• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Philosophy of Liberty

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I too agree with the video wholeheartedly.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
22,469
Reaction score
14,823
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Let me start by asking to both of you:

1. Do you believe the U.S. is such an ethical society/government?

2. Do you have a reasonable amount of choice in being able to leave the U.S. and break all obligations to the society there?

3. If so, what are the philosophical implications relevant to the idealistic presentation that was made?


Less-related to the chain of questions above:

4. If your life is your present/future, are you willing to trade your
present/future for your ideals, or are your ideals lacking of they cannot preserve your present/future in reality? Which has primacy?

-Mach
 

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

Just Crazy Enough to Work
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2006
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
313
Location
Wilmington, DE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
At 4:20, the video states that leaders cannot be imposed onto others who did not select them. Does this imply that the common political system of a majority vote is unethical?
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,689
Reaction score
18,194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
At 4:20, the video states that leaders cannot be imposed onto others who did not select them. Does this imply that the common political system of a majority vote is unethical?

To Big "L" libertarians it is. Its why Big "L" libertarianism is nothing but a utopian notion. I cant thing of anywhere in the world where it has even it so much as been tried, much less succeeded.

That said, I do agree with the basic premises of the video.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
13,725
Reaction score
2,861
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
To Big "L" libertarians it is. Its why Big "L" libertarianism is nothing but a utopian notion. I cant thing of anywhere in the world where it has even it so much as been tried, much less succeeded.

That said, I do agree with the basic premises of the video.
I thought Big L libertarianism are supposed to be against any utopia. Thats why they pretty much want anarchy; a lack of any utopia.
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Its a nice video but its of a world i dont recognize.Its like if everyone was a pacifist there would be too much of a human instinct for me to pick up a big stick and get my own way faster.Im more optimistic of the idea of world peace than most but a crimeless world noway.
 

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,178
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
To Big "L" libertarians it is. Its why Big "L" libertarianism is nothing but a utopian notion. I cant thing of anywhere in the world where it has even it so much as been tried, much less succeeded.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I believe what the video was driving at, given the context, is that so long as my actions do not infringe on your life, liberty, or justly aquired property, you have no business asking others to forcefully dictate the manner in which I behave or act.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,689
Reaction score
18,194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I believe what the video was driving at, given the context, is that so long as my actions do not infringe on your life, liberty, or justly aquired property, you have no business asking others to forcefully dictate the manner in which I behave or act.

Which is a principle that in and of itself, both libertarians, moderates, and liberals would agree with. The problem is that it’s like fundamentalist religion for libertarians and thus pragmatism is cast aside even when reason calls for it. For example, taken to the extreme, such a philosophy prevents any sort of effective environmental protection. In fact, the only environmental protection it would allow for would be when the environmental damage is so several that an adjacent property owner could sue for damage to their property. It also precludes popular soverenity a principle necessary in any democracy.
So yes, while everyone other than social and authoritarian conservatives would agree with the basic principle that your right to live your life the way you choose to extends so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same, most people (other than hard core libertarians) would also recognize that there is such a thing as a “commons”.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,689
Reaction score
18,194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I thought Big L libertarianism are supposed to be against any utopia. Thats why they pretty much want anarchy; a lack of any utopia.

Their notion that society and the individual would be far better off without any form of government and or popular soverenity, is their notion of utopia.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Their notion that society and the individual would be far better off without any form of government and or popular soverenity, is their notion of utopia.

I think you have Libertarians confused with Anarchists.

Libertarians don't want to get rid of government, they just want a government that will protect individual liberties rather than restrict them.

What vital function do you believe popular soverenity serves?
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
22,469
Reaction score
14,823
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
At 4:20, the video states that leaders cannot be imposed onto others who did not select them. Does this imply that the common political system of a majority vote is unethical?

Good question. Representative as opposed to direct democracy was intentional and based on evidence.

Also, what about people too young to vote, and the child/parent relationship?

-Mach
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
22,469
Reaction score
14,823
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What vital function do you believe popular soverenity serves?

two primary:

Efficiency.
Human psychology.

That's like saying what vital role does a leader serve in an organization. It should be obvious. What you have is grass is greener syndrome. You sit back from the pleasant meadows provided in party by popular sovereignty, then dream about the ideal that is BETTER, which is to have all of that PLUS, the lack of other people co-ruling with you. Well, sure, and I want my cake and want to eat it too.

Individual - has dreamy freedom then immediately loses freedom to a sovereign nation that outcompetes them.

Soverign nation - have to give up some freedoms to ensure overall maximized freedoms = win

-Mach
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
two primary:

Efficiency.
Human psychology.

That's like saying what vital role does a leader serve in an organization. It should be obvious. What you have is grass is greener syndrome. You sit back from the pleasant meadows provided in party by popular sovereignty, then dream about the ideal that is BETTER, which is to have all of that PLUS, the lack of other people co-ruling with you. Well, sure, and I want my cake and want to eat it too.

Individual - has dreamy freedom then immediately loses freedom to a sovereign nation that outcompetes them.

Soverign nation - have to give up some freedoms to ensure overall maximized freedoms = win

-Mach

That is a lovely soliloquy to pragmatism, but I fail to see its application. Give me a specific example by which the philosophy outlined in the video is insufficient.
 

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
2,283
Location
Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
holy crap we've all reached chapter 3 in high school modern history class: The Enlightenment.

This is why I can't stand libertarians. Your ideas aren't obscure or radical. You're not special for knowing who John Locke is. Every college freshmen in the country knows who he is.

The rest of the political world has progressed past 1800, please catch up.

We're all talking about class now. It's rad.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
holy crap we've all reached chapter 3 in high school modern history class: The Enlightenment.

This is why I can't stand libertarians. Your ideas aren't obscure or radical. You're not special for knowing who John Locke is. Every college freshmen in the country knows who he is.

The rest of the political world has progressed past 1800, please catch up.

We're all talking about class now. It's rad.

I don't recall claiming to be obscure or radical. Nor do I recall mentioning John Locke. Your contention that the ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility are a ghost of the 1800s is unfounded.
 

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
2,283
Location
Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm thinking more "we're saving America with our secret knowledge" Ron Paul cultists.

Libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the right.
Some neo-con guy wrote a great essay about it for Heritage.
 

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm thinking more "we're saving America with our secret knowledge" Ron Paul cultists.

Libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the right.
Some neo-con guy wrote a great essay about it for Heritage.

And modern Liberalism is the Neo-conism of the left. That hardly speaks to the relevance of its premises though. Do you have any specific contention with regards to the video?
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
22,469
Reaction score
14,823
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That is a lovely soliloquy to pragmatism, but I fail to see its application. Give me a specific example by which the philosophy outlined in the video is insufficient.

lol, I do believe it's the idealistic libertarian case that has not been applied in such a way that we have access to sufficient evidence to support it as viable. Do we. We do have evidence of popular sovereignty thriving in reality.

Frst, you didn't seem to agree or disagree with what I posted with regards to your question about sovereignty, you just asked a new question. Can you verbalize the reasons for your objection (if that's the case).

As to your new question, I already posed four relevant questions in the 3rd post, quid pro quo, I think they are important to lay out, else, there may be no debate. And they should be short to answer. We may already agree.

Now, your new question, I don't see how popular sovereignty is necessarily in opposition to the video. Popular sovereignty doesn't arise from mystical sources of power, in many cases it arises from agreements of choice that humans make.

-Mach
 
Last edited:

Panache

Irrelevant Pissant
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
4,194
Reaction score
1,041
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
lol, I do believe it's the idealistic libertarian case that has not been applied in such a way that we have access to sufficient evidence to support it as viable. Do we. We do have evidence of popular sovereignty thriving in reality.

We also have evidence of tyranny thriving, non-representative democracy thriving, Imperial dictatorships thriving, etc... It isn't really relevent to whether or not popular sovereignty is strictly necessary. It is just more evidence that people like to make other people do what they want.

Frst, you didn't seem to agree or disagree with what I posted with regards to your question about sovereignty, you just asked a new question. Can you verbalize the reasons for your objection (if that's the case).

If I understood your post, you believe the majority are entitled to use force or fraud for their own benefit at the expense of the minority because it provides for a more efficient society.

Furthermore you believe that my ideals with regard to individual Liberty derive from the fact that I live in a society in which the majority uses the initiation of force to steal from or place limitations on the minority, and thus have no experience with a society in which force or fraud is only used to combat another initiation of force or fraud.

Popular sovereignty is exactly that. The popular of sovereignty over the unpopular.

As an example, if I own a peice of land and want to put a car that my neightbors find unsightly on it, my neighbors can get together and initiate the use of force to prevent me from putting my own car on my own land.

According to the video, they should have no right to initiate such force against me.

If I choose to engage in homosexual sex with another consenting adult, no one should have the right to initiate force in order to prevent me from doing so simply because it isn't "popular."

As to your new question, I already posed four relevant questions in the 3rd post, quid pro quo, I think they are important to lay out, else, there may be no debate. And they should be short to answer. We may already agree.

Sure.

1. Do you believe the U.S. is such an ethical society/government?

I don't believe the US government is particularly ethical, no.

2. Do you have a reasonable amount of choice in being able to leave the U.S. and break all obligations to the society there?

Not really. That is a bit of a different topic though. Even if I did, a free country is not just any country where you were "free to leave."

3. If so, what are the philosophical implications relevant to the idealistic presentation that was made?

The philosphical implication of having a reasonable amount of choice in being able to leave the U.S. and break all obligations to the society there would be that you have the option to avoid an unjust initiation of force or fraud rather than to confront it. It does not exuse the initiation of force or fraud.

If a woman is free to leave an abusive husband and break all obligations to him, does that mean that he isn't an abusive husband?

It is just to form and petition a government to protect you from the initiation of force or fraud. It is injust to form and petition a government to initiate force or fraud on your behalf. That is all there is to it.
 

tlmorg02

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Louisville, Ky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have greatly enjoyed this discussion. I would simply add that in order to reach a form of government advocated in the video, the constitution of the United States would need to be thrown out and a new one formed.

In the Federalist Papers, John Madison asserts that if men were angels, government would not be necessary. The founders were well aware of the principles of Liberty, yet they understood that human nature negates the idea of a perfect liberal government. If a form of government was not created that protected from potential tyrants that may arise within the new nation, as well as those abroad who pose a threat, then no liberties would be possible.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,689
Reaction score
18,194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That is a lovely soliloquy to pragmatism, but I fail to see its application. Give me a specific example by which the philosophy outlined in the video is insufficient.

It would be insufficient anytime you are dealing with finite resources that exists "in the commons".

Its economics 101 that private incentives alone consistently fail to provide adequate maintenance and sustainability of finite public resources. You can't privatize everything, for example you can't fully privatize the oceans, the atmosphere, all wildlife, and so on. Thus, these are resources that primarily exist in the commons.

Perhaps you should read the Tragedy of the Commons:

The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin - The Garrett Hardin Society - Articles
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,127
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
holy crap we've all reached chapter 3 in high school modern history class: The Enlightenment.

This is why I can't stand libertarians. Your ideas aren't obscure or radical. You're not special for knowing who John Locke is. Every college freshmen in the country knows who he is.

The rest of the political world has progressed past 1800, please catch up.

We're all talking about class now. It's rad.

What was true in 1800 is true today, and in no way would I regard THIS status quo as "progress."

The protectionism that you advocate is hardly new under the sun.
 

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
2,283
Location
Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
no, the world is very different today and the interconnectivity of human behavior, particularly economic behavior, means an ideology basically designed for agrarian land estates is unworkable. Enlightenment style libertarianism is incapable of managing entities like Wal-Mart or Halliburton which due to technological advances are capable of projecting just as much force, and removing just as much "personal sovereignty", as any government.

Saying it's "all about personal choice" is just as ludicrous as when Marxist's say "it's only about material conditions".

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."- Keynes
 
Last edited:

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
22,469
Reaction score
14,823
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If I understood your post, you believe the majority are entitled to use force or fraud for their own benefit at the expense of the minority because it provides for a more efficient society.
I never wrote they are entitled to it. I think in our discussion we will uncover is that in the U.S. you still have a choice to lease your power to people, as long as you retain the choice to retract it, help shape what it's used for, and gain some other power of your own choosing, in return.
In fact, that is the hallmark of efficiency and prosperity and freedom. I did NOT earn the land I live on distinct from the market in which I purchased it. You must accept that basic fact.

Furthermore you believe that my ideals with regard to individual Liberty derive from the fact that I live in a society in which the majority uses the initiation of force to steal from or place limitations on the minority, and thus have no experience with a society in which force or fraud is only used to combat another initiation of force or fraud.
I haven't commented on how the power is derived from your vantage point except to note popular sovereignty. And to me it's not necessary that popular sovereignty excludes choice.

Popular sovereignty is exactly that. The popular of sovereignty over the unpopular.
10 men live in an island. they divide the land up equally. 1 wants individual sovereignty. the other 9 band together and divide up labor willingly through negotiation based on desire/skill, etc. They come up with barter/money rules, and work out ways to use each others land for their own wants/needs. You trade with them, but they always have the advantage of a more efficient system.

Now, where in there did they force something on you?
Now someone women come ashore, 10, fancy that. And a son is born to the 9, and a son is born to the One. Now, the One rules over his son by who's authority? Apparently not in line with your idealism. But continuing, the 9's son is raised with the expectation that he will contribute, as they have, to their mutually beneficial way of life. After all, he reached maturity safely not through his own will, but via a shared will and effort that he is NOT privy to take with force. Once of age enough that they decide youth can fend for themselves, they offer him a choice. Their way, or he can live like the one (you), on a nearby island. The son has a choice. There is no fraud, or force. If he stays, only if he's a complete moron will he claim that he owns his house free and clear of any of their attempts to enforce building codes. HE is the one using force. YOU are the one attempting to justify your use of force.

As an example, if I own a piece of land and want to put a car that my neighbors find unsightly on it, my neighbors can get together and initiate the use of force to prevent me from putting my own car on my own land.
Your land came with restrictions that you already agreed to, and now you want to deny it so you can have your cake and eat it too. You ignore the underlying premise, you want to use force on those before you who already through sweat and blood obtained that land, and you commit fraud because I know we can find the papers and the legally binding agreements you made.

According to the video, they should have no right to initiate such force against me.
Incorrect, the video is an abstract ideal, it doesn't know you already agreed to neighborhood or state or city ordinances. In fact, if you did, and break them, YOU committed fraud.

If I choose to engage in homosexual sex with another consenting adult, no one should have the right to initiate force in order to prevent me from doing so simply because it isn't "popular."
You gave them the right by living there, voluntarily.
You were not privy to the negotiations that went on to secure the land in which you are sodomizing someone on, you don't own it individually, so you have, by your definition, no such rights. You miss the premises, again, and go about happily claiming your "Fraud" is justified via a philosophy that claims it's not.

It is unjust to form and petition a government to initiate force or fraud on your behalf. That is all there is to it.

So, when you band together to defend your land, by hiring a militia, it's unjust? You can't mean that.

-Mach
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom