There was some interesting discussions on Libertarianism going on here, in which some people argued for libertarianism because they wanted to maximise freedom, but I find that depends on what freedom is. It seems some people use freedom to mean lack of constraint from a conscious other, someone capable of being guilty (negative freedom). For instance, lack of government intervention. By contrast, I would say freedom means the ability to do things, and have choices (positive freedom). For instance, if someone is, through no fault of their own, unable to afford food and have no choice but to starve, that seems to me an unfree state. What are you guys' views? Which one is it we talk about when we say that we want freedoms?
True freedom is Anarchy, very few people are interested in true freedom. Most people have very little interest in true freedom so the only question is "how much should our freedom be reduced and by whom?"
The funny thing is that the closer a society comes to "true freedom"...it seems the more constraints must be placed on individual freedom. There seems to be an inverse relationship between freedom for individuals and freedom for the society in which individuals live. That seems to be something anathema to the increasingly libertarian minds of America. And I suspect it may ultimately lead to our downfall.
I wouldn't call that freedom. It may be freedom from governmental control, but in the sense that there are a lot of things I would be unable to do in such a society, I don't think I would very free at all.
I don’t have to tell you that! The meaning of words largely depend on content and intent of the user. “Freedom” could legitimately mean either of the definitions you list in your OP and countless others too. I don’t think you can legitimately claim ownership of the word and assert that only your definition is valid (and it’s especially ironic in the circumstances).
I think for a lot of people freedom is an emotion. Its how we feel outside the constraints of (ever)present authority. Think of the feeling you get out at sea or deep in the woods or maybe even in a foreign country where norms are vastly different. Where no one can stop you from doing anything you choose and the success or failure of those choices is entirely your own responsibility.
Exactly. I shouldn't really ask what freedom means, since definitions can vary and frankly doesn't matter, it's just a word. What I'm interested in is whichever one we mean when we say freedoms are good.
As close to true freedom will happen for me when I retire to off the grid living in SE Alaska. Yes I will still need a driver's license, subsistence hunting and fishing license....But most things I will get on my own or make. The minimal supplies I will need are readily provided by nature.
Libertarianism is interesting to me for numerous reasons. The problem is, I somehow find that I contradict myself when it comes to taxes. I personally think taxation is theft. I believe a lot of government functions could easily be privatized and more Americans could be making money and not giving it away. However, I'm not sure which is the best way to approach it. To me, freedom is not living under oppression. Freedom is the ability to leave your house and go where you want. Freedom is being able to build your own life the way you want to. Ah I could go on for hours about this
Freedom would be about being free from threats of any kind, like violence, rape and murder, and not being robbed or mugged or ripped off by banks or businesses. That's why we got together and formed a society and agreed to pay for an army and the police and regulators like the SEC etc etc. It's also about equality of opportunity so everyone is free to make the best life they can, without being oppressed by the majority.
what kind of freedom do you speak of political, social or moral. anything oppressed from being fulfilled isn't free to be fulfilled. societies require agreements between the partakers of the society. a person may not feel free to take that video game off the store shelf and take it home without paying for it. should a serial killer be free to fulfill his desires, just because he says he can't help it, or stop? freedom is simply the ability to do at will without recourse or reason to fear. nations that are much more powerful then others enjoy that kind of freedom. but again. an agreement of what should be done and not be done so humans can expect to coexist without offence to said agreement is required. even the Lord God of Israel, the Creator and Judge of all things, requires a agreement, also known as a Covenant which includes commandment. starting with the agreement with Adam and all the sons of man. even Jesus Christ is said to be the new covenant. once one is in agreement with the agreement then he is held to that agreement, usually by the injured party. which could be simply being with in the territory of a government voluntarily. and those who keep the agreement aren't held to it by force. but those who disagree with said agreement, but yet do or say they do agree, seek the fulfillments of their own heart, usually claiming oppression or seek to hide their sin against the agreement and do as they please. failure of a simple marriage agreement, is a good example of this.
Where's the freedom when putting a gun to someone's head to make them feed someone else? True freedom is personal responsibility and free will charity. I'm should no more be responsible for the guy down the street than I am for a deer in the woods. I should be free to give freely and not by government force.
Becoming Americanized, are you? The general drift of my views on freedom can be found here. What makes you think it isn't both? Such people are slaves. Have you lost your mind?
When you say "no one", what is that limited to? People? Any concept? And where does that leave us when we think freedom is good?
I might mix up what it is you refer to as true freedom, individual freedom and freedom for a society. Can you give examples?
A simple one would be: True freedom for an individual...would be the ability to drive as fast and recklessly as one wants...to disregard stop signs and traffic lights. True freedom for an individual in a society...would be to be constrained from doing those things. As a whole...the society itself promotes true freedom...by constraining individual freedom.
When has that happened to you? (and no, taxes are not levied at gun-point, even in the US) So they should be free to just take whatever food they want off you instead (maybe by literally putting a gun to your head)?
I don't think freedom is something good when it's only about freedom. Pure freedom is the freedom to kill, rape without being sued. I think freedom as a social notion can come only along responsibilities. However, the words self discipline and responsibilities aren't really trendy.
I disagree. If you refuse to pay your taxes, the guys they send to your house to haul you away for tax evasion are absolutely armed. And if you make the mistake of offering them any real resistance, they will absolutely shoot you. This amounts to taxes levied at gun-point. There is little difference between you pointing a gun at me and demanding I pay for your health insurance, and you lobbying the government to do so on your behalf.
Not paying taxes that subject you to forced redistribution will end with a gun to your head. That is the reality. People are far more capable(to self-sustain) and charitable than you give them credit. Government programs are just low hanging fruit. People weren't dying in the streets before these programs.
If you don’t pay your taxes, you’ll get a whole load of letters and legal documents then appointments with or visits from guys in suits, not uniforms. It would have to go a long way before anyone came to “haul you away” and even then they wouldn’t be holding a gun to your head to force you to pay, they’d be taking you in to custody pending a court case. They’d be armed but not threatening violence unless, as you say, you violently resist, in which case it’s gone beyond simply not paying taxes. You are perfectly entitled to make an argument for completely eliminating all personal taxation (not that you’ve tried yet) but you if you base that argument on alarmist rhetoric, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
These 11 People did not experience the respectful legal pleasantries you describe. They were arrested and taken to jail, by people with guns. All over less than a combined $100K in evaded taxes.
Freedoms just another word for "nothing left to lose". - Bobby McGhee Freedom in the political sense is the guarantee of a person's ability to make basic choices about what they express, how they organize, where they go and how they make a living. Freedom is a right and as with all good things comes with a responsibility and obligation.
No it isn't, it is a rhetorical lie that has no connection to any kind of rational argument. That’s irrelevant - nobody has presented any argument for taxation being unnecessary. The current assertion is that tax is being paid at gunpoint.
They were apparently taken to jail pending their court cases and by people who presumably had guns but almost certainly not at gun point (unless they posed any actual threat). The kind of paperwork I referred to in those cases would have been the forms provided by their employers which they allegedly completed fraudulently. How often they did that and what formal follow-ups there were prior to the criminal charges and arrests are not made clear in your link.
