Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:42:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: American-liberals, socialists and statists, what is your idea of liberty?  (Read 4540 times)
Anonymous
Guest

June 17, 2011, 06:19:16 PM
 #1

I am honestly curious. What is your idea of freedom that all men deserve?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Dobrodav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 17, 2011, 08:54:10 PM
 #2

Well, my idea of full personal freedom is EDEM. Adam and Eva, and  fk that whitebirded creature and snake.

We will  meet in not-so-distant future.
Today`s strange music :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8mCgjbBPMk
Yesterday`s  strange music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uCTyC1FGLw
SlaveInDebt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 702


Your Minion


View Profile
June 17, 2011, 10:30:01 PM
 #3

Throwing away my social security number and all forms of ID. I was a number in prison and realized I was in society. I know I am a person not live stock.

"A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain." - Mark Twain
LokeRundt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
June 17, 2011, 11:52:41 PM
 #4

When there is such thing as a truly free-market, when all engagements with companies/individuals is based on mutual consent. . .when I can purchase personal defense from a provider that is subject to supply/demand forces (because duh, it's never going to be "utopian"), instead of being forced to pay for a defense provider that rules by coercion and monopoly (while proclaiming the charade of "you can vote, so it's not coercion!")

When statist organizations do not seek to hinder/regulate my travel across this planet ON WHICH I WAS BORN

When all human society becomes decentralized, and all individuals may become self-realized.

Hippy Anarchy
*shrug*
LokeRundt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
June 17, 2011, 11:53:44 PM
 #5

aww shit, read the subject line in OP. . . none of those apply to me



Nevermind, continue

Hippy Anarchy
*shrug*
Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 05:45:32 AM
 #6

I am a Liberal and a Socialist, although not a Statist.

To me liberty is freedom from coercion.  When nobody else can claim right to my labor, my time, or my body without my consent.

hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 05:54:05 AM
 #7

I am a Liberal and a Socialist, although not a Statist.

To me liberty is freedom from coercion.  When nobody else can claim right to my labor, my time, or my body without my consent.

It sounds like you should defend the free market then.
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
June 18, 2011, 06:14:18 AM
 #8

I'm a libertarian socialist, as historically the vast majority of all anarchists have identified themselves. My idea of liberty is about the same as yours. My idea of property, however, is very different.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 06:26:31 AM
 #9

I'm a libertarian socialist,

That's still a contradiction in terms.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
June 18, 2011, 06:36:21 AM
 #10

It isn't, it never has been, and it never will be Tongue

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/stateless.html
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 18, 2011, 08:25:35 AM
 #11

Maximize liberty but not at the expense of equal opportunity and taking into account true human cognitive structure.  As in humans cannot be reasoned to the complete absence of emotion but a group as a whole can be more reasoned than an individual.  Our understanding of trueth and reality is constantly being changed by new discoveries, and reality/our limitations are being changed by new inventions.  as these change so can our definitions of what is just.  In this sense Moral Particularism can be useful.  I reject strict inflexible musturbatory constructs. "Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" -WS   I currently like John Rawls... at least as far as public policy.  I don't see taxation as a form of slavery if the taxes are used to protect negative freedoms or protect positive freedoms where peoples positive fredoms are impaired by the few.  That is not the same as all out classical socialism as this does not go to the extent of all out full support for the poor.  I do like the principal of self-ownership; not to the exclusion of all others but as one in a sea of many considerations in any given situation.
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 02:01:43 PM
 #12

Maximize liberty but not at the expense of equal opportunity and taking into account true human cognitive structure.  As in humans cannot be reasoned to the complete absence of emotion but a group as a whole can be more reasoned than an individual.

Decissions are always taken by the emotional part of the brain. Without emotions we would be unable to make any decission. This is neurology. Emotions are not a bad thing, on the contrary, are a good thing. But some people are more emotionally capable than others.

Quote
Our understanding of trueth and reality is constantly being changed by new discoveries, and reality/our limitations are being changed by new inventions.  as these change so can our definitions of what is just.  In this sense Moral Particularism can be useful.  I reject strict inflexible musturbatory constructs. "Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" -WS   I currently like John Rawls... at least as far as public policy.  I don't see taxation as a form of slavery if the taxes are used to protect negative freedoms or protect positive freedoms where peoples positive fredoms are impaired by the few.  That is not the same as all out classical socialism as this does not go to the extent of all out full support for the poor.  I do like the principal of self-ownership; not to the exclusion of all others but as one in a sea of many considerations in any given situation.

Sorry, but you said nothing. You said that you want one and the other.
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 18, 2011, 03:04:21 PM
 #13

Decissions are always taken by the emotional part of the brain. Without emotions we would be unable to make any decission. This is neurology. Emotions are not a bad thing, on the contrary, are a good thing. But some people are more emotionally capable than others.

Yes, agreed. I am not defining emotions as a good or bad thing, just a reality and a variability injection system.  I am sorry if I implied otherwise.


You said that you want one and the other.

Yes the two are not mutually exclusive and supreme absolutes have no place in moral particularist philosophy. There is no sacred there is no divine.  Wait What are you saying is at odds with eachother.
Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 06:40:59 PM
 #14

I am a Liberal and a Socialist, although not a Statist.

To me liberty is freedom from coercion.  When nobody else can claim right to my labor, my time, or my body without my consent.

It sounds like you should defend the free market then.

I do.

I'm a Market Anarchist, and that includes defense of the free market.

I don't defend property rights in the way that they are perceived by Anarcho-Capitalists.  I do not believe that actions against property constitute violence against the "owners" of that property.

Property, in the way that it is perceived by Capitalists, is impossible in an Anarchist society.

Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 18, 2011, 06:43:53 PM
 #15

I'm a libertarian socialist,

That's still a contradiction in terms.

Only to you because you do not understand the terms.

Socialist does not mean "controlled by the government"  it means "controlled by society"  and that is, in particular, the relevent portions of society.

So a flour mill should be controlled by the workers who work there and the people who avail themselves of the milling service.  That's socialism.

There is no reason that this is incompatible with libertarianism.  In fact, as a Libertarian Socialist, I argue that there is far less liberty involved for the workers and consumers, if that mill is controlled by an owner or board of directors.

AnonymousBat
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 111


View Profile
June 21, 2011, 08:28:21 AM
 #16


I'm a Market Anarchist, and that includes defense of the free market.

Property, in the way that it is perceived by Capitalists, is impossible in an Anarchist society.

I don't understand though how you can have a free market without property rights.
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
June 21, 2011, 08:38:07 AM
 #17


I'm a Market Anarchist, and that includes defense of the free market.

Property, in the way that it is perceived by Capitalists, is impossible in an Anarchist society.

I don't understand though how you can have a free market without property rights.

I dont think he is talking about completely abolishing property rights. He is proably talking about some form of "weak" property rights, like right of exclusive use or similar.
fellowtraveler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440


View Profile
June 21, 2011, 08:48:39 AM
 #18

I don't understand though how you can have a free market without property rights.

Man's life can only be sustained through his work (his liberty), as he creates new products (property), which he trades with other men. This is how man sustains his life.

Thus, property is the result of man's work, and is also the reason for his work. As every trade is voluntary, it can be assumed that each party to the trade has improved his circumstances, or he wouldn't have chosen to take part in the trade. As millions of trades go on every day, people's lives are improved millions of times over, resulting in the great improvement in the human condition that history shows to be consequential to free markets.

You might enslave a man by taking away his liberty, but you will also enslave a man by taking the fruits of his labor. In the first case, you choose how he will give you all of his production. In the second case, he chooses how he will give you all of his production. Either way, he is a slave.

If someone attacks you, you may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. This is the law of the jungle. Any jury would acquit you for using deadly force in such circumstances.

Similarly, if someone attempts to take your liberty (say, by binding your hands and feet, and throwing you into the trunk of a car) then you similarly may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. After all, if the attacker is willing to tie you up and throw you into the trunk of a car, how could any reasonable person not be expected to also fear for their life in such circumstances?

Similarly, if someone attempts to take your property, then you similarly may have to use violent force if you wish to survive. After all, clearly this person is willing to use violent force against you, since otherwise no one would normally part with the fruits of their own labor. And since he is willing to use violent force, and indeed is threatening you with it, then you are in a state of war the same as if he had threatened your life or liberty.

Clearly we can see that any man has a right to use force to defend his life, his liberty, and his property.

And if a single man has a right to use force to defend life, liberty, and property, then it stands to reason that a group of men likewise have the right to band together and provide a common defense of life, liberty and property.

Thus government, when used solely to protect our rights, actually has a moral right to function: the same moral right that you have to defend yourself individually against threats or attack.

But whenever government is used to violate our life, liberty, or property, then it does not have a moral right, any more than an individual person would have a moral right to do those things.

This is why the US Constitution was originally designed to limit the powers of government. Democratic processes were strictly limited to the political realm, not the moral realm: no democratic process ever has the right to vote regarding people's lives, liberties, or property, any more than a democratic process has the right to commit genocide. No crime is "right" just because a majority wills it. Once democratic processes become a tool for subverting human rights, then we devolve into a system where "everybody is enslaved to everybody" and where no one's rights are respected anymore, because people no longer have any understanding of their rights, or of the Western Tradition and Enlightenment that brought those rights to our awareness in the first place.


co-founder, Monetas
creator, Open-Transactions
LokeRundt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
June 21, 2011, 11:49:00 AM
 #19

Well written, FellowTraveler.

Assuming you are the same FellowTraveler I've heard before, where can I hear some more of your work?

Hippy Anarchy
*shrug*
AnonymousBat
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 111


View Profile
June 21, 2011, 06:59:41 PM
 #20


This is why the US Constitution was originally designed to limit the powers of government. Democratic processes were strictly limited to the political realm, not the moral realm: no democratic process ever has the right to vote regarding people's lives, liberties, or property, any more than a democratic process has the right to commit genocide. No crime is "right" just because a majority wills it. Once democratic processes become a tool for subverting human rights, then we devolve into a system where "everybody is enslaved to everybody" and where no one's rights are respected anymore, because people no longer have any understanding of their rights, or of the Western Tradition and Enlightenment that brought those rights to our awareness in the first place.


Great post fellowtraveler.

However, the United States wasn't founded as a Democracy, but as a Republic. In a Republic, judges can supercede the wishes of the majority and protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

We've been slowly throwing that away, starting when they abolished the US Senate in 1913. (For clarification, the US Senate has become a second House of Representatives.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!