Who are you referring to? Me?
LibertyStudent
I’m working on that.
There is nothing wrong with confusion if it leads to a better understanding. Better than the clarity of rose coloured glasses.
That’s a stock liberty-student reply. Instead of admitting he’s wrong he just call people ‘utopian’ - or in this case deluded by idealistic assumptions or something like that.
In the absence of an argument, an attack against the man will always do. Good job Juan.
Now you made two mistakes.
- you dismiss arguments as ‘utopian’ when you can’t refute them
- and now pretend that my pointing out this habit of yours(1) is a fallacy (an ad-hominem).
But no, it is not an ‘attack against the man’, it’s just a statement of fact.
Strawman. Possible language problem.
If #1 is incorrect, than #2 must necessarily be untrue as well.
Well, that’s always our dispute. Who has the “correct” facts.
Your game is boring - and fully documented in this thread - you assert something and then pretend people misunderstand you and ‘straw man’ you. OK - have fun.
Yes, you can act in ways that prevent others from using coercion on you. You are not solely dependent on the generosity of others. It comes down to who is responsible for you being free. Your argument is that someone else or the collective is responsible. My argument is that the individual is responsible and I really do not see any other logical starting point than freedom beginning with the individual, everything else are just the obstacles of life.
This is a contradiction…humans do not have control of other people yet somehow these other humans have always had control. This is the natural contradiction of the normal libertarian I am a slave doctrine, that LS (I believe) and I are trying to demonstrate. You are either in control of your body or you are not. You either are a free creature inherently or not. How can you rights if they are given at the whim of another.
metaphysical freedom != political freedom fail.
I need a funny cat saying this in a picture.
Has it ever been mentioned that the point of contention is not existence of free will but the possibility of putting free will in practice ? The problem is there are certain kind of murderers, basically cops and soldiers, who prevent people from acting freely. Do you know what a cop or a soldier is, Max dear ?
I’m not pretending. You really misunderstand me.
Well, perhaps I do. I’m willing to accept half of the responsibility for the misunderstanding.
Morally, no one SHOULD violate another’s freedom. So morally, others are responsible. Of course, someone else may have a moral philosophy that differs from mine…
Legally, it depends upon the legal system at play. Ironically, the legal system may outlaw freedom, as ours does (in the relation between individuals and the state). So there it could be either, depending upon the law, which must be determined socially. So it must at least involve others.
Practically, you are most responsible for ensuring your own freedom, and it is up to you to directly enforce it, as well as persuade others not to violate it.
Law is where moral values and practical enforcement of those values meet. Using law to outlaw aggressive coercion, others could be legally responsible for NOT violating your freedom, but not responsible for ensuring it. You yourself are responsible for enforcing such law (or hiring someone else to do so on your behalf). Nevertheless, in order to create law, you will have to cooperate with other people.
Again, you are conflating the will for freedom with freedom. If you are thrown in a prison, you may claw tooth and nail to get out. You WILL to BE free. But you are clearly not free. Also, you can’t conflate a successful defiance of coercion to be freedom either. If you escape the prison only to find yourself in a larger one, you are not much freer than you just were. On the other hand, if there is no larger jail, and no one is attempting to put you back in the old jail, now you are free. Defying attempts of others to aggressively coerce you is not freedom, only a means to such (and I believe only a partial means). I maintain that freedom is the absence of the attempts of others to coerce you.
Also, I’m not sure how you’re using the term “rights”. Rights are entitlements or permissions. Your right to freedom is your permission to do whatever you wish so long as you don’t violate others’ right to freedom. So “How can you [have] rights if they are given at the whim of another” becomes “How can you have entitlements/permissions if they are given at the whim of another”. HOW ELSE CAN YOU HAVE THEM?
Legal rights are created by political processes, which are meaningless if they do not involve others. Why waste the time to codify such rights → no one else has knowledge of them and will not act in accordance with them, simply because you designated them as law. In that they may conflict with other laws, and you say they should be defended by force, it seems to me you are saying that you have the right to do whatever you want, so long as you can defend such with force.
Creating your own rights literally means granting yourself permission to do what you want to do. That makes no sense. Rights are a social concept, because entitlement or permission are.
…
I have never said that anyone should be a slave to another, or that others should defend my freedom for me. I believe as you and LS do that one must rely upon himself to defend against coercion. My point here is that freedom is the absence of coercion, and to say otherwise is simply incorrect. One can always will to overcome coercion. Consider the secret agent being ruthlessly tortured for information. He retains the choice whether to divulge info or remain quiet. He can even struggle to break his chains and escape. Whether he struggles or submits has little bearing on his freedom, only his tolerance for pain.
Wow - i should have just said that 8-j
I couldn’t resist … I am weak…
The truth comes out.
!(http://agsinger.com/pics/50 viral images/lolcat.jpg)
Sure: you can lock everyone else up. Otherwise: it’s not possible. No Max, it really isn’t. I don’t care how much you whine and bitch: it’s not possible. You cannot–CANNOT–directly control others in that manner.
What you CAN do is act in such a manner that will bring the likelihood way down. But prevent (altogether…which is what your unqualified statement means)? No.
Juan only accepts responsibility for 50% of what I did.