The human rights

[Erdogan]

Very well said.

[1714899721]

1714899721

[1714899721]

1714899721

[1714899721]

1714899721

[1714899721]

1714899721

[username18333]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

[pungopete468]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

[username18333]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

[pungopete468]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

Yes, when the government cedes unnecessary power naturally and without objection there exists liberty...

[username18333]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

Yes, when the government cedes unnecessary power naturally and without objection there exists liberty...

Nay, when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power.

[pungopete468]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

Yes, when the government cedes unnecessary power naturally and without objection there exists liberty...

Nay, when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power.

That would accurately describe freedom as opposed to liberty.

[username18333]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

Yes, when the government cedes unnecessary power naturally and without objection there exists liberty...

Nay, when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power.

That would accurately describe freedom as opposed to liberty.

Freedom is the cumulative amount of unique output a system may (in the statistical sense) produce. It is related to entropy (sum of probabilities of possible microstates).

[pungopete468]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

Yes, when the government cedes unnecessary power naturally and without objection there exists liberty...

Nay, when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power.

That would accurately describe freedom as opposed to liberty.

Freedom is the cumulative amount of unique output a system may produce. It is related to entropy (sum of probabilities of possible microstates).

Even though we're hijacking this thread, this is an interesting exchange.

So you agree "when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power" describes a potential increase in the cumulative unique output of a society by eliminating the drag created by government, and thus increasing the degree of freedom; assuming the power vacuum remains unfilled.

The quoted portion of the above sentence doesn't describe liberty as accurately as it does freedom for they are different things entirely; liberty requires government while freedom does not. Freedom is like "survival of the fittest" while liberty attempts to provide an equal opportunity for survival at the cost of varying degrees of freedom.

[username18333]

Legal rights exist for those who will never know freedom. Liberty exists for those who will.

Liberty is not accurately synonymous with freedom, for liberty is a compromise between freedom and responsibility in society. Human rights are a keystone of liberty since they form the foundation that liberty is intended to protect.

Liberty exists when the ceding of powers is both unnecessary and unrealized.

Yes, when the government cedes unnecessary power naturally and without objection there exists liberty...

Nay, when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power.

That would accurately describe freedom as opposed to liberty.

Freedom is the cumulative amount of unique output a system may produce. It is related to entropy (sum of probabilities of possible microstates).

Even though we're hijacking this thread, this is an interesting exchange.

So you agree "when man denies himself government, and this does not exist to claim his power" describes a potential increase in the cumulative unique output of a society by eliminating the drag created by government, and thus increasing the degree of freedom; assuming the power vacuum remains unfilled.

The quoted portion of the above sentence doesn't describe liberty as accurately as it does freedom for they are different things entirely; liberty requires government while freedom does not. Freedom is like "survival of the fittest" while liberty attempts to provide an equal opportunity for survival.

Freedom was said to be related to entropy: entropy decreases when constraint is reduced. This means that “liberty,” as I used the word, is
“the lack of artificial constraint.” Removing artificial constraints would serve to reduce entropy within a system.

It would follow, then, that, by the very thermodynamics of these universes wherein it presently exists for us, government, as it is conventionally know (i.e., hierarchical and non-optional), would be an absurdity were it genuinely intended to perform its commonly prescribed function, for it would assure that very thing wherefor it is claimed to be intended to prevent: the increase of social entropy.

[pungopete468]

Freedom was said to be related to entropy: entropy decreases when constraint is reduced. This means that “liberty,” as I used the word, is
“the lack of artificial constraint.” Removing artificial constraints would serve to reduce entropy within a system.

It would follow, then, that, by the very thermodynamics of these universes wherein it presently exists for us, government, as it is conventionally know (i.e., hierarchical and non-optional), would be an absurdity were it genuinely intended to perform its commonly prescribed function, for it would assure that very thing wherefor it is claimed to be intended to prevent: the increase of social entropy.

Perhaps we've been stuck on a double negative because you're referring to a reduction of entropy while I've referred to an increase in entropy; however, I believe we both are referring to freedom as the maximum degree of disorder and randomness possible in a society. Unless I'm mistaken (wouldn't be the first and won't be the last) this is accurately described as the maximum entropy.

Liberty is in itself a constraint. Liberty is a social contract which limits freedom and requires external processes to maintain. The energy required to maintain liberty cannot be used to produce work.

By artificial I assume you mean "unnatural" or "introduced." How can we be certain that removing an artificial constraint like government doesn't in turn allow for another more detrimental constraint to emerge? Perhaps a hypothetical non-optimal government based on liberty would appear less absurd when viewed in contrast with other times throughout human history. Perhaps comparing against the past could show evidence that while not perfect, some government reduces the net social entropy by some factor compared to whatever fills the void when it's not present.

Government is not intended to prevent social entropy; social entropy is unavoidable. Government is intended to reduce the net entropy when compared relatively to a society without government. A government built upon human rights and liberty has shown to be the least detrimental form of government while properly administered.

[username18333]

Freedom was said to be related to entropy: entropy decreases when constraint is reduced. This means that “liberty,” as I used the word, is
“the lack of artificial constraint.” Removing artificial constraints would serve to reduce entropy within a system.

It would follow, then, that, by the very thermodynamics of these universes wherein it presently exists for us, government, as it is conventionally know (i.e., hierarchical and non-optional), would be an absurdity were it genuinely intended to perform its commonly prescribed function, for it would assure that very thing wherefor it is claimed to be intended to prevent: the increase of social entropy.

Perhaps we've been stuck on a double negative because you're referring to a reduction of entropy while I've referred to an increase in entropy; however, I believe we both are referring to freedom as the maximum degree of disorder and randomness possible in a society. Unless I'm mistaken (wouldn't be the first and won't be the last) this is accurately described as the maximum entropy.

Liberty is in itself a constraint. Liberty is a social contract which limits freedom and requires external processes to maintain. The energy required to maintain liberty cannot be used to produce work.

By artificial I assume you mean "unnatural" or "introduced." How can we be certain that removing an artificial constraint like government doesn't in turn allow for another more detrimental constraint to emerge? Perhaps a hypothetical non-optimal government based on liberty would appear less absurd when viewed in contrast with other times throughout human history. Perhaps comparing against the past could show evidence that while not perfect, some government reduces the net social entropy by some factor compared to whatever fills the void when it's not present.

Government is not intended to prevent social entropy; social entropy is unavoidable. Government is intended to reduce the net entropy when compared relatively to a society without government. A government built upon human rights and liberty has shown to be the least detrimental form of government while properly administered.

(Red colorization mine.)

(Liberty: the absence of artificial constraint. Freedom (non-individual): the sum of the respective probabilities of the social microstates society could occupy.)


Social entropy is not inherently detrimental; however, there are detriments inherent to its “mitigation” (e.g., world war [via mass-tribalism], wage-slavery [via the maintenance of ownership], and global economic depression [via the maintenance of owners]).