Necessity: The Argument of Tyrants

[Hawker]

...snip...

This debate cannot go anywhere until a definition of "freedom" has been agreed to. You define it quite differently than I do.

Fair point.  You see the noble savage that wanders naked on an island as being truly free.  I don't.  Noble savages wandering naked in the forests have been the raw material for the slave trade throughout history.  If there is no law to stop his being enslaved, the noble savage spends his time hiding and avoiding slavers.  To me, a life spent hiding from people who can take you away as a slave is not freedom.

Your argument then implies that there is *NO* such thing as real freedom. Governments & law *BY DEFINITION* restrict freedom, so, in your argument, does a lack of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties

That is real freedom and it can't exist without a government. 

[Khadaji]

I also agree entirely that the only direct thing governments can do is to restrict freedoms.

Then we agree.

[Khadaji]

I also agree entirely that the only direct thing governments can do is to restrict freedoms.

Then we agree.

Great. You accept that governments can indirectly increase people's freedoms a great deal then?

Nope.

I'm guessing that your argument is going to be something like government laws & law enforcement prevent people from infringing on my freedom, thus giving me more freedom.

And, lest I be accused of creating a strawman, I'll continue the rest of this when you agree, or expand on that.

[Khadaji]

I'm guessing that your argument is going to be something like government laws & law enforcement prevent people from infringing on my freedom, thus giving me more freedom.

Did you not read any of my posts? The long one about power, and the most useful definition of freedom? Did you literally just skip to the part where I said "I agree"?

In answer, yes, that was my argument.

I'm currently reading "The Only Living Witness" - it's about Ted Bundy, and the many (no one knows the true number) of women he raped and killed.

Every one of those women had government protection, legal protection, and protection by law enforcement.

Tell us about the freedom given to these women...

But perhaps our government is simply not good enough... perhaps somewhere else in the world there's a government who's actions *do* prevent the ultimate removal of freedom from their citizens.

If it exists, I don't know of it.

And I state again, the only thing that government is capable of doing when it comes to freedom is to restrict it.

[Hawker]

I'm guessing that your argument is going to be something like government laws & law enforcement prevent people from infringing on my freedom, thus giving me more freedom.

Did you not read any of my posts? The long one about power, and the most useful definition of freedom? Did you literally just skip to the part where I said "I agree"?

In answer, yes, that was my argument.

I'm currently reading "The Only Living Witness" - it's about Ted Bundy, and the many (no one knows the true number) of women he raped and killed.

Every one of those women had government protection, legal protection, and protection by law enforcement.

Tell us about the freedom given to these women...

But perhaps our government is simply not good enough... perhaps somewhere else in the world there's a government who's actions *do* prevent the ultimate removal of freedom from their citizens.

If it exists, I don't know of it.

And I state again, the only thing that government is capable of doing when it comes to freedom is to restrict it.

I'm sort of puzzled here. You agreed with me when I pointed out there was no freedom without government since you can be taken as a slave by any gang that catches you.  Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

[Khadaji]

I'm guessing that your argument is going to be something like government laws & law enforcement prevent people from infringing on my freedom, thus giving me more freedom.

Did you not read any of my posts? The long one about power, and the most useful definition of freedom? Did you literally just skip to the part where I said "I agree"?

In answer, yes, that was my argument.

I'm currently reading "The Only Living Witness" - it's about Ted Bundy, and the many (no one knows the true number) of women he raped and killed.

Every one of those women had government protection, legal protection, and protection by law enforcement.

Tell us about the freedom given to these women...

But perhaps our government is simply not good enough... perhaps somewhere else in the world there's a government who's actions *do* prevent the ultimate removal of freedom from their citizens.

If it exists, I don't know of it.

And I state again, the only thing that government is capable of doing when it comes to freedom is to restrict it.

I'm sort of puzzled here. You agreed with me when I pointed out there was no freedom without government since you can be taken as a slave by any gang that catches you.

Never happened.

I strongly disagree with such a statement. I've stated REPEATEDLY that the only thing a government can do as it relates to freedom is to restrict it.

Perhaps you should read my comments again, and see what I'm responding to.

Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

 

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" consist of...

[Hawker]

...snip...

Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

 

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" consist of...

Again my question stands.  What do you want instead of government?

[Khadaji]

...snip...

Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

 

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" consist of...

Again my question stands.  What do you want instead of government?

How silly!

It's a FACT that government can only restrict freedom, not give it. I'm in complete agreement with our forefathers, who stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think that this is as good a definition of "freedom" as any other...

But when you get people together, there have to be some way to resolve differences... the more people, the more involved this structure needs to be. That's "government". Recall, if you took any anthropological classes, the concepts of band, tribe, chiefdom's, and states.

Recognizing, as I do, that a government can only restrict freedom, not give it... doesn't mean that I'm anti-government, or that I'm an anarchist.

All I'm stating, and all I've stated... is that governments restrict freedom, not give it.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

 

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" consist of...

Again my question stands.  What do you want instead of government?

How silly!

It's a FACT that government can only restrict freedom, not give it. I'm in complete agreement with our forefathers, who stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think that this is as good a definition of "freedom" as any other...

But when you get people together, there have to be some way to resolve differences... the more people, the more involved this structure needs to be. That's "government". Recall, if you took any anthropological classes, the concepts of band, tribe, chiefdom's, and states.

Recognizing, as I do, that a government can only restrict freedom, not give it... doesn't mean that I'm anti-government, or that I'm an anarchist.

All I'm stating, and all I've stated... is that governments restrict freedom, not give it.

Again, if there is no government there is slavery.  When we look at ancient societies, we see that over 90% were slaves.  So for the vast majority of people, government creates freedom.

Anyway, since you do want a government, I don't really know what you are arguing for or against here.

[predic]

unfortunately their necessity is good for them but not for society and they can get idea to make necessity about bitcoin users too.
therefore NSA is not friend of BTC users.

[Khadaji]

...snip...

Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

 

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" consist of...

Again my question stands.  What do you want instead of government?

How silly!

It's a FACT that government can only restrict freedom, not give it. I'm in complete agreement with our forefathers, who stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think that this is as good a definition of "freedom" as any other...

But when you get people together, there have to be some way to resolve differences... the more people, the more involved this structure needs to be. That's "government". Recall, if you took any anthropological classes, the concepts of band, tribe, chiefdom's, and states.

Recognizing, as I do, that a government can only restrict freedom, not give it... doesn't mean that I'm anti-government, or that I'm an anarchist.

All I'm stating, and all I've stated... is that governments restrict freedom, not give it.

Again, if there is no government there is slavery.  When we look at ancient societies, we see that over 90% were slaves.  So for the vast majority of people, government creates freedom.

Ancient societies had government too. Indeed, the U.S. had government when slavery was legal.

Anyway, since you do want a government, I don't really know what you are arguing for or against here.

Well, I'll make it clear again... Government cannot "give" freedom... it can only restrict it. I'm in complete agreement with our founding fathers, who recognized that freedom is inherent, and does not come from government.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

 

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" consist of...

Again my question stands.  What do you want instead of government?

How silly!

It's a FACT that government can only restrict freedom, not give it. I'm in complete agreement with our forefathers, who stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think that this is as good a definition of "freedom" as any other...

But when you get people together, there have to be some way to resolve differences... the more people, the more involved this structure needs to be. That's "government". Recall, if you took any anthropological classes, the concepts of band, tribe, chiefdom's, and states.

Recognizing, as I do, that a government can only restrict freedom, not give it... doesn't mean that I'm anti-government, or that I'm an anarchist.

All I'm stating, and all I've stated... is that governments restrict freedom, not give it.

Again, if there is no government there is slavery.  When we look at ancient societies, we see that over 90% were slaves.  So for the vast majority of people, government creates freedom.

Ancient societies had government too. Indeed, the U.S. had government when slavery was legal.

Anyway, since you do want a government, I don't really know what you are arguing for or against here.

Well, I'll make it clear again... Government cannot "give" freedom... it can only restrict it. I'm in complete agreement with our founding fathers, who recognized that freedom is inherent, and does not come from government.

Ah some kind of religious thing.  God made us to be free?  Whatever floats your boat  

[Khadaji]

...snip...

Yet you keep talking about government restricting freedom.  Are you sad that the freedom to go forth and capture people as slaves has been taken from us by government?  Or is there something else you want?

 

We clearly disagree on what "freedom" consist of...

Again my question stands.  What do you want instead of government?

How silly!

It's a FACT that government can only restrict freedom, not give it. I'm in complete agreement with our forefathers, who stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think that this is as good a definition of "freedom" as any other...

But when you get people together, there have to be some way to resolve differences... the more people, the more involved this structure needs to be. That's "government". Recall, if you took any anthropological classes, the concepts of band, tribe, chiefdom's, and states.

Recognizing, as I do, that a government can only restrict freedom, not give it... doesn't mean that I'm anti-government, or that I'm an anarchist.

All I'm stating, and all I've stated... is that governments restrict freedom, not give it.

Again, if there is no government there is slavery.  When we look at ancient societies, we see that over 90% were slaves.  So for the vast majority of people, government creates freedom.

Ancient societies had government too. Indeed, the U.S. had government when slavery was legal.

Anyway, since you do want a government, I don't really know what you are arguing for or against here.

Well, I'll make it clear again... Government cannot "give" freedom... it can only restrict it. I'm in complete agreement with our founding fathers, who recognized that freedom is inherent, and does not come from government.

Ah some kind of religious thing.  God made us to be free?  Whatever floats your boat  

As you cannot cite a definition of freedom, or demonstrate that government does not restrict freedom, perhaps you should reconsider your postulates.

I'm quite amused by secularism - because the only legitimate form of freedom for a secularist is the accumulation of power.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Ah some kind of religious thing.  God made us to be free?  Whatever floats your boat  

As you cannot cite a definition of freedom, or demonstrate that government does not restrict freedom, perhaps you should reconsider your postulates.

I'm quite amused by secularism - because the only legitimate form of freedom for a secularist is the accumulation of power.

We been through this.  If there is no government, there is slavery.  That demonstrates that government is a necessary condition for freedom for a great many people.

[Khadaji]

...snip...

Ah some kind of religious thing.  God made us to be free?  Whatever floats your boat  

As you cannot cite a definition of freedom, or demonstrate that government does not restrict freedom, perhaps you should reconsider your postulates.

I'm quite amused by secularism - because the only legitimate form of freedom for a secularist is the accumulation of power.

We been through this.  If there is no government, there is slavery.  That demonstrates that government is a necessary condition for freedom for a great many people.

So you'e defined 'freedom' as a lack of slavery.

But there *HAS* been government through many centuries of slavery... indeed, thousands of years.

So your argument falls apart.

And, in fact, you claim that when there is no government, there is slavery... can you give even one example?

[Khadaji]

This argument is getting silly now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we all seem to agree on the following:

- Government's primary action is to restrict certain freedoms.
- Many of these freedoms (murder, thieving etc.) should be restricted.
- The necessity and extent of other restrictions (taxes etc.) are debatable.
- Government should exist.

Khadaji, correct me if I'm wrong, but your definition of 'freedom' seems to be:

Total exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

This would be a common debating tactic known as a 'strawman' argument.

I've never made such a claim.

I've been quite clear - Governments cannot give freedom, they can only restrict it.

That's it.

Call this 'freedom 1'. You see this as a binary quality - you are either free or you aren't. You also believe this is our natural state - a baby on a desert island is free.

However my (and Hawker's?) definition of freedom would be:

The power to determine action without restraint.

Call this 'freedom 2' This is a non-binary property - you can be 'quite free' or 'very free'. It is very similar to the definition of 'power', and represents our freedom to do things - a baby on a desert island is not free to build a shelter because it is restrained by its muscles, and an 18th century scientist is not free to talk to a colleague on the other side of the world because they are restrained by lack of technology.

What you haven't yet answered is:

- Why do you think 'lack of interference' is a more important definition of freedom than 'ability to do things'?

Nope... I reject the words you're trying to put in my mouth.

- If the government prevents your freedoms from being restricted by restricting some-one else's freedoms, why can't they be said to have made you more free?

I suspect that a misunderstanding of what 'freedom' consists of, and it's ultimate source, is still being misunderstood.

Can you give *ONE* example where a government's actions results in giving "freedom?"

[Khadaji]

...snip...

Ah some kind of religious thing.  God made us to be free?  Whatever floats your boat  

As you cannot cite a definition of freedom, or demonstrate that government does not restrict freedom, perhaps you should reconsider your postulates.

I'm quite amused by secularism - because the only legitimate form of freedom for a secularist is the accumulation of power.

We been through this.  If there is no government, there is slavery.

Can you offer even *ONE* citable example of this?

That demonstrates that government is a necessary condition for freedom for a great many people.

If we were to total the number of people freed from slavery (by government), and then total up the total number of slaves who've existed in history (under a government), which number would be bigger?

And, I might point out, by many orders of magnitude ...

[Khadaji]

So you'e defined 'freedom' as a lack of slavery.

But there *HAS* been government through many centuries of slavery... indeed, thousands of years.

So your argument falls apart.

And, in fact, you claim that when there is no government, there is slavery... can you give even one example?

He didn't argue that government by definition prevents slavery - there are good governments and bad governments - he argued that if a government does prevent slavery, this makes people more free.

If governments both allow and disallow slavery, then why is any argument being made contrary to that statement?

You could just as easily assert that governments stop murder... despite the fact that some of the largest mass murders in history have been accomplished through government.

These are simply logical fallacies...

[Khadaji]

Khadaji, correct me if I'm wrong, but your definition of 'freedom' seems to be: ...

This would be a common debating tactic known as a 'strawman' argument.

Ah come on, you're not allowed to accuse me of a straw man if I asked you to confirm whether that was your opinion...

Don't you think it's just a tad disingenuous to pretend I've said something, and ask me to confirm what you KNOW I've never stated?

You have indeed been quite clear that you believe governments cannot make people more free,

Yet another statement I've never made.

I do find it amusing that people will intentionally ascribe things never said in order to further their argument.

but that isn't a definition of freedom. What is your definition of freedom, and how is it different to "Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc."?

Already gave one that I agree with... here it is again: I'm in complete agreement with our forefathers, who stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I think that this is as good a definition of "freedom" as any other...

As I've said, I see 'freedom' as nearly synonymous with 'power' - the freedom to do more things. Do you think this is an invalid definition of freedom, and if so, why?"

I've already pointed out that a secular definition of freedom involves power... I'm glad to see that you agree.

An example of a government increasing some-one's freedom: In my country the government provides all children with free education. My family was not well-off as a child, and they could not have afforded a private education for me. Without government I would not have received an education, and I think we can all agree that uneducated people are capable of doing fewer things. Under the 'freedom as power' definition, they are thus less free.

Education has for thousands of years not been provided by governments.

By your logic, humans haven't had freedom until fairly recent times.

[BCEmporium]

Education and the illusion of freedom. Never stops to amaze me!
Ever wonder why or how public schools and education were made for, their main purpose?