The Problem of Liberty, Force and Choice

[Berzerker]

Ah, I think I understand what he's getting at.

UR, it doesn't matter if force suceeds or fails, the existence of force violates the definition of freedom. Would you argue slavery doesn't violate the slave's freedom because he can simply choose to die?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ozzy -

No, because he can...and he doesn't have to sell his home, say goodbye to his friends and go off somewhere only for another government to tax him. Are you going to ask the communists here what people do when they can't leave the country and their ideology and the government is the only "employer"? They too claim to believe in freedom...

I'm not making any comparisons to communism nor am I defending or speaking about it at all. I'm just offering up a critique and looking for more insight into libertarianism. The point that I've often heard is as long as a person is presented a choice there is no coercion. The quality of that choice is completely irrelevant. What you are saying is we have a choice to move out of the country its just that selling your home, saying goodbye to your friends, and having only other similiar situations elsewhere make the choice an equally bad choice.

Isn't this what you tell the commies to just deal with all the time? Who cares if its a bad choice, or a difficult choice, or an impractical choice, its still a choice.

So by this logic can't all the actions of government be justified as long as it doesn't forcably prevent you from leaving the country?

Then the victims of Mafia extortion "consent" to extortion by not moving away.

By the definition you put forward, yes.


Again, I'm not criticizing you to put forward an alternate perspective. Heck, I'm not even trying to "win" this debate. I very much want for you to provide a consistent libertarian answer to these questions. I consider myself a libertarian, and I am probing further to seek out a consistent philosophy. If there is such a thing.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ah, I think I understand what he's getting at.

UR, it doesn't matter if force suceeds or fails, the existence of force violates the definition of freedom. Would you argue slavery doesn't violate the slave's freedom because he can simply choose to die?

Maybe.

If we go with the common libertarian perspective that I believe you already stated above, that having only bad choices still means you have choices. Then the slave's options are die or be a slave. Both very bad choices, but is it not a choice? Likewise with what the leftists call "wage slaves", people so poor with no options left that they have no way to fend for themselves beyond the one employer in town who pays next to nothing. Now their choices are work for peanuts (like the slave) or starve. You, and in fact I, have argued this is a free choice.

Perhaps it is a free choice. But where does that leave us?

If this is the case than any act of force is justified. "Give me a wallet or i'll kill you" becomes a free choice. Pay your taxes or I send you to prison becomes a free choice.

I dunno.

[Berzerker]

Ozzy -

I'm not making any comparisons to communism nor am I defending or speaking about it at all. I'm just offering up a critique and looking for more insight into libertarianism.

Aren't there competing ideologies purporting to be based on freedom?

The point that I've often heard is as long as a person is presented a choice there is no coercion.

Coercion is about "psychologically" or forcefully compelling a person to make a certain choice favored by the "coercer". The person being coerced obviously has the choice to do as told or not, but having that choice doesn't mean no coerion exists. I provided a definition at the bottom.

The quality of that choice is completely irrelevant. What you are saying is we have a choice to move out of the country its just that selling your home, saying goodbye to your friends, and having only other similiar situations elsewhere make the choice an equally bad choice.

No, you'd be moving because someone is threatening you with harm if you don't hand them your money. This thread is about "liberty" and choices, but you're mixing actions that violate the meaning of freedom with choices that we should have if we are free. Hence your comparison to communism is illogical...

Isn't this what you tell the commies to just deal with all the time? Who cares if its a bad choice, or a difficult choice, or an impractical choice, its still a choice.

And? An employer does not force me to hand him my money or my labor, therefore he is not violating my freedom. Communists do, government does.

So by this logic can't all the actions of government be justified as long as it doesn't forcably prevent you from leaving the country?

So if I warn you before I pull the trigger and you don't get out of the way - I'm not violating your freedom when I shoot you? No...

By the definition you put forward, yes.

I didn't put that definition forward, you did.

Maybe.

If we go with the common libertarian perspective that I believe you already stated above, that having only bad choices still means you have choices.

Ozzy, I said having bad choices wrt dying of a painful, incurable cancer and committing suicide - choices not imposed upon you by others - does not violate your freedom. You're using that and jumping to choices that are imposed by others thru force or coercion.

Now their choices are work for peanuts (like the slave) or starve. You, and in fact I, have argued this is a free choice.

It is, unlike the slave, they are not being compelled or coerced. However, they have other choices as well...

Perhaps it is a free choice. But where does that leave us?

A state of freedom.

If this is the case than any act of force is justified. "Give me a wallet or i'll kill you" becomes a free choice. Pay your taxes or I send you to prison becomes a free choice.

It isn't a free choice, it's a coerced choice.

From Merriam-Webster - coerce

1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat

Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. Clearly your example is an act of coercion... Hope that helps...

[johncmcleod]

This is why I disagree with libertarians. They want an economy that is more moral, yet it is so much worse then other economies. This is a small part of my post on the other thread.

As for the libertarian argument saying a system where people being forced to work is worse then a system where those who don't work starve, I disagree with it completely. If you don't work in a traditional communist state, you get the can and suffer the consequences of being in prison. If you don't work in a capitalist state, you get fired and suffer the consequences of living on your own (which would mean starvation). But what difference does it make? How many people in a communist state just refuse to work and then spend all of their time in prison? And how many people do you know in a capitalist state just refuse to work and decide to starve to death?

I guess that libertarians can be deontologists and make their economy based on whatever is moral or not. But we must look at the bigger picture. Why do what is moral and immoral? I believe the best answer for this is to make the world a better place. So if we are doing what is moral is making the world worse, then why do it? In a libertarian economy there is no control. It is brutal. There will be jobs that pay ridiculous amount of money, and there would be jobs that would pay dirt. And there wouldn't be enough jobs for anyone. Without state help, many would be jobless. There would be starvation. Corporations would terribly exploit people just as they did during the depression when they could just lower their wages to almost nothing and the people could do nothing about it because they didn't have anywhere else to work. The people could form strikes, but it would be very hard to strike when you could take that job and feed your family. Many strikes just couldn't be organized because people wouldn't want to lose a job. The environment would be destroyed because nothing would stop the corporations from doing what they please. Monopolies would rule. Corporations could literally slowly accumlate more power until all business would be owned by just a few corporations. The country wouild be controlled by a few rich old guys. The poor would get no health care. If you were rich, you could survive diseases. If not, you're dead. The poor would be starving. And yet there would be rich corporate owners who never had worked a hard day in their life and had so much money they didn't know what to do with it. This is why a libertarian economy makes the world a better place. If we will follow the libertarian point of view, the purpose of morality has been destroyed.

And even if morality is the only deciding factor, then tell me this: is it moral to allow such an immoral economy to exist when it could be stopped?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sandman -

You're changing the hypothetical, if I answer this one will you change it again? If they are burglars you have a justifiable fear for your life and that becomes self-defense.

I'm not saying they are burglars, I'm saying that they might be burglars. How exactly do I tell the difference between 'harmless' trespassers and burglars? I can hardly go up and ask them, can I? Better to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Ramo]

The ability to pick between two bad choices is by definition not freedom. Freedom is lack of constraint, so if you're constrained to two bad choices you are not free. No one is totally free as everyone is subject to some constraints - some man-made (i.e. laws), some natural (i.e. starvation). So, a moral system based on the idea that freedom is good logically must minimize constraints on people, regardless of whether a gov't or a corporation or a disease imposes these constraints. Which leads one to anarchism (libertarian socialism).

[Dr Strangelove]

People should be forced to choose liberty, darn it!

[Dr Strangelove]

Is letting the sick and helpless alone to die moral?

[Verres]

if thats what they want, then yes. People seem to assume that those who are dying actually want anyone with them.

[Maniac]

Well I guess that would be true for a large majority...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh God. The libertarians have re-emerged.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Is letting the sick and helpless alone to die moral?

OK, let me stipulate that I'm not talking about the incurable terminally ill who wish for no further intervention.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Oh God. The libertarians have re-emerged.

They're like Herpes, always coming back.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Obviously people are going to get angry and boycott the company and someone will develop a business to compete (except under communism).

Oh yes, obviously. Yup, happens every day in response to the BS corporations pull on people. (<--masturbation smilie)