- ThatFatAtheist Forums!
- →
- Thinker's Guild
- →
- Politics
- →
- A Concept of Freedom
| Welcome to our forum. This is a place for people to debate and rant about stuff. Enjoy! Click here to register. If you're already a member, you can log in here: |
| A Concept of Freedom; ... that is hopefully free of holes! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 10 Apr 2012, 02:11 PM (1,464 Views) | |
| BadHouses | 10 Apr 2012, 02:11 PM Post #1 |
|
A Concept of Freedom As I've mentioned in a few threads, mostly dealing with race, I have made the claim that some of my opponents' notions of freedom are flawed. So here, I will attempt to lay out my concept of freedom and attempt to show, with a few examples, that other concepts are unprincipled and indiscriminate. The first half of this will be a basic overview of natural rights and law as I currently understand them, and the second part will be a little more outright and libertarian. I would prefer discussion to focus on the concept of liberty in the first half, but I will address critiques for the second. (Also, lemme know if you see any spelling errors and such. Thanks.) My concept of freedom stems from this fundamental axiom: Human beings own themselves. If you disagree with this axiom, then I have nothing further to tell you. You pretty much believe this to be true, or you don't. I think, however, that an overwhelming majority feel they are the rightful owners of their own bodies. From this axiom, we also grant that any aspect of nature that he takes and uses or improves to his own benefit becomes his property. Another example from [Locke's Second Treatise on Government]: Here, you may have some objections and if so I look forward to hearing them. In addition to this, when a person has his self-ownership and the ownership of his justly posessed property (Such as a surprise punch in the face or a purse snatching), we feel a visceral and instantaneous sense of unjustice. Each human that realises these things about himself also recognises that the humans around them own themselves, own their justly acquired property and that an injustice would be done to them should he violate their self-ownership. He discovers, essentially, that he, as he does not want his own self-ownership violated, ought not violate the self-ownership and the ownership of property of others. From these principles we can determine a system of law strictly delineated upon these lines of ownership of self and external property. Elisha P. Hurlbut, Essays on Human Rights and Their Political Guaranties as quoted [here]. With these as the fundamentals we can apply this system, which I take to be rather simple, yet robust and uncontradictory and apply them to scenarios to show that opposing notions of freedom are self-serving, unprincipled and emotional appeals to equality. Speaking of equality, I will mention that I believe such is the primary factor that opponents use as the basis of their notions of freedom and rights. Equality, might I add, which does not in actuality base itself on equality before the law but of equality of results rather than of opportunity (Which humans can either use or ignore at their discretion). As well, I believe the notions of freedom and rights are used as a "new" form of ideological support for the State through the implementation of positive law, that is commandments that are handed down from on high for the purpose of shaping the society in the ways the State sees fit. (Examples to follow). Let us begin with two very undisputed problems which all sides can sympathise with: The issue of Freedom of Speech. No matter the political stripe, almost all people can see that arbitrary and draconian laws pertaining to speech (Hate speech, most notably) are an infringement on the rights of X country's citizens. Most people are familiar with the phrase “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself," and other similar phrases. Clearly then it is a violation of a human being's right to open his mouth and make particular noises at his will, thus using his owned body to speak his mind. There have been, however, a few people who note that the right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a useful law to have. I agree, but in a different fashion. It is the express purpose of a movie theatre to be a relatively quiet place to enjoy a film and to have a person cry "Fire!" in your establishment is a fine restriction to have. So in this way, the restriction on yelling in the theatre is maintained, but the meddlesome influence of the State is averted. It is the right of the theatre owner, who has (we will assume) come to own the theatre justly and it being his property can institute any rule he wishes. The second issue most would agree with is the issue of drug legalization. It is quite simple: Men own themselves and they have the right to inject, smoke, consume any intoxicant they wish in any amount they wish just as surely as they have every right to tattoo the smallest or largest image on their own skin. That their behaviour may be reckless and lead to their poor health and other concerns is no problem of the courts. That being said, it is certainly advisable, in my estimation, that morally we have the duty to ostracize these people and when given the chance, speak to them about the errors of their ways. Prohibition of drugs and instituionalizing them against their will are not amongst the permittable actions. A more contested notion which I believe to be a self-serving and illegitimate act is that of taxation. The thread on this topic is available for discussion, so I would prefer not getting into talks about this topic here for I think it might overwhelm the place. Anyway, taxation is a involuntary tribute paid to the State, enforced through threat. Money is, when earned justly through honest labour, the property of each man who owns it and thus the extortion of this money is unprincipled and immoral, even when that money is used to pay for things which help him. A robber who steals your purse and returns with a nice new cellphone for you which was paid with your funds is still a robber. And finally, we come to the concept of freedom as so often expressed on the issue of race. Let me put it plainly: If you believe that humans own themselves, you cannot retain a dignified stance if you simultaneously believe that it is NOT the right of a human to be racist, whether it be in the sale of his home, in the provision of services or the selection of sexual partners and spouses. You may estimate that it is immoral for a person to do these things, but the moment you state that it is not his right, you are the one who is now immoral. And morals do appear to be the basis for a great number of laws. Morals can only be argued on the basis of emotional appeals rather than reasoned argument. The idea that a drug user SHOULD NOT use drugs can only be made on emotional grounds as well as rational attempts at convincing him that his behaviour is self-destructive. Law made on these grounds are illegitimate in my eyes. Similarly, if a person enjoys being obese and immense, there is nothing you are allowed to do that forcibly has him change his habits. |
| We'll have a real wild time. | |
 |
 
|
| Triplock | 10 Apr 2012, 02:21 PM Post #2 |
|
Question; how much of this concepts of yours is based on ideological convinction and how much on observations of efficiency, practicality and general pramatism? Also would you be willing to compromise your idealistic purity of conviction, for the sake of mundane, everyday concerns of society based on those ideals functioning as efficiently as possible? |
|
|
|
| BadHouses | 10 Apr 2012, 02:55 PM Post #3 |
|
@Triplock - I'd like to think it's merely the best basis for a system of law than an ideological conviction. I think it would be more efficient and practical since it would likely erase frivolous lawsuits where companies are held responsible for things that are clearly the responsibility of the plaintiff. I think a well-ordered and strict law system is better than the current mess by a long shot, so they go hand in hand. As I mentioned in other threads as well, this is also a far better way of doling out punishment fairly than any other yet-conceived system. I am well aware that the possibility of a society that embraces these principles is going to be a tough and unlikely situation. For example, in common law there are smaller and mundane things like the length of time before a plot of land is considered officially abandoned (12 months or 6 months depending on who you ask, regardless of what is going on with the owner). While under my pure system this would not be strictly allowed, it's certainly a smaller thing I could live with. Obviously, my main concern is the existence of the State as we now know it. What sort of practical things did you have in mind which make this so-called ideological conviction anathema to reality? Edited by BadHouses, 10 Apr 2012, 02:59 PM.
|
| We'll have a real wild time. | |
|
|
|
| PoodieCore | 10 Apr 2012, 03:09 PM Post #4 |
German douche
|
Well if your main foundation of liberty is based upon property rights, then you are an egoistical douchebag on my watch. Private propety rights have its limits once you can use your property as a means to opress people. Sorry you cannot send your child to this school. Sorry you are not allowed to live here. Sorry you cannot walk on this road. Here you enter the realm of PUBLIC property that grants everyone the right to use it. And fuck yes, then I don't give a flying fuck about your rights to be a discriminatory asshole. If you deny people based on petty shit like race, religion or sexual orientation the opportunity to climb up the social ladder, then you don't have freedom regardless how you would like to see it. You cannot have total individual freedom and you cannot have perfect equality. And you should have a reasonable balance between individual freedom and binding social laws in order to guarantee as much as individual freedom as possible for everyone. Esspecially if that means to piss on the individual freedom of assholes to be assholes. |
|
Best forum quotes: | |
|
|
|
| BadHouses | 10 Apr 2012, 03:35 PM Post #5 |
|
@Poodie - This is going out on a fairly small limb, but I find it interesting that your view "egotistical" people as douchebags. It seems like this is a notion carried down from Christians, vestigially embedded in modern, secular minds. Whether that's the case or not, a legal system predicated on property is not a tacit approval of douchebaggery. It may protect douchebags, but it also protects the rightful owners who have been wronged and seeks to award them the damages and mete out the punishment that is just and proportional. So I will ask you directly: Do you believe that humans own themselves? If so, where do you derive the right to force them to do things they don't want to do? What rational justification can you give? Is it what I mentioned in the first post, equality or fairness? What are the precise dimensions and goals of this equality if that is the case? Your evaluations of racism, sexism, religious and sexual orientation bigotry are not universal, they are subjective. The laws of property and the concept of self-ownership are and can be applied universally without change no matter what the times are about. If this were a few centuries ago, you would be arguing in favour of laws keeping blacks in bondage it would seem because that was the going ideology. But even back then, this law system was used (And people promoting it and systems like it did so) as justification for the emancipation of slaves since their natural rights were being heinously violated. Advocates too saw an injustice in the slave owners being paid for giving up their slaves, despite the fact that THEY were the criminals in the slave trade and ought to be paying the slaves everything they were owed. Your declaration of "you can't have total, individual freedom" is a misleading because that is not what I want. I want total freedom up to, but no further than, the point at which the self-ownership and property of another human being is violated. To NOT do something is not violating anyone's freedom. You should see the absurdity of claiming otherwise. Taking an example from the drug thread again, someone said that dispensaries should only give drugs to people who meet certain criteria, namely that they are not suicidal, or otherwise mentally unstable. To deny that person drugs is to infringe upon his rights, by your logic, even though it is understandable for a dispensary not to want the reckless behaviour of its clients on its conscience. Further, it would be a infringement of my rights for an employer NOT to hire me, again by your logic. I need a job! I need a job really badly or I might starve or turn to a life of crime! But the employer likely would not hire me because I am unqualified or I am a slob and he doesn't trust me to be a good customer service rep. You may view the act of turning someone away for "petty" reasons as immoral, but as far as I can tell, you haven't got a leg to stand on when you jump to the use of force/State intervention, or more broadly positive law, to "fix" what you believe is a problem. Edited by BadHouses, 10 Apr 2012, 03:38 PM.
|
| We'll have a real wild time. | |
|
|
|
| PoodieCore | 10 Apr 2012, 03:43 PM Post #6 |
|
German douche
|
Yes I want that the state intervenes and uses force to tell a large retail chain to also sell their goods to non-white people. I don't think that is an evil tyranny. Don't be a cunt, is a pretty easy rule according to which everyone can live. |
|
Best forum quotes: | |
|
|
|
| Ron Paul | 10 Apr 2012, 04:15 PM Post #7 |
|
Freedom is to have all the choices for yourself, by yourself -- as in you have the freedom to pay lots of money to go to a private school, or if you're poor; the chance to to go from one completely underfunded school or the other completely underfunded school. |
|
|
|
| PoodieCore | 10 Apr 2012, 04:19 PM Post #8 |
|
German douche
|
Badhouses when you have Ron Paul on your side, you might reconsider your beliefs. Just sayin... |
|
Best forum quotes: | |
|
|
|
| BadHouses | 10 Apr 2012, 04:51 PM Post #9 |
|
Except the racists, homophobes, islamophobes and any other icky group of people who fall outside your view of moral behaviour. Again I ask, whence cometh this authority that can be imbued into a person or group allowing them to dictate the happenings of a society? What if, let's say, tomorrow the majority of people viewed the death of liberal Germans by any means necessary as a morally justified act; They do not see this as tyranny. Would you? But how could you argue against their treatment of you as they haul you off to the gallows when you yourself are perfectly in favour of the whim of the people being imposed on the scapegoat of the day? Ron Paul and I are not on the same side, he's just closer to my side than most. |
| We'll have a real wild time. | |
|
|
|
| Ardat | 10 Apr 2012, 07:30 PM Post #10 |
|
This'll probably come to you as fairly unsurprising, but while I don't necessarily disagree with your axiomatic definition of freedom, I do reject the notion of setting such a definition in the first place. I've repeated that times and times again, only concepts producing stable social groups have a chance to actually be applied for an extended period of time. Ethical consistency isn't a determining factor in the stability of a system. Rather, it's the social configuration that determines the nature of the ethical framework used throughout society. Freedom isn't a concept that's defined preemptively to the formation of a societal network, thus, and I know this isn't within those terms that you intend to argue here, setting it as an axiom is somewhat nonsensical. I'd wager this perspective on freedom would be alien to you if you were living in Ancient Rome, 'cause the Empire simply wouldn't have been sustainable without slaves. Arguably no one would have defended that definition, no even those who were treated like property (and no, Spartacus didn't revolt to free all slaves, merely himself and his companions). |
| What's more fun than fighting crime? | |
|
|
| BadHouses | 10 Apr 2012, 08:46 PM Post #11 |
|
It wouldn't be too alien to me. Aristotle I believe had a similar ethical code, however he placed the seat of importance in the State, rather than in the individual actors. I haven't read much into this, though I do plan to. I've read it the Stoics had similar ideas, and again, I'll be reading up on those in the very near future. You may very well be correct that nobody would argue against slavery since it was indispensable to the building of Greece, not to mention the numerous other empires through history. I'd argue they got it wrong. The idea put forth here has evolved over a long period of time, and even changed with the author I more or less rely on for the idea, Murray Rothbard. He built off Locke, Lysander Spooner and Herbet Spencer, so it is understandable that it may not have emerged as the social configuration before the system we now know. I also recognise that systems of law and such are determined by, as you put it, the societal configuration. However I simply think that the societal configuration that would result in the happiest and most stable population would be the implementation of the ideas presented in the OP (amongst many others), especially now that they've been developed as fully as they have. I don't quite understand the idea that building off an axiom is nonsensical. The idea exists within the current configuration and it is my hope that it will diffuse amongst the population (At least the population that directly interacts with me) and become the dominant idea used by them. |
| We'll have a real wild time. | |
|
|
|
| Ardat | 11 Apr 2012, 05:20 AM Post #12 |
|
Actually, Aristotle's ethical code applied only to free men, as he believed that being a slave was a natural status. But never minding that idealistic cunt, stating 'they got it wrong' seems like a virulent case of historical pretentiousness to me. Implementing relative equality and freedom for all members of a numerous social group has a price which, in my opinion, non industrialized societies cannot pay. The desire for freedom is contingent upon more fundamental needs, notably the access to food, water and shelter, so setting a definition that your cultural bias allows you to find principled appears presumptuous, especially when you have the clear intent of rigidly building a society based on that definition. Your axiom(s) should address human beings' fundamentals, of which freedom is merely one aspect , if at all fundamental, though I suspect it is. So I suppose you could say I disagree with your definition of freedom, but have no clear alternative to present to you. I've got no damn clue what a perfect definition, suited for this particular technological era, would look like, but I'm pretty sure it ain't as simple as the one you're putting forth. I can respect the basic idea, but things just aren't that easy. Edited by Ardat, 11 Apr 2012, 06:48 AM.
|
| What's more fun than fighting crime? | |
|
|
|
| PoodieCore | 11 Apr 2012, 06:19 AM Post #13 |
|
German douche
|
Ah the good old mob rule argument... I expected that. Well first of all these rules are not arbitrary morality gibberish as you would like to label them. They are all based on the idea that petty shit like religion, race, gender or sexual orientation, specificly says nothing about your character or abilities as a person. That's why it is bullshit to discriminate people based on these things. People should be free to live however they want without some assholes telling them to conform. I guess the idea that everyone should be equal under the law, is evil tyranny in your opinion, because God forbid society forces you to some extent not to be a discriminatory racist, sexist or homophobe scumbag... How awful... I think Ardat is way too diplomatic here.... Your concept of freedom is radical utopian bullshit based on a simplistic, childish and stupid idea! Really if you really dismiss everything that has been evolved for the previous 2 thousand years such as constitional basic human rights, rule of law and freaking states just for the sake that YOU egoistical scumbag can keep YOUR cookies and live among YOUR racist discriminatory pals, you are an idiot that does not have a single clue how complicated this world is. Rights have to be univeral, otherwise they are not rights. Then they are priviledges. EVERYONE must enjoy certain basic rights, such as freedom to live wherever he wants to live regardless of his race. You tell me how awful it is that stupid morality shit is imposed on everybody, while in your world the mob can easily come together to establish even worse arbitrary laws for anyone who wants to live somewhere. Contracts blabla... It is okay blabla... You are a hypocrite, because your shit makes it really theoretically possible to opress people with nonesense. Really your entire ideology only serves the purpose for you to have the excuse to be a total egoistical scumbag. |
|
Best forum quotes: | |
|
|
|
| Ardat | 11 Apr 2012, 06:38 AM Post #14 |
|
Maybe you're not being diplomatic enough, 'cause Nemesis, I think, holds the same basic principle of freedom and I don't see you being anywhere near as aggressive with him. Granted, his views on 'races' are radically different, but this is hardly the topic at hand here. Furthermore, your definition of freedom is just as axiomatic as Badhouses', so, while I'd agree with it more, I have to say your approach is flawed all the same. And again, the condition for my agreement is that the definition refers to modern days. I would have disagreed in any insufficiently developed era, technology wise. Edited by Ardat, 11 Apr 2012, 06:40 AM.
|
| What's more fun than fighting crime? | |
|
|
|
| PoodieCore | 11 Apr 2012, 06:47 AM Post #15 |
|
German douche
|
What does technology have to do with this? |
|
Best forum quotes: | |
|
|
|
| Ardat | 11 Apr 2012, 06:53 AM Post #16 |
|
Can't have a democracy if the means or communication are too rudimentary in relation to the social group's size. Can't have equality in the access to food, water and shelter if you can't produce and/or distribute those easily and in large quantities. Can't avoid social turmoil if you don't an efficient educational system. So on and so forth. Edited by Ardat, 11 Apr 2012, 06:54 AM.
|
| What's more fun than fighting crime? | |
|
|
|
| PoodieCore | 11 Apr 2012, 07:26 AM Post #17 |
|
German douche
|
He basically says that anything goes as long as you don't use "coercion" (just happens naturually in any capitalistic system as I pointed out a dozen times...). I strongly disagree with this. It should be assured that everyone enjoys freedom within certain limits. With the "anything" part I have a problem. Communism is also theoretically a fluffy idea. Total equality. And we all saw how that worked out... Every "fluffy" ideology that theoretically sounds cool and is based on a simplistic core idea, will eventually become a tyranny. Why? Because human beings are egoistical animals with a limited intellectual horizon for the whole picture. That's why his ideology will also be corrupted by reality. You cannot have total individual freedom, because it would enable a few people to de facto enslave others. Not to mention this planet would be turned into a wasteland within no time... I know that is tough for Nemesis and Badhouses to swallow, but stateless libertarianism would be as bad as practical communism. I know that you Ardat basically agree with this though you would express it of course a bit more diplomatic and intellectual. I'm a dumber moralistic fag... Can't help it. I like both dudes (even this mislead racist scumbag Badhouses  ) but that's just my honest eveluation of the entire concept.
|
|
Best forum quotes: | |
|
|
|
| Ardat | 11 Apr 2012, 07:32 AM Post #18 |
|
I wouldn't say that every ideology would inevitably end up being a tyranny, 'cause it's obviously not true, but for the most part, I do agree. What I don't agree with is both of your approaches, that are similar and thus equally flawed. Axiomatically defining freedom is just naive. |
| What's more fun than fighting crime? | |
|
|
|
| BadHouses | 11 Apr 2012, 11:18 AM Post #19 |
|
I guess it was a lil' bit, fair enough. Well my axiom is generally intended to be the legal manner in which people conduct themselves in the society, and I think it does address their other fundamental needs. This legal framework is essentially one under which the free market will operate to its fullest potential. I of course view the free market as the most expedient and overall best manner in which to satisfy the requirements as well as the luxuries of the people, reducing poverty and decreasing the gap between rich and poor. I will go so far as to say poverty, at least in a given area, would be all but eliminated. It wasn't that I think mob rule is bad (even though I kind of do, despite it being an inevitable thing that must be dealt with), I am trying to point out that your moral framework premised on "Thou shalt not discriminate" is wanton and irresponsible. Your system incorporates fuzzy moral evaluations of things like racism and sexism as "petty." What if I don't think they're petty? What gives you the right to supersede my way of life with yours? If I'm going out into the street and setting black people on fire or trying to lynch them, go ahead and stop me, by my legal system has a way of dealing with that too. You can't possibly miss the fact that this contradicts everything you've said, right? As I pointed out before, you want freedom for everyone, with exceptions* *Racists, homophobes, islamophobes and any other type of person you wish to blackball. Who is truly for equality under the law: You who wishes to deny the ability of free humans who are merely using their justly owned property in a non-harmful way (To deny a cheeseburger to a black man harms NO ONE)... Or me, who wishes that the law respected the sovereignty of each man to his own body and justly owned property, to do with as he will (So long as in the process he doesn't violate the sovereignty of others. e.g., water pollution, fraud, etc.)? It doesn't matter how vile I think someone's beliefs are or how petty, their rights are protected as firmly as any man. That sounds far more fair to me. Yes, it is radical, but hopefully someday it becomes the norm. Simplicity is not an inherently negative trait of a theory, though that is a myth very often propagated nowadays. It is not utopian. The law system exists to lay out how people can/can't act, and to punish those who's action fly in the face of the basal axiom. It's so stupid, it just might work! I do not dismiss it. Like I said, these ideas have evolved over the centuries alongside States and all their fluffy Constitutions. That States happened to evolve first out of religious structures and ancient people's needs to organise their budding civilizations does not discredit what I believe to be a sound idea. And yes, things are complicated. By the way, I came to libertarianism long, long before I came to my ideas on race, so this is not a manner in which I can now let my racist bile spew forth with libertarianism to fall back on if it turns out my ideas are false. And again, "egotistical" scumbaggery is in the eye of the beholder. My system of rights IS universally applicable. Yours has exceptions (i.e., NOT universal). Come over to the dark side, broski. Edited by BadHouses, 11 Apr 2012, 11:19 AM.
|
| We'll have a real wild time. | |
|
|
|
| PoodieCore | 11 Apr 2012, 11:41 AM Post #20 |
|
German douche
|
Yes I do think it is justified to piss on the rights of assholes. In your system assholes can openly discriminate. Not only that you can also bribe, sabotage, cheat, bully, start smear campaigns, blackmail and basically fuck anyone over by coercion in every imaginable way with the aid of questionable contractual clauses because of total contract freedom. Brilliant... When you give us pathetic naked apes the opportunities to act like scum, we will fucking do it. That's why we have economic regulations and anti-discrimination laws in the first place in order to prevent that the free market will fuck everything up. A system based on the sole premise "everyone owns his own body and can do whatever the fuck he wants as long as he does not steal, assault or directly threaten someone" would self-destruct in five minutes. Why? Because humans are simply too fucking stupid and egoistical for your total freedom system. It would not work. |
|
Best forum quotes: | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Edge | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 6:43 AM May 22
|
edge created by tiptopolive of IDS