If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

[Hawker]

This is the core of the discussion.

People like Myrkul don't seem to understand that freedom is not some sort of metaphysical concept. There are vastly differing concepts of freedom; a lot of people and cultures have their own interpretations of it.

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.

Definition of FREEDOM

1
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

So, is the Danish definition 'Freedom from anxiety about economic insecurity'?  I suppose you can use the ablative form to really twist freedom around.

Perhaps someone defines freedom as 'Freedom from making decisions.'

Why did you skip
": the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"

It was top of the list.  And the Danish idea fits perfectly with it.

[1715469979]

1715469979

[1715469979]

1715469979

[1715469979]

1715469979

[1715469979]

1715469979

[wdmw]

Definition of FREEDOM

1
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

So, is the Danish definition 'Freedom from anxiety about economic insecurity'?  I suppose you can use the ablative form to really twist freedom around.

Perhaps someone defines freedom as 'Freedom from making decisions.'

Why did you skip
": the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"

It was top of the list.  And the Danish idea fits perfectly with it.

Because economic security is not necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.  I understand there are those who think that 'economic freedom' is 'wealth equality', but that's an obfuscation of sub-definitions 'a' and 'c'.

[myrkul]

We do know that our modern ideas of taxation based on consent, individual freedom and so on evolved between the War of the Roses and the English Civil War. 

Now I think you're using a funny definition of "consent." By definition, taxation applies even to those who do not consent, else it wouldn't be taxation.

I think you are being a pompous ass.  You look at the ideology of people that lived in the 1640s, say "Oh I know better now" and act superior. 

Get over yourself already.

Tsk, name calling? Really? I thought better of you, Hawker.

Besides, isn't this like saying "People who support the Heliocentric model of the solar system are pompous asses for saying they know better now than those who thought the Earth was the center of the universe."?

C'mon, man, science is all about discarding flawed premises as soon as they are found to be flawed, not holding onto them because people 500 years ago thought they were cool.

Politics is not science.  1000 years ago, slavery was fine and abortion a huge evil.  Now its the opposite.  That means morality changed - it doesn't mean that we are superior beings to those that were alive back then.

Really? I'll ask a black man if he thinks today's society is superior to the one in the 1850s, see what he thinks. I'll let you know. (And yes, politics is a science.)

You are claiming that you are more moral or more clever than people who came before you because your ideas are more up to date than their ideas is pompous.  I'd love not to mention it, really.  But you do seem to want to lord it over the people who died for the "illusion of freedom" just because you don't agree with what they saw as freedom centuries ago.

No, I want to build a society based on superior understanding of human nature, as opposed to clinging to old, fallacious traditions. You defending democracy this way is like defending slavery by saying "It was good enough for them."

[Hawker]

Definition of FREEDOM

1
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

So, is the Danish definition 'Freedom from anxiety about economic insecurity'?  I suppose you can use the ablative form to really twist freedom around.

Perhaps someone defines freedom as 'Freedom from making decisions.'

Why did you skip
": the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"

It was top of the list.  And the Danish idea fits perfectly with it.

Because economic security is not necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.  I understand there are those who think that 'economic freedom' is 'wealth equality', but that's an obfuscation of sub-definitions 'a' and 'c'.

Um.  Of course it isn't. But the absence of economic security creates necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action.  So providing economic security can legitimately be called providing freedom.  You may not want it to happen because you believe that the threat of poverty is a moral benefit but you have to accept that not everyone will agree with you.

[wdmw]

Definition of FREEDOM

1
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

So, is the Danish definition 'Freedom from anxiety about economic insecurity'?  I suppose you can use the ablative form to really twist freedom around.

Perhaps someone defines freedom as 'Freedom from making decisions.'

Why did you skip
": the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"

It was top of the list.  And the Danish idea fits perfectly with it.

Because economic security is not necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.  I understand there are those who think that 'economic freedom' is 'wealth equality', but that's an obfuscation of sub-definitions 'a' and 'c'.

Um.  Of course it isn't. But the absence of economic security creates necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action.  So providing economic security can legitimately be called providing freedom.  You may not want it to happen because you believe that the threat of poverty is a moral benefit but you have to accept that not everyone will agree with you.

Yea, in the same way that an absence of someone telling me what to do creates necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action if I'm unable to think for myself and make my own choices.  Again, this goes back to definition 'c', where freedom has to be qualified as freedom 'from' something.

In the 'Danish' case, that's Freedom from poverty.  My example of 'Freedom from making decisions' still stands.  So, is 'Freedom from making decisions' freedom?

[FiatKiller]

fascinating story - thanks for posting

[Hawker]

We do know that our modern ideas of taxation based on consent, individual freedom and so on evolved between the War of the Roses and the English Civil War. 

Now I think you're using a funny definition of "consent." By definition, taxation applies even to those who do not consent, else it wouldn't be taxation.

I think you are being a pompous ass.  You look at the ideology of people that lived in the 1640s, say "Oh I know better now" and act superior. 

Get over yourself already.

Tsk, name calling? Really? I thought better of you, Hawker.

Besides, isn't this like saying "People who support the Heliocentric model of the solar system are pompous asses for saying they know better now than those who thought the Earth was the center of the universe."?

C'mon, man, science is all about discarding flawed premises as soon as they are found to be flawed, not holding onto them because people 500 years ago thought they were cool.

Politics is not science.  1000 years ago, slavery was fine and abortion a huge evil.  Now its the opposite.  That means morality changed - it doesn't mean that we are superior beings to those that were alive back then.

Really? I'll ask a black man if he thinks today's society is superior to the one in the 1850s, see what he thinks. I'll let you know. (And yes, politics is a science.)

You are claiming that you are more moral or more clever than people who came before you because your ideas are more up to date than their ideas is pompous.  I'd love not to mention it, really.  But you do seem to want to lord it over the people who died for the "illusion of freedom" just because you don't agree with what they saw as freedom centuries ago.

No, I want to build a society based on superior understanding of human nature, as opposed to clinging to old, fallacious traditions. You defending democracy this way is like defending slavery by saying "It was good enough for them."

Oh ffs.  Politics is not Political Science. Providing a link to a political science page doesn't make politics a science.  If you want a forum where topics are limited to topics of a political science curriculum and posts use that kind of methodology, apply to the mods for a new forum.  It will be a very quiet forum!

Ideas evolve.  Regardless of what you want to achieve, acting superior to people who died centuries ago because you "know" what freedom is while they only knew the "illusion of freedom" is ridiculous.  

[Hawker]

Definition of FREEDOM

1
: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>

So, is the Danish definition 'Freedom from anxiety about economic insecurity'?  I suppose you can use the ablative form to really twist freedom around.

Perhaps someone defines freedom as 'Freedom from making decisions.'

Why did you skip
": the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action"

It was top of the list.  And the Danish idea fits perfectly with it.

Because economic security is not necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.  I understand there are those who think that 'economic freedom' is 'wealth equality', but that's an obfuscation of sub-definitions 'a' and 'c'.

Um.  Of course it isn't. But the absence of economic security creates necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action.  So providing economic security can legitimately be called providing freedom.  You may not want it to happen because you believe that the threat of poverty is a moral benefit but you have to accept that not everyone will agree with you.

Yea, in the same way that an absence of someone telling me what to do creates necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action if I'm unable to think for myself and make my own choices.  Again, this goes back to definition 'c', where freedom has to be qualified as freedom 'from' something.

In the 'Danish' case, that's Freedom from poverty.  My example of 'Freedom from making decisions' still stands.  So, is 'Freedom from making decisions' freedom?

The Danes are free in both senses of the word.  They can make decisions but they are provided for if it all goes wrong.  I dont' get what your problem is with that.  Poverty is not a social good.  The absence of poverty does not mean the absence of making decisions.

[myrkul]

Ideas evolve.  Regardless of what you want to achieve, acting superior to people who died centuries ago because you "know" what freedom is while they only knew the "illusion of freedom" is ridiculous.

As is pretending they were right. And again, I'm not discussing freedom. Never have been. Only consent, democracy, and taxation.

[Hawker]

Ideas evolve.  Regardless of what you want to achieve, acting superior to people who died centuries ago because you "know" what freedom is while they only knew the "illusion of freedom" is ridiculous.

As is pretending they were right. And again, I'm not discussing freedom. Never have been. Only consent, democracy, and taxation.

And we are back at my point about the evolution of ideas between the War of the Roses and the 1640s.  Thanks for the diversion. 

...snip...

Which raises an interesting anthropological question.  What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?

No-one knows.  A few countries can point to specific events that turn their history on its head and shaped their destiny.  For example, the Japanese can make a direct link between the arrival of Perry, the rulers seeing that if they didn't adapt damn fast they would be colonised and the Meiji era.

Most of the rest of us live in countries where cultures have evolved over centuries and are still changing.  The US, Ireland and the UK have a regard for personal freedom, taxation based on democratic consent and property rights that was clearly visible in the 1640s during the English civil war.  100 years before, none of those things mattered. 

And our shared political culture hasn't really had a major change since then.

[myrkul]

Ideas evolve.  Regardless of what you want to achieve, acting superior to people who died centuries ago because you "know" what freedom is while they only knew the "illusion of freedom" is ridiculous.

As is pretending they were right. And again, I'm not discussing freedom. Never have been. Only consent, democracy, and taxation.

And we are back at my point about the evolution of ideas between the War of the Roses and the 1640s.  Thanks for the diversion. 

And we're back to my point of those ideas being wrong. No more and no less than an earth-centric solar system. And for many of the same reasons.

[Hawker]

Ideas evolve.  Regardless of what you want to achieve, acting superior to people who died centuries ago because you "know" what freedom is while they only knew the "illusion of freedom" is ridiculous.

As is pretending they were right. And again, I'm not discussing freedom. Never have been. Only consent, democracy, and taxation.

And we are back at my point about the evolution of ideas between the War of the Roses and the 1640s.  Thanks for the diversion.  

And we're back to my point of those ideas being wrong. No more and no less than an earth-centric solar system. And for many of the same reasons.

Irrelevant.  If you want to discuss seventeenth century ideas and why they got it wrong, make a thread for it.  Its nothing to do with the NewLiberty's question.

[myrkul]

Ideas evolve.  Regardless of what you want to achieve, acting superior to people who died centuries ago because you "know" what freedom is while they only knew the "illusion of freedom" is ridiculous.

As is pretending they were right. And again, I'm not discussing freedom. Never have been. Only consent, democracy, and taxation.

And we are back at my point about the evolution of ideas between the War of the Roses and the 1640s.  Thanks for the diversion.  

And we're back to my point of those ideas being wrong. No more and no less than an earth-centric solar system. And for many of the same reasons.

Irrelevant.  If you want to discuss seventeenth century ideas and why they got it wrong, make a thread for it.  Its nothing to do with the NewLiberty's question.

Aside from you presenting those flawed ideas as an answer.

[Alpaca John]

And yes, politics is a science.)

We both know that the two of us are not gonna have a fruitful discussion, so I'm not gonna get into one again, but I will tell you this.

Anyone who has a degree in political science can tell you (or: should be able to tell you) that the name is misleading, since politics does not adhere to typical scientific standards; it's not falsifiable and it's not repeatable (especially not in an enclosed environment).

That does not mean that political science (or any other non-beta type of science) is useless, or at least I do not think it is. I think it can certainly teach us useful stuff, but it is very important to realize that it is not science in the "traditional" sense of the word. We cannot prove anything in a scientific manner; the usefulness rests in the discussions more than anywhere else. We can pose ideas and discuss hypothesis, in this way we can even get to some sort of estimation of probability, but we must always realize there just is no real way of knowing anything in any scientific way.

In other words, political science is paradoxically only useful if you first realize that it's actually not science at all.

In this case, I think you are projecting modernism - the believe in progress as based on science - on non-scientific concepts like politics, or freedom. If political science tells us anything, it is that we can not do that. We can not say whether or not the concept of freedom has progressed, at least not in a scientific way as you seem to be suggesting.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

[Hawker]

Ideas evolve.  Regardless of what you want to achieve, acting superior to people who died centuries ago because you "know" what freedom is while they only knew the "illusion of freedom" is ridiculous.

As is pretending they were right. And again, I'm not discussing freedom. Never have been. Only consent, democracy, and taxation.

And we are back at my point about the evolution of ideas between the War of the Roses and the 1640s.  Thanks for the diversion.  

And we're back to my point of those ideas being wrong. No more and no less than an earth-centric solar system. And for many of the same reasons.

Irrelevant.  If you want to discuss seventeenth century ideas and why they got it wrong, make a thread for it.  Its nothing to do with the NewLiberty's question.

Aside from you presenting those flawed ideas as an answer.

Did you read the question?  I say the ideas were evident in the 1640s in a way that they were not during the War of the Roses which implies they evolved in that period.  That's debatable  - I could be a decade or 2 out - but to call that assertion "flawed" is stupid.

[myrkul]

Did you read the question? 

Did you?

What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?

[Hawker]

Did you read the question? 

Did you?

What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?

No-one knows.  A few countries can point to specific events that turn their history on its head and shaped their destiny.  For example, the Japanese can make a direct link between the arrival of Perry, the rulers seeing that if they didn't adapt damn fast they would be colonised and the Meiji era.

Most of the rest of us live in countries where cultures have evolved over centuries and are still changing.  The US, Ireland and the UK have a regard for personal freedom, taxation based on democratic consent and property rights that was clearly visible in the 1640s during the English civil war.  100 years before, none of those things mattered. 

And our shared political culture hasn't really had a major change since then.

[wdmw]

The Danes are free in both senses of the word.  They can make decisions but they are provided for if it all goes wrong.  I dont' get what your problem is with that.  Poverty is not a social good.  The absence of poverty does not mean the absence of making decisions.

I don't have a problem with it, nor am I Danish.  I have a problem with the basis of a disagreement being centered around word usage.

I am trying to illustrate different uses of the term 'freedom', and how some uses require an additional qualifier, and how it is fallacious to then drop that qualifier and call it a different 'concept' of freedom.  It is a specific application of freedom.  If some subset of people hold 'Freedom from x' as their highest ideal, they have the freedom to do that.

When I refer to freedom, it means the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

[Hawker]

The Danes are free in both senses of the word.  They can make decisions but they are provided for if it all goes wrong.  I dont' get what your problem is with that.  Poverty is not a social good.  The absence of poverty does not mean the absence of making decisions.

I don't have a problem with it, nor am I Danish.  I have a problem with the basis of a disagreement being centered around word usage.

I am trying to illustrate different uses of the term 'freedom', and how some uses require an additional qualifier, and how it is fallacious to then drop that qualifier and call it a different 'concept' of freedom.  It is a specific application of freedom.  If some subset of people hold 'Freedom from x' as their highest ideal, they have the freedom to do that.

When I refer to freedom, it means the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.

It sounds like you are endorsing the idea that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

I sort of like it too. Especially if we are moving to a society where machines remove the need for most workers. 

[myrkul]

Did you read the question? 

Did you?

What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?

No-one knows.  A few countries can point to specific events that turn their history on its head and shaped their destiny.  For example, the Japanese can make a direct link between the arrival of Perry, the rulers seeing that if they didn't adapt damn fast they would be colonised and the Meiji era.

Most of the rest of us live in countries where cultures have evolved over centuries and are still changing.  The US, Ireland and the UK have a regard for personal freedom, taxation based on democratic consent and property rights that was clearly visible in the 1640s during the English civil war.  100 years before, none of those things mattered. 

And our shared political culture hasn't really had a major change since then.

None of that drivel is about a voluntary society.