacticus]

If one has no apples, then why is the Eiffel tower made of iron?

I fail to see the connection.

You see liberty as being good, do you not? If one has no rights, why is liberty good?

Semantics matter a lot. We think in words, at least I do, and it is vitally important that words have a fixed meaning. How else can we communicate about ideas? If we have a different idea of the meaning of freedom, then how can we argue the case as to what kind of society comes closer to freedom?

Words are irrelevant, it's the meaning behind them that matters. As long as two people understand each other, ti doesn't matter whether you refer to being 'closer to freedom' or 'more free'.

With regard to your endless harping on the question "How can I be free when someone could kill me?" - I paraphase slightly - I must first ask you something myself. Is there anyone that wants to kill you? Or any normal person? Almost all of us are in absolutely no danger of being murdered, except completely at random by (probably) mentally ill persons, or in an accident.

Or by somebody witht he capacity to do so who loses control at the crucial moment. Do you think all the murders in our society are committed by mentally ill people?

We should see the action of being purposely killed by another human being in the same way as we view being killed by a wild animal.

Why? Wild animals that kill can rarely be made to think abotu what they are doing. Humans can, even if not by morals, then by the fact that they will be punished if they do it.

The chance of both are very low and we are not any less free for the possiblity of being bitten by a snake. Please do not think that the fact that it is possible for you to kill me restricts my freedom in any way.

If I have the capacity to kill you, and you knew it, and you knew I might exercise it if opposed my political position too vigourously, would this not be an infringement on your freedom? You could either censor yourself to avoid the danger, violating your liberty as you were prevented form speaking freely, or you could carry on opposing me and (for the sake of argument) die, which would also violate your liberty.

I totally agree with that, butit seemed GT and Archaic have rather an habit to think by numbers -- especially with the "$" symbol before those numbers --, like "educated economists", unlike us "nitpickers philosophers".

Care to actually pull up a single example of us doing anything like this? You can't, because none exist

"Words define your thoughts."

Concepts define your thoughts. Words allow us to express them more easily, but a debate over the meaning of a word does not disprove an argument, because it's the concept that was being expressed by the word that matters, not the word itself.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


You see liberty as being good, do you not? If one has no rights, why is liberty good?

Again you are trying to construct an argument from unconnected or unclear thoughts. Please clarify for me. What is the connection between rights and liberty? Do we actually have rights? What are they? Is there such a thing as "good" in an empirical sense? This question is a minefield.

Words are irrelevant, it's the meaning behind them that matters. As long as two people understand each other, ti doesn't matter whether you refer to being 'closer to freedom' or 'more free'.

This is the point I just made. Semantics are important. Thankyou for your agreement. As you say, the meaning behind words is important, so why do you then claim in the next sentence that it "does not matter whether you refer to being 'closer to freedom' or 'more free'" The meaning behind these two terms is very different, especially in a discussion of whether or not freedom is a binary function.

Or by somebody witht he capacity to do so who loses control at the crucial moment. Do you think all the murders in our society are committed by mentally ill people?

On the whole, I would say all the murders are. Accidental killlings are precisely that - accidental. War is, of course, state organised murder, and in this case only the organisers are "mentally ill"

Why? Wild animals that kill can rarely be made to think abotu what they are doing. Humans can, even if not by morals, then by the fact that they will be punished if they do it.

See above. Either a murderer knows that what they are doing is wrong, and does it anyway, or does not know what they are doing. In either case we must worry about the sanity of such a person. The fact of the person thinking about it is irrelevant if that person is not in a fit state of mind. No one was dissuaded from murder by the fear of punishment. That would be too rational a process to expect. It is within my power to kill anyone I choose. I have a very large kitchen knife at home. I choose not to. I am a rational human being.

If I have the capacity to kill you, and you knew it, and you knew I might exercise it if opposed my political position too vigourously, would this not be an infringement on your freedom?

I am free to do as I like, regardless of the risk I take. Am I not free to jump in front of a train. He who lives in fear of loosing his life is not free. This freedom comes, not from living in security, away from danger, but from acceptance of the inevitable.

You could either censor yourself to avoid the danger, violating your liberty as you were prevented form speaking freely, or you could carry on opposing me and (for the sake of argument) die, which would also violate your liberty.

I would freely die at your hands. I would demonstrate my freedom in my death, while you would, no doubt, feel guilty, demonstrating your lack of freedom.

Concepts define your thoughts. Words allow us to express them more easily, but a debate over the meaning of a word does not disprove an argument, because it's the concept that was being expressed by the word that matters, not the word itself.

Yes, so please use the words that matter. If you tell me the whole day that apples are pears, then I will disagree. If you later tell me that "pears" meant "fruit in general", and we were saying the same thing, I am likely to find this a little frustrating.

-Jam