No.100249 [Last50 Posts]
How do you define 'liberty'?
Is it a dichotomy or is it a continuum?
If the latter, what does it mean for someone to be freer or less free than someone else?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100250
liberty is subjective
some people see capitalism as enslavement since you can addicted to drugs and your hands are in the lives of corporations and you must work to buy food.
some see private property as Liberty to do what you would like to do with it
it's the biggest spook
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100251
Liberty is the absence of coercion.
It's only a continuum in the sense that there are a myriad of policies that can restrict liberty on any topic, but in principle you're either sovereign or not.
>>100250
75 iq post
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100252
>>100251
What is the definition 'coercion' then?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100254
>>100249
>How do you define 'liberty'?
By looking in a dictionary if you genuinely can't figure it out.
All shitposting aside though, liberty can simply be defined as the ability to exercise agency over one's self, his own body and consequentially his property. Freedom can also be defined similarly, as power over one's self (hence the two are synonymous and often interchangeable of course).
>If the latter, what does it mean for someone to be freer or less free than someone else?
When it comes to less free it ultimately means someone is less able to exercise the agency stated before in the basic defining of liberty (at least in that aspect, possibly among others). IE: Someone who doesn't have to pay taxes to a state due to living in Ancapistan is more free in this aspect than someone who has to pay a 60% income tax to a massively expansive state.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100257
>>100254
>the ability to exercise agency over one's self, his own body and consequentially his property
What exactly does that mean? Is a paralyzed person less free due to not being able to control his body as much as a normal person?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100258
>>100257
I would actually say yes, but also that no one is inherently responsible for alleviating this situation (a few natural caretakers, like parents, aside). It's the same with the victim of an accident, and the victim of a crime: Both are physically hurt, but it does not follow from that that they have the same claims. In the latter case, you clearly have someone you can hold responsible, the criminal who caused the physical harm. In the former, you may have someone responsible, or you may not. Depends. The case for "maximizing" liberty is as spurious as that of "maximizing" health, or utility, or anything else. You cannot quantify these things, and you cannot establish a meaningful moral compass around maximizing them. Still, we can meaningfully call a system libertarian if it aims at reducing infractions of liberty stemming from human actions.
Now, I'd be disappointed if no one was bothered with me not giving a definition of liberty. I see liberty as the capacity to freely dispose with what is rightfully yours. On a first glance, this sounds like positive liberty, but it's really not. Positive liberty is really just power, the ability to do what you want. In my conception, liberty is the power to act with what is yours only. If you had wings, liberty would entail being able to fly. You don't, so if you cannot fly, that does not mean your liberty is limited. However, as you have arms, and are naturally endowed with them, that means your liberty is, in fact, limited if you cannot use them due to being paralyzed.
With property, it is much the same. If you own a plane, then having liberty means being able to use that plane. If you do not own one, you are completely free even if you cannot use one. In practice, then, my conception is extremely close to negative liberty. However, it accounts for some oddities: According to the concept of negative liberty, two men may be in exactly the same position - like both stuck in a hole - and yet one may be free as a bird, and the other a slave, because the former slipped in by accident, while the second was shoved. I find that odd, and so do most people. There is a difference in the situation of the two men, but that lies not in their predicament, but in what claims they have. I think my conception also enables you to account for the few cases where paternalism appears to be obviously the correct course of action, like with the mentally retarded, temporarily insane, or with children. (Those are the cases libertarians - rightfully - try to weasel their way around, because solving them with the concept of negative liberty is deeply unsatisfying. Most libertarians do know that it is wrong to let a suicidal person kill himself, but their philosophical itself framework kinda fails on this point, as it usually tells them that taking a knife from a suicidal person is an infringement of their liberty. I would say it isn't, as they are not at liberty to begin with, having lost the use of their reason due to temporary insanity.)
I don't see my idea as in any sense competing with the more mainstream libertarian ideas. More like an advancement of them. It's not even that radically different, just finetuning in practice.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100259
>>100257
Well, yes. Since they will depend on other people to do things for them, as a consequence they have less freedom than a normal person. But that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to them.
Liberty (or freedom or whatever you want to call it) can only be defended as a consequence of private property rights, and not as an end in and of itself; If someone has absolute freedom, that would mean they can do anything they want to anyone and still not be wrong (which is a retarded but common "argument" against the misleadingly-named libertarianism)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100261
>>100257
>What exactly does that mean? Is a paralyzed person less free due to not being able to control his body as much as a normal person?
To a degree absolutely, but I don't think that exactly has much to do with what I said (or at least what I meant to communicate). In fact I think your point operates on a different context entirely. We can take someone who's perhaps crippled and you could argue that he's certainly less able than someone who can control all of his body and of course come to the conclusion that the cripple is (Wouldn't you know it?) disabled but the implication that, all things being equal, he's less free is a big stretch. He can still exercise agency over himself, which is to say that he can still make his own choices in regards to his body and the resources that he has, sure he might not be able to physically control, say, his legs but he's still the owner of them and as such gets to make decisions as to how they're utilized as opposed to someone who, for shits and giggles, wants to cut his legs off and use them as a substitute for firewood. He exercises agency, now the minute you come to a situation with someone who genuinely can't exercise agency and you come across an interesting situation where you certainly could argue convincingly that he's less free in all regards.
We can just easily compare the potential of two individuals, one with an IQ of 100 and the other with an IQ of 160. The person with the IQ of 160 has the capacity and the opportunity to be a Rocket Scientist, the person with the IQ of 100 on the other hand doesn't seem to pack the mental capability for such an endeavor. The fact that there is a divide in terms of their mental ability doesn't suddenly mean that the less intelligent person is not as free, they're both as free as to exercise agency over themselves.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100263
>>100252
Force or threat of force
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100265
>>100263
Is starvation a force is this sense?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100266
>>100265
Yes, but a businessowner is not inflicting starvation on you by refusing, for example, to give you free money.
You need to at least prove that the wealthy are morally obligated to feed you before you can start asserting that your starvation is their responsibility to rectify.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100267
>>100266
Nobody needs to inflict starvation. It just seems to me that one might not be free (or as free as someone else) to choose in certain circumstances - possibility of starvation in the extreme - even if those circumstances aren't caused by a conscious agent.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100268
>>100266
No. Stop conflating morality and ethics.
>>100265
Starvation is the natural result of the absence of action.
In ethical terms, it is ridiculous to claim that an actor is responsible for a condition of being that occurs naturally.
>>100267
which is why the only sensible definition of Liberty is "the absence of coersion" and not "freedom from all earthly needs or desires".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100269
>>100268
Well, either starvation can't 'coerce' you to do something or choices made under threat of starvation aren't free. Which?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100277
>>100269
>choices made under threat of starvation aren't free.
Yes.
>starvation can't 'coerce' you to do something
Also yes.
This is a false dichotomy. Starvation can't coerce you because starvation isn't an actor.
Starvation isn't some guy walking behing you wherever you go, yanking food out of your mouth anytime you try to eat. That would be coersion.
Once again: Freedom is not the same thing as absence of coersion. Fredom as you've defined it is an ethically incoherent concept.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100278
>>100268
You stop being pedantic. By the definitions you've given in the past I have no intrinsic reason to follow ethics if they aren't based in morals. Actually, by your definitions I'm not even incorrect in referring to morals and not ethics here.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100280
>>100249
>Rent and profit are theft
…and are therefore good or at the very least sometimes good? Leftists don't believe theft is wrong. They extol the virtues of theft as it serves the greater good theology. There is only one group of people that value freedom from people fucking you in the ass and it's the purple crew.
>'Libertarian'
>'Anarcho'-Liberals
>'An'caps
>'Marxist'-Leninists
Communiggers are outrageous. By the way your "Anarchists" would certainly be 'Anarchists' because they would need to support a redistribution matrix in order to ensure that no one makes any money, no one trades anything to anyone for any reason, etc. A "Bureau of Theft" or perhaps a "Bureau of Communism" or if you're feeling very Orwellian, a "Bureau of Freedom".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100282
>>100267
>Nobody needs to inflict starvation. It just seems to me that one might not be free (or as free as someone else) to choose in certain circumstances
<Nobody needs to inflict groundedness. It just seems to me that one might not be as free to choose to fly as someone who has wings.
Your objections have nothing to do with freedom as an ethical precept, as they have nothing to do with human action. In essence, your're complaining that reality isn't constructed in such a way as to allow you to do whatever you want.
>>100265
Who's the initiator of the force? There is no corporeal, legally recognized entity inflicting the starvation upon you.
>>100278
>You stop being pedantic
The distinction between ethics and personal morality is a very pertinent one, and can't be dismissed by calling pedantry. Ethics are established rules which dictate what is and is not acceptable behavior within a certain group or institution, while morality refers to individual codes of conduct. Law only ever deals in the former.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100289
>>100278
>You stop being pedantic.
Specificity is a requirement in political philosophy, which is what this thread is ostensibly about (though we all know it's really /leftypol/ trying to convince people that individuals having the choice to not give you the product of their labour for free is somehow coercive). I'll be as pedantic as I damn well please in a discussion where the objective is to establish a logically consistent framework.
More seriously; I didn't mean to sound dismissive of you but your post is misleading to anyone who's uninformed on voluntaryist ethics.
>By the definitions you've given in the past I have no intrinsic reason to follow ethics if they aren't based in morals.
That makes no sense. From a deontological perspective, which underpins my personal ethics as well as liberalism, libertarianism and voluntaryism, morality is subject to a set of strict ethical rules.
Other systems such as consequentialism make no distinction between morality and ethics since it's the consequences that matter. No ethical system that I know of bases ethics on morality.
>Actually, by your definitions I'm not even incorrect in referring to morals and not ethics here.
If the question was "is it immoral for the rich to be rich while the poor are hungry" you'd be right.
But the question was "is it coersion for the rich to be rich while the poor are hungry". Which it's not.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100290
>>100282
>>100277
Fascinating. If I'm understanding you correctly, 'liberty' is a concept in the realm of ethics, not reality except insofar as reality is ethically relevant. That is, 'factually free' doesn't mean anything, 'ethically free' does, according to your view.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100291
>>100289
also
>>100282
>Your objections have nothing to do with freedom as an ethical precept, as they have nothing to do with human action. In essence, your're complaining that reality isn't constructed in such a way as to allow you to do whatever you want.
this
Thank you based confedefag
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100292
>>100280
I love it when right-wingers refer to Orwell, by the way.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100293
>>100290
You could say it that way, yes. What would it even mean to be completely free? You'd need to be the God (not even just a god).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100294
>>100293
I don't mean to imply that there is such a thing necessarily as 'completely free'. I don't think freedom as an objective fact-claim implies that either.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100295
>>100292
>waaaah stop quoting this brutal critique of socialism
>don't you know it was written by a lefty
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100297
>>100295
Please. I know that you know what I'm gonna quote for you even before you see it.
'Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.'
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100300
>>100297
Every single post I have written is of impeccable quality, perfectly accurate, correct and irrefutable.
Now that I've written that out you must regard all of my posts as such. Don't bother interpreting them as written if that interpretation might contradict with the aforementioned statement. I am, after all, the author of my posts.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100334
Liberty comes from being able to do what is right, not from being able to do what is wrong. Why the fuck would you do something wrong? nigger the problem is only when you can't do what is right
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100335
>>100249
Here fam, I got a better one
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100336
This is what I've gathered so far:
It's irrelevant what rules there are.
It's irrelevant what happens to you if you don't follow those rules.
All that matters is whether those consequences come from a conscious source.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100348
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100353
>>100294
Fair enough. I just wanted to illustrate that freedom as an ethical concept doesnt make sense because to increase your freedom necessarily means to decrease someone else's freedom.
>>100297
Orwell was, unlike /leftypol/yps, capable of self-reflection and self-criticism. 1984 is a critique of the dangerous tendencies he saw firsthand in socialism when he fought in the spanish civil war, which is why it is such a powerful book.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100354
>>100353
>Orwell was, unlike /leftypol/yps, capable of self-reflection and self-criticism. 1984 is a critique of the dangerous tendencies he saw firsthand in socialism when he fought in the spanish civil war, which is why it is such a powerful book.
Bro, just admit Orwell was a leftist. You don't need to insult me, or tell me tankies are utter shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100357
>>100292
>Hurr durrr, it's impossible to extract value out of a work unless you agree with every single political view of the author
This is your brain on polylogism.
>>100335
This thread is now a political compass thread. Post your best examples here.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100383
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100388
>>100383
There is nothing democratic about freedom, what shite did you smoke?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100391
>>100388
Where was that implied?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100394
>>100383
>domination by private industries
There are no dominant private institutions in a free market.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100395
>>100394
There's no such thing as the free market.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100400
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100402
>>100395
<doesn't know about the dank web
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100446
>>100383
These are your best examples? Save us some time and just kill yourself right now.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100514
>>100446
Sure I can. If you ever get a girlfriend, that is. You can film the thing too, but then I want to publish it on my xhamster channel too.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100556
>>100514
>Haha ur virgin xD
>Btw have i mentioned I browse porn?
Does xhamster know you're lying about your age?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100559
>>100556
You seem to have missed the implication, son
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100661
<freedom isn't when you actually can do things
<freedom is when the government - but not TotallyNotGovernment Ltd. - isn't mean to you
Congratulations, you defined 'freedom' in a completely random and useless way.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100662
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100685
>>100348
>this is what annormies unironically believe
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100741
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100744
>>100661
Do you believe that individuals have right of ownership over their own bodies and goods that they have created? If not, why?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100746
>>100744
>right of ownership
What does this even mean?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100767
>>100662
>>100741
>take my freedom, Milord, I aint usin' it anyhow
Public education is a mistake. Peasants use their literacy to advocate for collective slavery.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100788
>>100767
>public education is a mistake
That's where you're wrong. It's doing exactly what it was created to do.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100817
>>100744
>individuals have right of ownership over … goods that they have created
That's communism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100818
>>100817
except they do not recognize private property rights, so they do not truly "own" anything
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100819
>>100817
No. The owners of factories have a valid right to the equipment and infrastructure of that factory, since their suppliers had valid right of ownership over the equipment and transferred it to the owners. The owners of factories are not obligated to let workers use this infrastructure for free. The employment contract that workers, of their own free will, agree to, grants right of ownership over the goods that the workers create (this right of ownership was freely transferred from the worker to the owner) in exchange for payment and use of factory infrastructure.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100825
>>100819
>valid right
>free will
>right of ownership
Feel free to prove that any of these not only exist, but are inherently coherent concepts which can exist.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.