I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[GePap]

And that is what Liberty is.

If you keep suing the word freedom as some absolute, as DF does, then you get right smack into the point I made: in absolute freedom there are NO constraints, and thus, I can kill, maine, rape and terrorize anyone I damn well please as long as I am strong enough and willfull enough to get away with it.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Libertarians have never been for the redistribution of property.

That's an interesting point. After all, this nanny state concept of "property" does coerce me into having to defile myself before you pathetically by asking permission before being able to use a thing that you allege only you can use for some imaginary metaphysical reason.

Property contradicts the libertarian interpretation of freedom.

[Ramo]

And that is what Liberty is.

If you keep suing the word freedom as some absolute, as DF does, then you get right smack into the point I made: in absolute freedom there are NO constraints, and thus, I can kill, maine, rape and terrorize anyone I damn well please as long as I am strong enough and willfull enough to get away with it.

Absolute freedom isn't well-defined. Everyone is always constrained, if not by man, by nature.

[St Leo]

IMHO, the only rational measure of freedom is the number of acceptable choices you are given.

Libertarianism only gives you one choice -- the pursuit of money. Therefore, it is tyranny.

Likewise, Communism only gives you one choice -- work. Therefore, it also is tyranny.

[GePap]

now you are stretching things..yes, absolute freedom is like absolute zero, if one wants to get so technical, but at no point was anyone thinking about libertarianism meaning the ability to ignore gravity and such.

BUt more importantly, libertarianism means nothing if there was only one human in the world. For libertarianism to mean anything, you need a society, and at that very moment, you have made libertarianism irrelevant.

[GePap]

Originally posted by St Leo
IMHO, the only rational measure of freedom is the number of acceptable choices you are given.

Libertarianism only gives you one choice -- the pursuit of money. Therefore, it is tyranny.

Likewise, Communism only gives you one choice -- work. Therefore, it also is tyranny.

I would disgaree with this. BUt more importantly, liberterians base their beliefs on moral absolutism....which inherently limits choices-the inherent contradiction of liberterianism.

[Ramo]

now you are stretching things..yes, absolute freedom is like absolute zero, if one wants to get so technical, but at no point was anyone thinking about libertarianism meaning the ability to ignore gravity and such.

BUt more importantly, libertarianism means nothing if there was only one human in the world. For libertarianism to mean anything, you need a society, and at that very moment, you have made libertarianism irrelevant.

Absolute freedom does mean the freedom to ignore gravity. More importantly (i.e. in my well-ordering), absolute freedom means the freedom to not have nasty micro-parasites in your body or not to be starving.

This might not be part of libertarian-capitalist thought, but a lot of us socialists do think this sort of thing is important.

[Ramo]

BUt more importantly, liberterians base their beliefs on moral absolutism....which inherently limits choices-the inherent contradiction of liberterianism.

Only objectivists do that. Which most libertarian-capitalists are (at least, in my experience), but not all.

[Berzerker]

Oh geez, here we go again with people who can't or won't figure out that the absence of constraints - freedom - means constraints must be absent for freedom to exist. You cannot commit murder and call it freedom because murder is a constraint. Therefore a law that prohibits murder does not constrain anyone's freedom.

azazel -

prove me wrong.

You've been proven wrong several times already - reparations are about forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty - that is inconsistent with morality and libertarianism. Claiming that libertarianism is hypocritical or inconsistent based on it's opposition to reparations is illogical.

taxation? you mean "stealing". how else would you call someone taking money from someone else, when he doesn't want to, and threatens to imprison him, if he won't give the money. Hell it's worse than just stealing. it's robbery!

Not all systems of taxation constitute theft. User fees, lotteries, voluntary donations (yes, redundant, just for those people think volunteerism can be forced), etc., are not theft...

Gepap -

"freedom" is a state, not a moral value.

It's both.

A trully free man is free to oppress as well, as long as they are capable of doing it and have the will to. So why don't you guys stop using the incorrect words and stick to Liberty?

How does one "oppress" without using coercion or constraints? If these are needed to oppress, the oppression is no longer an act of freedom.

If you keep suing the word freedom as some absolute, as DF does, then you get right smack into the point I made: in absolute freedom there are NO constraints, and thus, I can kill, maine, rape and terrorize anyone I damn well please as long as I am strong enough and willfull enough to get away with it.

One more time...freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action (use the various other definitions if you like). Rape and murder ARE constraints! Therefore they do not qualify as acts of freedom and laws prohibiting murder and rape do not constrain anyone's freedom.

whaleboy -

Ah, so the moral absolute, in other words, the subjective view of libertarianism, is that "liberty is good", or "m.relativism is good". Within those viewpoints is the features of lib. that are relativist.

Why is moral relativism a good thing? And where do libertarians claim it is good? And wrt "subjective" vs "objective", if everyone agrees on an issue is that subjective or objective? Subjective and objective wrt morality simply means one (the former) lacks consistency and logic and the other requires them. For example, it's moral for me to murder you but it's immoral for you to murder me. That's a subjective morality. An objective morality is - it's immoral for anyone to commit murder because all things being equal, no one wants to be murdered.

Of course the thing is there you have the classic thing of "which view is better". I will say libertarianism, someone else who disagrees will say something else. As a relativist I will say that objectively, no one view is better than another, but again, like any debate, we fall back to "to each his own".

Why is your assertion that "no one view is better than another" an objective assessment while your assertion that "libertarianism is better" is subjective.

Imran -

It hasn't so far . I wonder if you realize that putting your government in power would lead to a socialist revolutioin within 5 years, which is really anthetical to your believe system. I'd rather have something which has some aspects of what I support rather than having something that has hardly anything I'd support.

Were the Founders overthrown by socialists within 5 years of the Revolution's success?

In a word, yes, at least to them. As you are probably aware slavery was moral for many years. It even says in the Bible that slaves should obey their masters.

Imran, was the holocaust and slavery moral or not? Telling me it was to the perps tells me nothing other than how ridiculous you can get.

In one of its definitions yes. You seem to be forgetting all the other definitions of freedom. One being exemption from onerous conditions (freedom from want), and capacity to exercise choice (free will). Btw, those are both in the American Heritage Dictionary, which doesn't have a defintion for freedom being the absense of coercion. It does have a one saying 'free of restraints', which is similar.

Excuse me, but you're introducing your interpretations into those definitions. Freedom from want is not the same as freedom from onerous conditions. Did you find among those definitions one that says freedom IS the existence of coercion or constraint on choice or action?

This is where I get my 'total freedom' phrase from. You define a freedom from restraints to be for everyone. Why can't one person in a society have freedom while others do not? When slavery existed, didn't the white men have any freedom?

Because freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. It does not say, "the absence of coercion or constraint on Joe the slaveholder to enslave others".

Of course they did. They were free to murder their slaves. The slaves had the constraint on them and were not free, doesn't mean the whites were not free either.

Nor does the definition say, "the absence of coercion or constraints on white people only". C'mon Imran, you're being absurd. The definition of freedom doesn't mention freedom for me, but not for thee. It describes a state of existence - the absence of coercion or constraint.

Secondly, under your defintion, even libertarian society isn't free. People still have constraints on them, only it is done by other private individuals. For example you have to pay a toll to use the road. That's a constraint.

You aren't free to use other people's property, that is a constraint on them. Again *sigh* freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. If I build a house with my sweat and toil and you move in without my permission, you're placing a constraint on my labor and property. Doing so violates the definition of freedom, therefore a law prohibiting you from living in my house without my permission does not place a constraint on your freedom.

Again with the black/white terminology . What if these people want freedom to supercede equality, but find the need to have some forms of equality. Not total liberty, but more than enough to supercede equality.

Once "equality" is achieved by violating freedom, it has superceded freedom.

ramo -

Absolute freedom isn't well-defined. Everyone is always constrained, if not by man, by nature.

Freedom is absolute freedom, you cannot have the existence of coercion or constraints and still have freedom. The definition is itself "absolute" and the word freedom involves human interaction, not the physical laws/nature.

[Ramo]

Oh geez, here we go again with people who can't or won't figure out that the absence of constraints - freedom - means constraints must be absent for freedom to exist. You cannot commit murder and call it freedom because murder is a constraint. Therefore a law that prohibits murder does not constrain anyone's freedom.

It constrains murders' freedom.

Freedom is absolute freedom, you cannot have the existence of coercion or constraints and still have freedom.

There are constraints in every system.

The definition is itself "absolute" and the word freedom involves human interaction, not the physical laws/nature.

1. The word freedom involves lack of constraint. It doesn't matter what kind of constraint there is.
2. Even if you consider only human interactions, in any social system everyone has constraints opposed upon them by other humans. Even in your libertarian utopia.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

liberterians base their beliefs on moral absolutism....which inherently limits choices-the inherent contradiction of liberterianism.

Unless you believe murder is a choice consistent with the meaning of freedom, how does the moral absolute - murder is immoral - create an inherent contradiction by prohibiting murder?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

It constrains murders' freedom.

Murder is an act of freedom?

There are constraints in every system.

Nope.

1. The word freedom involves lack of constraint. It doesn't matter what kind of constraint there is.

But it does matter which constraint comes first. If I try to murder you, my constraint is first and your attempt at self-defense comes second. Now why do most people outside of this thread understand that murder is not freedom but self-defense is? Removing a constraint to gain or retain freedom is not a constraint, it is the removal of a constraint.

2. Even if you consider only human interactions, in a reasonbly complex social system everyone has constraints opposed upon them by other humans. Even in your libertarian utopia.

Again, this equates self-defense with attempted murder. That's illogical...

[Ramo]

Murder is an act of freedom?

No. I didn't mean that.
In case you misunderstood, I meant
"It constrains murderers' freedom."

Nope.

Sure there are. Point to me a system without constraints.

But it does matter which constraint comes first.

Matter to what? If you say freedom is good, constraint is wrong. Regardless of who started it.

If I try to murder you, my constraint is first and your attempt at self-defense comes second. Now why do most people outside of this thread understand that murder is not freedom but self-defense is? Removing a constraint to gain or retain freedom is not a constraint, it is the removal of a constraint.

If I kill someone in self-defense, I'm imposing a major constraint on the attacker.

Again, this equates self-defense with attempted murder. That's illogical...

How does it equate self-defense with murder?

And why is that necessarily illogical (if someone punches me in the arm and I kill him, that is certainly an immoral killing)?

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

No. I didn't mean that.
In case you misunderstood, I meant
"It constrains murderers' freedom."

How? If freedom does not allow for the act of murder, then a law prohibiting murder does not constrain anyone's freedom. Remember, for a constraint to violate the definition of freedom, it must be a constraint on choice or action. Murder, by definiition, is a constraint, therefore constraining murder is not a constraint on choice or action within the context of freedom.

Sure there are. Point to me a system without constraints.

Anarchism and libertarianism.

Matter to what? If you say freedom is good, constraint is wrong. Regardless of who started it.

But it does matter who initiated a constraint, that initiation violates the definition of freedom, removing that constraint restores freedom.

If I kill someone in self-defense, I'm imposing a major constraint on the attacker.

You're removing a constraint, the fact the would-be constrainer dies is a result of their attempt to constrain in the first place. Again, their attempt to murder you has already negated the existence of freedom, your actions merely restore freedom. The two are not the same...

How does it equate self-defense with murder?

By equating the constraint of murder with the removal of said constraint.

And why is that necessarily illogical (if someone punches me in the arm and I kill him, that is certainly an immoral killing)?

You're changing the issue from murder to assault and what form of reaction is or is not moral. It is illogical to equate murder with self-defense...

[Berzerker]

Putting it another way, if my desire is to enslave you and I place a chain around your ankle. Are you constraining me if you remove the chain? No. What if I return and put the chain back on your ankle and you remove it again? No. But if I put a gun to your head and threaten to pull the trigger if you remove the chain, are you constraining me if you pull a knife and stab me? No... The removal of a constraint is not the same as the imposition of a constraint.