Freedom is ...

[Rassah]

So, freedom is not being coerced, except in some cases where coercion is OK...

Or at least where you personally think it's not coercion, even if others feel coerced.

[cbeast]

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose" - JANIS JOPLIN

This lyric was a battle cry for a generation.

[dscotese]

Define coercion.

I put the definition of coercion into the hands of the victim:  If you claim to have a right, you can be coerced because someone can threaten to violate that right.  When someone threatens to violate a right you believe you have, then you're being coerced.  Whether or not someone is being coerced, in my book, that is, being a victim of a violation of the non-aggression principle, depends on the rights they feel are threatened by the alleged coercer.  If I agree with the rights, then I agree that they're being coerced.

Every set of laws that is enforced through the threat to violate the rights of others represents coercion.  There is only one legitimate way to violate other people, and that is in self-defense.  Whatever part of "taxes, levies, fees, rents, tariffs or payments [that cover] infrastructure [you're using] and [the enforcement of] regulations which prevent uncaring, greedy or ignorant persons and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others..." is self-defense would be fine with me.  From what I can tell, however, nearly all of those things generally and consistently "[affect] other individuals in a negative way," in addition to threatening to violate their rights if they refuse to comply.

In fact, the people who take that money, invent those regulations, and prevent people (caring, uncaring, greedy, not greedy, ignorant, and knowledgeable alike) and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others - those people are the ones most responsible for our loss of freedom.  Those are the people most guilty of coercion.  Those are the people who slow us down, warp our economy, heed progress, and create politics.  Those are the people who create the most violence.

Then by that reasoning you are only as free as you can defend.  I believe this to be true and that is why people decided to form governments so they weren't ruled by RANDOM THUGS.  This is why a step back away from a form of government is regressive in fact.

Dalkore, have you checked out The Myth of National Defense?  It's a great collection of essays addressing exactly that topic of how people defend themselves from random thugs.  It shows pretty well that your conclusion is quite off.  You mistake a cooperative defense strategy with "government," but the latter bears that name specifically because it employs coercion against its own people while the former relies entirely on voluntary participate (like the US of A was supposed to be until Lincoln fucked it up).

While you "would much rather know [the] thugs and have checks and balances," I would much rather know my friends and neighbors and trust their recognition of the thuggery, random or not, and especially recognize and repel thuggery rather than inviting it simply because I know the thugs and they (pretend to) have checks and balances built into their thuggery.  In fact, my global community is constantly finding more people who recognize the institutionalized thuggery of governments and creating solutions to the problems they cause.  Bitcoin is one of those solutions.  Find out more (if you want) at http://voluntaryist.com.

[Anon136]

Define coercion.

I put the definition of coercion into the hands of the victim:  If you claim to have a right, you can be coerced because someone can threaten to violate that right.  When someone threatens to violate a right you believe you have, then you're being coerced.  Whether or not someone is being coerced, in my book, that is, being a victim of a violation of the non-aggression principle, depends on the rights they feel are threatened by the alleged coercer.  If I agree with the rights, then I agree that they're being coerced.

Every set of laws that is enforced through the threat to violate the rights of others represents coercion.  There is only one legitimate way to violate other people, and that is in self-defense.  Whatever part of "taxes, levies, fees, rents, tariffs or payments [that cover] infrastructure [you're using] and [the enforcement of] regulations which prevent uncaring, greedy or ignorant persons and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others..." is self-defense would be fine with me.  From what I can tell, however, nearly all of those things generally and consistently "[affect] other individuals in a negative way," in addition to threatening to violate their rights if they refuse to comply.

In fact, the people who take that money, invent those regulations, and prevent people (caring, uncaring, greedy, not greedy, ignorant, and knowledgeable alike) and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others - those people are the ones most responsible for our loss of freedom.  Those are the people most guilty of coercion.  Those are the people who slow us down, warp our economy, heed progress, and create politics.  Those are the people who create the most violence.

Then by that reasoning you are only as free as you can defend.  I believe this to be true and that is why people decided to form governments so they weren't ruled by RANDOM THUGS.  This is why a step back away from a form of government is regressive in fact.

Dalkore, have you checked out The Myth of National Defense?  It's a great collection of essays addressing exactly that topic of how people defend themselves from random thugs.  It shows pretty well that your conclusion is quite off.  You mistake a cooperative defense strategy with "government," but the latter bears that name specifically because it employs coercion against its own people while the former relies entirely on voluntary participate (like the US of A was supposed to be until Lincoln fucked it up).

While you "would much rather know [the] thugs and have checks and balances," I would much rather know my friends and neighbors and trust their recognition of the thuggery, random or not, and especially recognize and repel thuggery rather than inviting it simply because I know the thugs and they (pretend to) have checks and balances built into their thuggery.  In fact, my global community is constantly finding more people who recognize the institutionalized thuggery of governments and creating solutions to the problems they cause.  Bitcoin is one of those solutions.  Find out more (if you want) at http://voluntaryist.com.

according to your definition then isnt someone who is denied health care who also believes they have a right to health care being coerced? What about someone who believes they have a right to slaves would he not be coerced by everyone who refused to be his slave? i think this is not a very useful definition. I think in order for coercion to be a useful word it must be defined as a violation of the rights that the observer believes the coerced (or not) individual has not what rights the coerced (or not) individual believes he has.

[FirstAscent]

dscotese,

So am I to take it then that you are fully against a landlord evicting you from a property you rent? Am I to understand that you are against someone showing up to your home with a gun to forcibly remove you if you don't pay rent and don't leave? Am I to understand you are against a landlord telling you that you cannot keep pets in your apartment? Am I to understand that you are against a landlord deciding what color carpet the place you rent has? Am I to understand that you get full say in how your landlord spends his money?

[Luno]

A car gives you freedom because instead of getting you to work this morning,it can take you anywhere if you feel like it. Likewise money gives you freedom of choice in many aspects of your life.

In a society each citizen trades some of their freedom for other benefits. You pay taxes to have infrastructure and security. You sell your temporal freedom at work to have monetary freedom in you spare time.

Freedom is not a well defined resource. Pushing a shopping cart down the highway not knowing where you gonna sleep tonight is the ultimate freedom for some, while it would be the absolute minimum of available choices in life for others.

You trade your freedom all the time. You have periods during the day here you have zero freedom and other periods where you decide others degree of freedom. When you feel un-free it's when you think your are in the red in your freedom bookkeeping.

It's hard to differentiate between freedom of choice and freedom by privileges. You will never feel that you have enough freedom as you cannot feel you have too much happiness in your life either.

your quest for your freedom is often in conflict with others quest for their freedom.

If you think hard enough, you know that the freedom you think you don't have is a freedom you have given away with your consent. Freedom is not something you ask for. Freedom has a price tag.

[CountSparkle]

A car gives you freedom because instead of getting you to work this morning,it can take you anywhere if you feel like it. Likewise money gives you freedom of choice in many aspects of your life.

In a society each citizen trades some of their freedom for other benefits. You pay taxes to have infrastructure and security. You sell your temporal freedom at work to have monetary freedom in you spare time.

Freedom is not a well defined resource. Pushing a shopping cart down the highway not knowing where you gonna sleep tonight is the ultimate freedom for some, while it would be the absolute minimum of available choices in life for others.

You trade your freedom all the time. You have periods during the day here you have zero freedom and other periods where you decide others degree of freedom. When you feel un-free it's when you think your are in the red in your freedom bookkeeping.

It's hard to differentiate between freedom of choice and freedom by privileges. You will never feel that you have enough freedom as you cannot feel you have too much happiness in your life either.

your quest for your freedom is often in conflict with others quest for their freedom.

If you think hard enough, you know that the freedom you think you don't have is a freedom you have given away with your consent. Freedom is not something you ask for. Freedom has a price tag.

I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options."

[Luno]

Quote: "I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options.""

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Freedom is not a law of nature or a right, its a feeling. Options might be a lesser kind of freedom but the more of them you have, the more free you feel.

[dscotese]

according to your definition then isnt someone who is denied health care who also believes they have a right to health care being coerced? What about someone who believes they have a right to slaves would he not be coerced by everyone who refused to be his slave? i think this is not a very useful definition. I think in order for coercion to be a useful word it must be defined as a violation of the rights that the observer believes the coerced (or not) individual has not what rights the coerced (or not) individual believes he has.

Yes, they are being coerced in their view.  In my view, we are obligated to coerce them (as they call it) because their perception of their rights violates our property rights (heathcare requires the provider to be paid).  Likewise the slave-owners.

You've touched on another important point which is this:  The problems we will/do have with would-be slave owners and sick socialists are a result of their untenable conception of rights, not a poor definition of coercion.  Definitions aren't important unless you want to stick with a given word (as if you had a contract that uses the word or, if you're a statist, a law that uses it).  A person who believes they have a right to own slaves should NOT be free. Likewise a person who believes they have a right to medical services that others are capable of providing.  If you make unreasonable claims to rights, you should not be free.  Who judges?  I do.  Everyone should judge for themselves.

[dscotese]

dscotese,

So am I to take it then that you are fully against a landlord evicting you from a property you rent? Am I to understand that you are against someone showing up to your home with a gun to forcibly remove you if you don't pay rent and don't leave? Am I to understand you are against a landlord telling you that you cannot keep pets in your apartment? Am I to understand that you are against a landlord deciding what color carpet the place you rent has? Am I to understand that you get full say in how your landlord spends his money?

No sir, you are not to understand those things.  However, if it appears that I'm choosing to violate someone's property rights in the ways you described, it's a good bet that I'm doing it because they don't actually hold rights to the property.  If it seems to you that I'm wrong, please get in touch with me so we can have a reasonable discussion about it.

If you don't mind, I'm also interested in the logic behind what seems to be a set of conclusions you've made about me.  Can you explain?

[dscotese]

Quote: "I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options.""

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Freedom is not a law of nature or a right, its a feeling. Options might be a lesser kind of freedom but the more of them you have, the more free you feel.

Is there a word you use for the exercise of the set of rights you have that you never actually give up for any reason? - "inalienable rights" that is.  Does the condition of being able to exercise those rights any time you want to without fear of retaliation from other people have some sort of name for you?  "Freedom" is a good name that I use to describe this condition, but that word apparently means something else to you - something that we do give up from time to time in order to get other things, something that is "alienable", or tradable.

Or perhaps you have no word for what I've described.

I find a lot of people trying to tie their own meanings to words as if Plato was right about his ideals.  He wasn't.  Every individual has their own meaning for every word they use, and I think it's a waste of time arguing about what a word "really" means when the important issue is not what the words mean, but what the person using them means.  I avoid a lot of problems by recognizing that others use words differently than I use them.  At the same time, when we find common ground in the meanings of the words we use, it enhances our ability to communicate, so there is value in discussing word meanings.  I just think it's silly to argue about who is right in that area.

[myrkul]

according to your definition then isnt someone who is denied health care who also believes they have a right to health care being coerced? What about someone who believes they have a right to slaves would he not be coerced by everyone who refused to be his slave? i think this is not a very useful definition. I think in order for coercion to be a useful word it must be defined as a violation of the rights that the observer believes the coerced (or not) individual has not what rights the coerced (or not) individual believes he has.

Yes, they are being coerced in their view.  In my view, we are obligated to coerce them (as they call it) because their perception of their rights violates our property rights (heathcare requires the provider to be paid).  Likewise the slave-owners.

You've touched on another important point which is this:  The problems we will/do have with would-be slave owners and sick socialists are a result of their untenable conception of rights, not a poor definition of coercion.  Definitions aren't important unless you want to stick with a given word (as if you had a contract that uses the word or, if you're a statist, a law that uses it).  A person who believes they have a right to own slaves should NOT be free. Likewise a person who believes they have a right to medical services that others are capable of providing.  If you make unreasonable claims to rights, you should not be free.  Who judges?  I do.  Everyone should judge for themselves.

so are you are saying is that it never makes any sense to use the word coercion in a general sense out side of relevant event context? Are you saying it never makes any sense to say he is being coerced but rather this should always be qualified by saying either he believes he is being coerced or i believe he is being coerced? if this is your meaning than i agree. It seems that what is in question is how one should interpret the meaning of the statement "he is being coerced", whether it should be interpreted as meaning he believes he is being coerced or whether it should be interpreted as meaning i believe he is being coerced.

Belief doesn't enter into it. You can objectively determine who is using coercion in any conflict where coercion is being used by determining who initiated the conflict. The other party, who did not initiate the conflict, is defending themselves.

[dscotese]

so are you are saying is that it never makes any sense to use the word coercion in a general sense out side of relevant event context? Are you saying it never makes any sense to say he is being coerced but rather this should always be qualified by saying either he believes he is being coerced or i believe he is being coerced? if this is your meaning than i agree. It seems that what is in question is how one should interpret the meaning of the statement "he is being coerced", whether it should be interpreted as meaning he believes he is being coerced or whether it should be interpreted as meaning i believe he is being coerced.

Belief doesn't enter into it. You can objectively determine who is using coercion in any conflict where coercion is being used by determining who initiated the conflict. The other party, who did not initiate the conflict, is defending themselves.

I don't like to claim that we can be objective.  We can agree to enough aspects of word definitions to make the subjectivity insignificant (that's what we do in math), but true objectivity is ... well, void, in my view.  But that's probably a bit too philosophical a discussion to have here.

To answer the question of how we should interpret one person's claim that some guy is being coerced, trust, but verify: I would ask the victim: "Do you feel a threat to violate your rights?"  Whether or not the victim holds my definition of coercion, an honest answer will provide me with the understanding I desire.  From there, I can judge those doing the threatening and interact or avoid them, defend or abandon the victim, and explain whatever choices I make according to my voluntaryist disposition.  I might have to ask what the threatened rights are first.  But that's the rub - if I agree that the victim has those rights, then I agree that it's coercion.  If not, I and the victim will have to agree to disagree - not because of the facts of the situation, but because we don't agree on what rights the victim holds - about whether he's being coerced.

"Threaten" and "harm" and "damage" and "violate" are simpler than "coerce" because "coerce" requires a certain psychological state in the victim - essentially his belief that he would be better off without the person doing the threatening.  To use "coerce" as I use it requires that you believe something about the victim's beliefs.  I suppose I'm narrowing the definition from how most people use it - people who wouldn't be puzzled by "He coerces the horse" because "threaten" and "coerce" mean the same thing to them.  I think that requiring the victim to perceive that he has some rights that are under attack makes "coerce" more useful - and I think when people use it - honest people, not politicians - there is at least a tincture of that requirement.

I brought up the horse because I've been using the difference between horse whispering and horse breaking for years to explain what's wrong with government authority and everything it touches, and also in discussions about raising children.

[myrkul]

I brought up the horse because I've been using the difference between horse whispering and horse breaking for years to explain what's wrong with government authority and everything it touches, and also in discussions about raising children.

Well, I disagree with you about objectivity, but as you say, that's not really this discussion. This bit, however, is an excellent point.

[myrkul]

Quote: "I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options.""

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Freedom is not a law of nature or a right, its a feeling. Options might be a lesser kind of freedom but the more of them you have, the more free you feel.

Is there a word you use for the exercise of the set of rights you have that you never actually give up for any reason? - "inalienable rights" that is.  Does the condition of being able to exercise those rights any time you want to without fear of retaliation from other people have some sort of name for you?  "Freedom" is a good name that I use to describe this condition, but that word apparently means something else to you - something that we do give up from time to time in order to get other things, something that is "alienable", or tradable.

Or perhaps you have no word for what I've described.
...

Re: "inalienable rights" -- Another word for that is tyranny.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, huh?

[myrkul]

Quote: "I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options.""

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Freedom is not a law of nature or a right, its a feeling. Options might be a lesser kind of freedom but the more of them you have, the more free you feel.

Is there a word you use for the exercise of the set of rights you have that you never actually give up for any reason? - "inalienable rights" that is.  Does the condition of being able to exercise those rights any time you want to without fear of retaliation from other people have some sort of name for you?  "Freedom" is a good name that I use to describe this condition, but that word apparently means something else to you - something that we do give up from time to time in order to get other things, something that is "alienable", or tradable.

Or perhaps you have no word for what I've described.
...

Re: "inalienable rights" -- Another word for that is tyranny.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, huh?

Something like that.

I reject your premise of objective morality. Thus, your freedom to assert your delusion of an "inalienable right" to property, and related activities such as violent defence thereof, could be regarded as tyranny to others.

Would you take offense if I defecated in your living room?

[myrkul]

...
Re: "inalienable rights" -- Another word for that is tyranny.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, huh?

Something like that.

I reject your premise of objective morality. Thus, your freedom to assert your delusion of an "inalienable right" to property, and related activities such as violent defence thereof, could be regarded as tyranny to others.

Would you take offense if I defecated in your living room?

I don't own a living room. The whole planet sustains me. Your poop already provides valuable gravity (not very much, but every little bit helps) and sustenance to the plants living downstream. You'll have to do better than an "appeal to envy" to convince me that property rights are somehow woven into the fabric of the universe.

Well. This, I have to admit was an unexpected angle. So, you have no home, then? Where do you keep your things? Where are you accessing the internet from?

[myrkul]

...
Re: "inalienable rights" -- Another word for that is tyranny.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, huh?

Something like that.

I reject your premise of objective morality. Thus, your freedom to assert your delusion of an "inalienable right" to property, and related activities such as violent defence thereof, could be regarded as tyranny to others.

Would you take offense if I defecated in your living room?

I don't own a living room. The whole planet sustains me. Your poop already provides valuable gravity (not very much, but every little bit helps) and sustenance to the plants living downstream. You'll have to do better than an "appeal to envy" to convince me that property rights are somehow woven into the fabric of the universe.

Well. This, I have to admit was an unexpected angle. So, you have no home, then? Where do you keep your things? Where are you accessing the internet from?

Fine, I'll play along. It pains me to see you suffer. You poo in my living room, I get terribly offended, or embarrassed or whatever... Then what happens? The suspense is killing me!

Ah, but you're not really playing along. If you want to, just answer the very simple yes or no question: Is it OK if I crap on your carpet?

If you really want to play along, add in why or why not.

[myrkul]

...
Re: "inalienable rights" -- Another word for that is tyranny.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, huh?

Something like that.

I reject your premise of objective morality. Thus, your freedom to assert your delusion of an "inalienable right" to property, and related activities such as violent defence thereof, could be regarded as tyranny to others.

Would you take offense if I defecated in your living room?

I don't own a living room. The whole planet sustains me. Your poop already provides valuable gravity (not very much, but every little bit helps) and sustenance to the plants living downstream. You'll have to do better than an "appeal to envy" to convince me that property rights are somehow woven into the fabric of the universe.

Well. This, I have to admit was an unexpected angle. So, you have no home, then? Where do you keep your things? Where are you accessing the internet from?

Fine, I'll play along. It pains me to see you suffer. You poo in my living room, I get terribly offended, or embarrassed or whatever... Then what happens? The suspense is killing me!

Ah, but you're not really playing along. If you want to, just answer the very simple yes or no question: Is it OK if I crap on your carpet?

I'm still thinking! 4 things in favour: you're like a child, you asked so politely, I want to find out what happens next because I've never had such a weird proposition before, and it would make a great conversation starter at parties! 1 against: it would be f-ing disgusting -- you would clean it up afterwards, right?

Might have to sleep on it...

No, I would not clean it up afterwards.

[dscotese]

...
Re: "inalienable rights" -- Another word for that is tyranny.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, huh?

Something like that.

I reject your premise of objective morality. Thus, your freedom to assert your delusion of an "inalienable right" to property, and related activities such as violent defence thereof, could be regarded as tyranny to others.

Would you take offense if I defecated in your living room?

I don't own a living room. The whole planet sustains me. Your poop already provides valuable gravity (not very much, but every little bit helps) and sustenance to the plants living downstream. You'll have to do better than an "appeal to envy" to convince me that property rights are somehow woven into the fabric of the universe.

Well. This, I have to admit was an unexpected angle. So, you have no home, then? Where do you keep your things? Where are you accessing the internet from?

Fine, I'll play along. It pains me to see you suffer. You poo in my living room, I get terribly offended, or embarrassed or whatever... Then what happens? The suspense is killing me!

Ah, but you're not really playing along. If you want to, just answer the very simple yes or no question: Is it OK if I crap on your carpet?

I'm still thinking! 4 things in favour: you're like a child, you asked so politely, I want to find out what happens next because I've never had such a weird proposition before, and it would make a great conversation starter at parties! 1 against: it would be f-ing disgusting -- you would clean it up afterwards, right?

Might have to sleep on it...

Now THAT is disgusting!