Freedom

[Solaris]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the house.

It is moved that the house accepts the following proposition:

A core requirement of any free society is that one person is free to do what they wish, until their actions infringe on the freedom of others.

Do you support this motion? Give reasons for your answer. What exceptions might there be to this? What implications might this have on Drug laws? Prostitution? Suicide?

 

[HunterSeeker]

It is a good thing to base a nation on, but it should not nessacerly be the focus of all legislation. It could for example lead to the abolishment of taxes and remove all sort of enviromental restrictions, none of those changes are good IMO.

Edit: its better to base a nation on the will of the people, although even that is not perfect.

 

[gick]

I agree in principle, but HunterSeeker is right, you could use that argument to abolish taxes, and then who would pay for the schools/police/fire service etc? I think it could cover the environment though, because pollution has a negative effect on everyone.

As far as social laws go, like drugs, prostitution, gay rights yadda yadda yadda, its pretty much the best rule to go by.

 

[Muffin Man]

That's a very broad statement, that leaves a lot of gray area. Don't really have time to make a big post right now, but I will take a quick stance on drug use.

I've got no problem with it to a certain extent. If you use responsibly, you're fine by me. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be legal. But as soon as you get high and then start driving or messing around in public areas, then you're my problem.

 

[Ennui]

Muffin Man, that would be violating other people's freedom/rights, so that should theoretically be a non-issue. I'm definitely for this idea, and not just in furtherance of my pro-drug political stance, but just because at the very core of my idealist heart, I feel like anarchism is the best way for a society to function (though realistically speaking I think socialism is the best option that's actually going to work).

It would require massive cultural, societal, and governmental upheaval to institute such a system, though, because of a lot of conflicts, like the taxing problem.

 

[The Monkey]

Socially, yes, economically, no

 

[Solaris]

I don't think taxation is a matter of freedom to be honest.

 

[Ennui]

Er, how?

 

[Solaris]

Er, how?

Because money is part of the system, you don't have to make money, but when you do you accept the rules that come with it.

 

[Ennui]

I'm not sure about that reasoning, but I have to think on it.

/ponder

 

[repiV]

Economic freedom is even more important than social freedom - the economy governs everything. The government forcing you to surrender your hard-earned cash so they can waste it on their personal crusades or give it to somebody else is no less an infringement of personal liberty than curtailing free speech.

 

[Flyingdebris]

anarchy isn't the answer, take a look at central africa, thats anarchy and it isn't looking too pretty.

government should exist to make sure we don't tear each other's heads off, to prevent outside forces from doing the same, and to provide the basic framework for the society within its borders. i.e. postal service, roads, schools, police, etc

The problem as I see it is that this gets bloated by people trying to have the government solve all their problems instead of taking personal responsibility.

And like repiV said, economic freedom is just as important as any other freedom. One should be free to make use of their money as they see fit provided that they aren't infringing on someone else's rights.

Libertariansim FTW

 

[Sulkdodds]

I would agree, with the proviso that a utalitarian-ish principle with freedom as its base is adopted. Thus, in a situation where freedoms conflict, the chosen option is the greatest freedom for the greatest number.

We infringe on your personal freedom to murder people, but only to protect an even greater freedom - the freedom to live.

Likewise, we might justify taxes by noting that emergency health services allow people the freedom to sometimes live when they have a heart attack.

the economy governs everything.

Can it be that repiV is a closet Marxist?

 

[repiV]

Can it be that repiV is a closet Marxist?

Heeeeellllll no.

I think you misinterpreted me slightly. My point is that the economy, more than any other factor, determines not only the prosperity of a society, but also culture and individual self-image, etc.
Basically everything eventually comes back to the economy. People don't desperately try to get into the USA for the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, they do it for the right to make their own way in life. Only a free economy can provide that right, and only a healthy economy can make it a worthwhile pursuit.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think I was joking.

But yes, you are right. And certainly I believe an economy in which people can thrive and prosper according to their merits is a good thing. The problems are, of course, that not everybody gets an equal start, and that for one person to win, another person is inevitably screwed over. I suppose support for less-restrained capitalism depends on whether you are prepared to trust in the system to be a decent judge when it comes to who 'deserves' success.

But this is for another thread, I think.

Although it does touch on the issue at hand! Freedom is surely based on the presumption that it delivers justice. If we are free to make our own decisions then we won't be punished for things we haven't done (only for choices we have freely made). But while I might agree in principle I think there are always going to be huge, huge problems on making sure society is actually fair and that those who become rich deserve it; likewise for those that are poor (not to mention 'deserve' is pretty hard to define anyway).

...that is of course unless one believes a society being 'fair' is not necessary, and that we only need all this freedom so we can shit all over each other in our own self-interest.

 

[repiV]

I think I was joking.

Ah, good.

But yes, you are right. And certainly I believe an economy in which people can thrive and prosper according to their merits is a good thing. The problems are, of course, that not everybody gets an equal start, and that for one person to win, another person is inevitably screwed over. I suppose support for less-restrained capitalism depends on whether you are prepared to trust in the system to be a decent judge when it comes to who 'deserves' success.

But this is for another thread, I think.

Although it does touch on the issue at hand! Freedom is surely based on the presumption that it delivers justice. If we are free to make our own decisions then we won't be punished for things we haven't done (only for choices we have freely made). But while I might agree in principle I think there are always going to be huge, huge problems on making sure society is actually fair and that those who become rich deserve it; likewise for those that are poor (not to mention 'deserve' is pretty hard to define anyway).

...that is of course unless one believes a society being 'fair' is not necessary, and that we only need all this freedom so we can shit all over each other in our own self-interest.

Well I used to think along those lines...capitalism isn't a true meritocracy etc etc.
At the end of the day, what happens, happens. A centralised effort to make society "fairer" by definition involves increased government intervention, which is inevitably a slippery slope. More government and more government and more government until you end up with the same kind of insiduous, overbearing behemoth that pulls all the strings in the UK.
It's up to us as individuals to make our own choices in life and make the best of what we have - sure, most of us are not going to be multi-millionaires, but everyone has the capability to at least live within their means.
And frankly, why should anyone have the right to dictate who gets what?
Competition is not really a negative thing either - it drives the quality of products and services through the roof and when the best people get the job or are successful in business, it improves things for everyone.
We all make our choices. I am facing the choice between badly paid, exciting jobs which lure me in with the promises of a fantastic lifestyle, or a very highly paid stressful career with long hours and huge responsibility. It's not up to Big Brother to top up my wages to do the exciting jobs, it's up to me to pick wisely.

Such is life.

 

[<RJMC>]

solaris talking about freedom?

*dies in laughter*

 

[Gray Fox]

We should let the economy loose, there is nothing better then pre World war laissez-faire capitalism to give socialism a boost. Todays people have become to conceited and self absorbed to appreciate the social and economic security, equality and opportunity provided by post war hands on governments. Good old fashioned slave labor and socio-economic bonds are the best way to refresh our memories.

 

[Flyingdebris]

look at the US society now

-lets ban trans fats because they are bad for you
-lets ban the use martial arts weapons for self defense because they are dangerous
-lets ban smoking in public areas because its unhealthy
-lets ban even more gun parts
-lets try to put pressure on violent video game devs, because they are a bad influence on the children
-lets destroy a radio host's career because of imagined outrage
-lets outlaw the distribution of over the counter vitmans and suppliments, for your safety of course
-etc etc

As time progresses, its becoming more and more apparent that some people will not rest until we live in a bland as possible society with everything being controlled and managed "for your own good" its like the movie Demolition Man is coming true.

I say F*** that, I'd rather be unhealthy, unsafe, and free.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Freedom = anarchic state

 

[gick]

Freedom = anarchic state

As long as it is populated by Anarchists. It only works if most people want it to work.

repiV: What is your opinion on things like the Competition Comission and antitrust laws?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

As long as you can do what you want it's freedom. Fear, rape, constant crime are only very bad byproducts. But that's what freedom is, basically nature. No matter what there will be consequences. Like an antelope who won't leave the pack cuz there's a lion waiting for a sign of weakness~nature with natural consequences of any free act. Utopia is a different matter of course.

 

[Jintor]

Ultimately, there is the freedom to take the consequences.

 

[Sulkdodds]

As long as you can do what you want it's freedom. Fear, rape, constant crime are only very bad byproducts. But that's what freedom is, basically nature. No matter what there will be consequences. Like an antelope who won't leave the pack cuz there's a lion waiting for a sign of weakness~nature with natural consequences of any free act. Utopia is a different matter of course.

Bollocks. Choices made under duress are not free choices. Living in true chaos does not make you free; it makes you a slave to circumstance.

The reason we curtail the right to murder is because it pales in signifigance to the right to live - a right that precludes all other rights. Death is the ultimate loss of freedom.

You can never have complete freedom because freedoms cancel each other out as above. You can only have maximum freedom, which cannot be achieved through chaos.