Is liberty valuable because it promotes virtuous behavior? Or is liberty merely necessary because, given that there are deep disagreements about what virtuous behavior is, we must agree to leave one another a lot of social space to do as we please, or we shall not have social peace?
A Political Philosophy Question
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
Norsemaiden
barbarian
I would enjoy "liberty" to be a feature of an ideal society because I don't want to be oppressed by anyone. This is because I can be responsible. But that liberty would be horrible if I was sharing the society with irresponsible people. That is because what they do would impact upon my quality of life and effectively mean that these people were restricting my liberty - unless of course I found I had the liberty and power to put a stop to them in some way...
Those who promote liberty for a society that has too many irresponsible people in it are either naive, or else they know full well that they are destroying that society.
If one must keep a lot of irresponsible people, then a corresponding level of tyranny is necessary.
The people may not so much be "irresponsible" however as incompatible with each other in such a way as to make conflict inevitable without strict regulation to prevent it.
It is said that Russia could only ever function under a dictator.
Sometimes there can be more liberty under a dictator than there is in a free-for-all.
Back to my own ideal however: that would be a society without rulers (anarchy) in which everyone naturally got along together and did not need to be kept in line by laws. Maybe one day, when man has been overcome (I am not being sexist I mean humans generally), this could come about.
Seditious
GodSlayer
Well I think most people would find it valuable whether or not it promotes virtuous behavior (except for those scary people Dawkins writes about in The God Delusion, who would really rather we all suffer than be free and not conducting ourselves as they approve)
Its valuable yes to people who can behave "properly", it will only promote virtous behaviour in those who already know how to conduct themselves. Others, left to do as they please will do just that, and probably cause havoc and offence to the other people who are just trying to get on with their lives. I'd give an example but Im always doing that so I wont.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Because it promotes virtuous behavior? That type of liberty is functional utilitarian modern utter bullshit. When there is a centralized government to ensure "liberty," liberty is compromised entirely. Granting rights like our modern democracies do is not liberty, it is herding cattle into thinking they are "free." Using liberty as a tool to get the herd to be good little boys & girls (modern liberalism) is nothing but coercive control, hence hypocritical and utterly retarded.
Anyway, liberty in itself not assimilated by governmental constructs is something of great value. The government is best which governs least.
Έρεβος;6251289 said:
This will, no doubt, be devastating news to the flag-waving jingoists of our liberal Democracies. The "Greatest Generation" will be crushed
I always cringe when I hear of all the martial missions of "liberation" my country has lead over the past century or so. Americans have made this concept of liberty sacrosanct - but few if any ever question what this liberty means. Perhaps the most nauseating example of this phenomenon came in the wake of the so-called 9/11 attacks of 2001. Suddenly we began re-naming airports "liberty this" or various events "liberty that," culminating in the structure to be built in the footprint of the World Trade Center, which is to be called...the Liberty Towers! How ridiculous are we?!
Beyond all this - I basically agree with all the assessments offered here thus far.
Damn, you fucking demagogue. Are you saying that the right express your ideas and opinions, influence state policy, own property, choose a religion and all that crap does not make you 'free'? Of course, you could argue that all of these are useless, or that these rights do not actually exist in society, but if those don't fundamentally make you free, than what does? Or, maybe we can't be free at all?Έρεβος;6251289 said:
Seditious
GodSlayer
The majority of prison inmates have these rights. I doubt many prisoners consider themselves free.
can monkeys be free?
No, they are not. I didn't list all human rights, the freedom of movement is one of them.
Monkeys can't reason, so their "freedom" is meaningless.
Seditious
GodSlayer
as far as I know, prisoners are given human rights same as anyone else (I think that's the main concern of amnesty international)
in any case, you asked if someone thought "all that crap does not make you 'free'?", I threw in my two cents that none of those you mentioned make us freer than prisoners.
besides the point. Can they be free of not? Do they need to be able to reason to be able to not be free? If even free range animals aren't free then yea, "maybe we can't be free at all", but if it is possible for them to be free, perhaps it is possible for us to be free, but no, the crap you mentioned (your words, not mine) does not "make you free" unless you do consider prisoners free.
Prisoners are given human rights, but they are not given all rights, like the freedom of movement. That's because they are a threat to society. My reply was to that guy who argued human rights don't make us free, so I asked him what does make us free, and why does he think all rights granted in society are just a manipulation tool.
"Crap" was just a word I used because I couldn't be bothered to list all human liberties.
Free is a vague word. The question of free will is an entirely different one. I believe that man, unlike animals, can reason, evaluate the situation, and make a rational decision that monkeys are not capable of. If the state does not allow him to make those decision, then he is not free. You can't, of course, be absolutely free, because some decisions are harmful to society and other human beings, and others are simply impossible (you can't fly), but you are still much "freer" than a woman in Iran.
Seditious
GodSlayer
perhaps he thinks they don't make us free (so what would 'make us free' would be freedom rather than just a few rights to appease us, manipulating us into accepting their control. even real slaves had the right to take a piss when they needed to piss, and to sleep at the end of the work day, but those rights didn't make them free, it was just necessary for their cooperation.)
so when a chimp sees something in his teeth in the mirror, and a man sees something in his teeth in the mirror, why is the man of free will when he picks it out, but the chimp isn't of free will when he picks it out?
and a monkey chained down isn't "not free" either?
you can, as a shark can, despite the fact its freedom is an amputation hazard, it's just not preferable to the rest of us. What you're saying is "a shark can't be free, that's just dangerous, dont be stupid' in other words, 'we can't let things be free as they otherwise would be because that would suck for us'. Given how many criminals are repeat offenders 'they can't be free'... yet we do release people from prison, so obviously they can be free, it's just not a good decision. we can be free, as the monkey can, but people really aren't fond of others having freedom.
Please explain to what ends are we 'manipulated'. In any case, you are right when you say that granting a few rights don't make a person free, and society can always make us 'freer'. I can't see any other way to make us free other than granting rights and allowing us to express our individual will, but maybe you could enlighten me.
People may not be free in the western world, but we still most definitely enjoy more freedom than in any society in the past - feudal, communist, whatever.
I must admit that the talk of animals and free will is something I am not very knowledgeable about and I was perhaps a little too quick to respond. I guess that the difference is that animals act out of instinct, while a person rationally evaluates the situation.
I think not, because you don't let him express his will. The monkey obviously wants to do things he's not capable of while chained
Of course criminals can be free, we just don't let them...
Ideally, we should let everyone be free and express his will. However, that way someone might violate other people's rights or harm society (for example, if you set a forest on fire or go around killing people). Criminals are offenders, they are a threat to society. To maintain order, there exists law which punishes those who limit the freedom of others. That's why we put criminals in jail and harm their rights: for retribution and to deter others from violating the law.
By the way, I think that there's an issue to be cleared here. There are two different questions we discussed:
1) Is a person free by nature, or can he actually be free even in theory
2) Is our current society free
Seditious
GodSlayer
not raping your mother?
an absence of society would make us freer. I never said it was sustainable or preferable, just that we aren't free.
mhmm.
Again, I wouldn't say it's ideal, I merely say he would be free if he could do that---but he might prefer to be in our 9-5 labor society with condoms and ipods than allowed to live free of charge in a national park fishing for his supper. I wouldn't say freedom is preferable, just that we aren't free.
1) is why I asked you if a monkey is free---if even a monkey isn't free then there's really no hope for man to be free in nature any more than in civilization
2) you only have to try some hallucinogens some tribal/religious folk used to use, or have sex with a 13 year old which is legal in some African countries, or prostitute yourself which is legal in many countries and Reno (are there other places in the US it's legal too?), or even drink alcohol in some central city 'alcohol free zone'---not only aren't we free, such a condition under which we're no more systematically hunted down for killing a man than a chimp or a fish, but we don't even have liberty (freedom limited only from that which harms others---a condition far less than freedom, but far more than our modern democracies). Indeed all I want is liberty, but still I acknowledge what it is not, I will not pretend it is that which there is nothing freer than simply because it is what I wish to be nothing freer than.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Um, yep, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Then what does... Um, one's own actions and thoughts can make one free, not any fictitious "rights" granted by a tyranny.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Please elaborate what kind of tyranny can be openly criticized on the media and is replaced every few years according to the will of the people. I just don't get it. The current situation is not ideal but you should propose some kind of alternative... what, so if your occupation must be the same as your father's, and you are not allowed to have your own property, and not allowed to say your opinion, THEN you are free!? Are you even aware how empty your rhetoric is!?Έρεβος;6270848 said:
Like I said, I was quick to respond regarding animals. In any case, animals act out of instinct, like a machine. It's like they are programmed to act in a specific way in a specific situation. That's not the case with people, who make a rational decision, and that's the point: freedom is the ability to express your will, and while an animal's will is arbitrary, a person's will is based on reason. You could say that in many ways our reasoning is also arbitrary... I wouldn't argue otherwise. In any case, I think that whether monkeys are free or not is irrelevant.Έρεβος;6270849 said:
This is not manipulation for the personal profit of a tyranny, laws and limits to our freedom exist for everyone's own good.
I don't know if an absence of society would make us freer. In any case, society and state are necessary.
what? all those anti-modernists should propose some kind of alternative to liberalism.
Frankly, I don't get what you're saying. The FOUNDATION of modern democracy and liberalism is that you have the freedom to do anything so long as it doesn't harm others.
Seditious
GodSlayer
Well now you're just playing move the goalposts (you said how it is manipulation, not 'is it manipulation for the personal profit of a tyranny, and if so how?')
but I'll bite...
The great threat of democracy everyone (Tocqueville, Mill, Nozick, etc.) warns about: "the tyranny of the majority"---that oppression, that destruction of liberty supported by the majority in a democratic state.
You're wrong to say "everyone's own good" is why they exist---simply ask the rapist if he thinks it's for his own good that he'll get in trouble if he rapes, ask the burglar if its for his own good he can't steal. They exist for the good of the ruling majority. It's all good and well if the majority don't become a tyranny (if they don't overstep liberty itself), but in our society they undeniably have...
the strongest refutation of my argument would be to go and sell some drugs to the police. Mill made sure to note that drug trade (Opium was his pick) is as legitimate a form of consensual free business as anything else, and under liberty has no right to be opposed any more than alcohol or sextoys or anything else a prudish majority might like to deny the people who do not have the political power.
huh? 'mhmm' = nodding in agreement. dunno what you're saying here.
try to sell some heroin to the police... it will appear that your foundation has been cracked if you think the two go together.
We still have democracy though, we still get to pick, every 4 years, which person wont give us what we want, but we don't have liberty, and unless you walk out of that police station with either your product or a good profit, I don't expect you to disagree.
Similar threads
