The Problem of Liberty, Force and Choice

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
So, a moral system based on the idea that freedom is good logically must minimize constraints on people, regardless of whether a gov't or a corporation or a disease imposes these constraints. Which leads one to . . .

COMMUNISM!

[Berzerker]

Sandman -

I'm not saying they are burglars, I'm saying that they might be burglars. How exactly do I tell the difference between 'harmless' trespassers and burglars? I can hardly go up and ask them, can I? Better to shoot first and ask questions later.

Make up your mind, first they're trespassers and then they're burglars, now you don't know what they are. Here's a clue, if they're merely walking on your land, they're probably trespassers, if they're in your house, they're probably burglars. The point is whatever they are, the response of the owner is open to scrutiny by a jury and court just like now.

Ramo -

The ability to pick between two bad choices is by definition not freedom. Freedom is lack of constraint, so if you're constrained to two bad choices you are not free. No one is totally free as everyone is subject to some constraints - some man-made (i.e. laws), some natural (i.e. starvation).

Where in the definition of freedom do you find anything about the number of choices - good or bad? Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint - from others, not physical laws or microbes. And there is no requirement that we have a good choice...just that others not impose those choices upon us.

So, a moral system based on the idea that freedom is good logically must minimize constraints on people, regardless of whether a gov't or a corporation or a disease imposes these constraints. Which leads one to anarchism (libertarian socialism).

Disease? Disease doesn't coerce... You've taken a definition that applies only to human interaction and expand it beyond relevance. Did those who came up with the meaning of freedom really mean we should be free of disease or we are not free? Of course not...

Strangelove -

Is letting the sick and helpless alone to die moral?

They won't die if you're with them? Is forcing your neighbor to stay with a sick person moral? It may be immoral Doc, but the solution is not to threaten others to compel them to stay with the sick.

chegitz -

Oh yes, obviously. Yup, happens every day in response to the BS corporations pull on people. (<--masturbation smilie)

It doesn't happen as much as it should because people think government will deal with the BS. And who is in power? The Democrats and Republicans. So pointing to a situation created by them to indict libertarianism is illogical, that's like saying drug war related crime is a result of drugs and not the policies of those in power.

[Giant_Squid]

Where in the definition of freedom do you find anything about the number of choices - good or bad? Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint - from others, not physical laws or microbes. And there is no requirement that we have a good choice...just that others not impose those choices upon us.

Depends what definition of freedom you're using. Since words are essentially just words and definitions are human constructs, the question becomes not what the definition of freedom is, but rather what definition we can assign to the word "freedom" to best capture what we mean when we say it. Now let me give you an example which might be a slightly more coherent way of putting what Sandman's been saying:

If you saw Pirates of the Carribean, you'll remember when the hero made the bargain with the villain that he'd give him what he wanted if he let the girl go free. The villain says okay, and once it's too late to retract the bargain, he puts the girl off on a tiny island and leaves her there to die. By your definition of freedom, he did exactly what he said. But I guarantee you that everyone watching that movie, including yourself, thought "Wow, what a double-dealing jerk."

Another possible example would be the medeival king who locks someone in a dungeon and throws away the key. Assume that the king dies, but the person is never recovered from the dungeon because no one knows he's down there. By your definition, the guy is "free", because there is no human being who is making any attempt to coerce him in any way, and there are no legal force-related restraints on what he can and can't do. But I don't think anyone would call being locked in a 2*2 cell "freedom". If you would like to get out of this by pointing out it was originally a situation with the king, so it still fits your definition, then consider the not unheard-of situation of a policeman accidentally locking himself in his own jail cell.

By these examples, I mean to show that a definition for "freedom" which captures what we really mean when we use the term does by necessity include a VIABLE choice, not just that choice be permitted. You have the freedom to move out of the United States to some tiny island without taxes if the US became too dictatorial (assuming the dictator didn't restrict emigration, and remember that even Hitler didn't restrict emigration and the problem there was just that other countries wouldn't take the Jews, etc, in) , but you don't consider that a viable choice, so you wouldn't consider yourself free under a dictatorship. Likewise, a guy from Bangladesh has the options of working 18-hours a day at a god-awful job that reduces his life expectancy by half, or starving to death, but neither of those are very viable choices. I think Ozzy's example is a very good one, and that your only escape is to claim that you have no moral obligation to provide for other people's freedom - which may be true, but which undermines the big propaganda point that it's really freedom you're fighting for.

[Berzerker]

GS -

Depends what definition of freedom you're using. Since words are essentially just words and definitions are human constructs, the question becomes not what the definition of freedom is, but rather what definition we can assign to the word "freedom" to best capture what we mean when we say it.

Not if this definition we/you come up with contradicts the actual definition.

If you saw Pirates of the Carribean, you'll remember when the hero made the bargain with the villain that he'd give him what he wanted if he let the girl go free. The villain says okay, and once it's too late to retract the bargain, he puts the girl off on a tiny island and leaves her there to die. By your definition of freedom, he did exactly what he said.

By my definition he wouldn't have taken her captive in the first place (I didn't see the movie, stop giving away movie plots ).

Another possible example would be the medeival king who locks someone in a dungeon and throws away the key. Assume that the king dies, but the person is never recovered from the dungeon because no one knows he's down there. By your definition, the guy is "free", because there is no human being who is making any attempt to coerce him in any way, and there are no legal force-related restraints on what he can and can't do.

His freedom was taken by the king, the fact someone puts you in chains and disappears doesn't mean they didn't violate your freedom.

But I don't think anyone would call being locked in a 2*2 cell "freedom".

Exactly. It's called a constraint and the person who put you there violated your freedom (assuming of course the king lacked the justification to cage you).

If you would like to get out of this by pointing out it was originally a situation with the king, so it still fits your definition, then consider the not unheard-of situation of a policeman accidentally locking himself in his own jail cell.

Freedom is not a protection against one's own stupidity.

By these examples, I mean to show that a definition for "freedom" which captures what we really mean when we use the term does by necessity include a VIABLE choice, not just that choice be permitted.

The cop had a viable choice - thinking before acting. No one locked him in the cage, therefore no one violated his freedom.

You have the freedom to move out of the United States to some tiny island without taxes if the US became too dictatorial (assuming the dictator didn't restrict emigration, and remember that even Hitler didn't restrict emigration and the problem there was just that other countries wouldn't take the Jews, etc, in) , but you don't consider that a viable choice, so you wouldn't consider yourself free under a dictatorship.

Having that choice is irrelevant to whether or not someone else is coercing or constraining you. Now, if we accept your definition - the necessity of a viable choice, then moving is not viable since you'd only end up in another country where people use coercion to obtain your property just as they did in the country you left - so you aren't free if you stay or if you move. I'll ask you what I've asked others (hopefully you will respond because they haven't). If the Mafia extorts money from you, are they respecting your freedom since you can just leave the country? If I point a gun at you and say, "move or I will shoot", does your failure to move mean I can now shoot you without violating your freedom?

Likewise, a guy from Bangladesh has the options of working 18-hours a day at a god-awful job that reduces his life expectancy by half, or starving to death, but neither of those are very viable choices.

He has all sorts of options. But unlike government, his employer imposes no coercion or constraint on him... You guys keep ignoring this fact and it's key to applying the definition of freedom to situations...

I think Ozzy's example is a very good one, and that your only escape is to claim that you have no moral obligation to provide for other people's freedom - which may be true, but which undermines the big propaganda point that it's really freedom you're fighting for.

Can you support your accusations, insinuations, and assertions? What was Ozzy's example and where did I offer that as my response (use quotes)? What does "provide" mean? I've never said I'm "fight"ing for your freedom, if you don't want to be free, fine, just leave people who don't share your desires out of the servitude you want for yourself.