[Eureka] Why we disagree, sometimes.

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think I've figured out where the essential philosophical divide is between some of us here on issues like politics and responsibility and commerce and etc. For the longest time it was being put out that the difference was a matter of maturity or empathy or morality or intelligence or reasoning. But I think that's window-dressing.

I think we're just having a problem because we're defining "freedom" very differently, and seeing the right to it as requiring different stipulations because we're using different definitions.

 

[Misty_Morning]

.....

 

[CrimsonMaiden]

Damn, I was hoping this thread was about my favorite Sci-Fi Channel original series.

 

[impressive]

I think I've figured out where the essential philosophical divide is between some of us here on issues like politics and responsibility and commerce and etc. For the longest time it was being put out that the difference was a matter of maturity or empathy or morality or intelligence or reasoning. But I think that's window-dressing.

I think we're just having a problem because we're defining "freedom" very differently, and seeing the right to it as requiring different stipulations because we're using different definitions.

I simply think it's due to differences in our transmitters and receivers. Communication is a tricky thing, fraught with peril.

 

[DeeZire]

I think we're just having a problem because we're defining "freedom" very differently, and seeing the right to it as requiring different stipulations because we're using different definitions.

I think some of us are using 'freedom' as an excuse to ignore moral values for the benefit of the individual who stands to gain from the suspension of these values - usually at the expense of the greater good of society. In other words, 'freedom' is just a weighted word for 'selfish'.

 

[elsol]

*burp*

I think where we differ is how we define an invasion to freedom.

Someone (i think gauche) said that either you accept taxation as an act that a government can rightly do or you do not-- if you do, then it's negotiation when the government can/cannot tax. Can the government 'take' your money in the form of taxation or not... because in taxation the government isn't asking me. If I voted for Gore in the last election, it doesn't mean that Bush and Republicans have to 'ask' me to volunteer my dollars in the form of taxes.

Taxation is not by itself an invasion of our freedom... it's only the reason for taxation that makes it an invasion or not.

I might think that the taxation for the proper upkeep of the military to defend the country (and me) is not an invasion of my freedom.
A pacifist who thinks that force is never justified, even in the act of self-defense, might think that taxation for that purpose is an invasion of his freedom.

Amicus thinks that taxation for public education is a violation of freedom.

I think that lazy & fair market will not educate the poor -- and thus we'll have a whole mob of poor people out there who haven't been socialized to accept that the reason I have stuff and they don't is 'cause that's the American way... and they're going to get all cranky because nobody snow--err--socialized them into that whole right to property thing and they might or probably will come to think that maybe they should just take my stuff... and there's more of them than me or even people with as much stuff as me... so to me taxing me to indoctir--err--sociali---err---educate people is a guaranteer of my freedom and not an invasion of it -- but it's probably because Amicus is a pure soul where as I would, in fact, drop you for your shit.

*shrug*

Or maybe adults just disagree just like children do.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think some of us are using 'freedom' as an excuse to ignore moral values for the benefit of the individual who stands to gain from the suspension of these values - usually at the expense of the greater good of society. In other words, 'freedom' is just a weighted word for 'selfish'.

I think that might be true. I also think there are too many instances of people using "freedom" to mean "being given enough to do what I want"--kinda like saying "I want to be free to travel, so someone must provide me a plane!"

 

[amicus]

I knew there was some reason my ears were burning, Elsol has taken my name in vain yet again and doesn't realize I am a marksman with an attitude also, ahem.

There are some kids, like half the population, on the bell curve who neither need, want or can absorb forced education in any sector, public or private.

They are perfectly content and desire to be out of the classroom at an early age and gainfully employed or apprenticing for a trade by which to sustain their own lives.

It is cruel and inhuman punishment to force these children to a classroom just to keep the teachers Unions happy and well fed.

You know that as well as I do, you old scoundrel! Stop talking about me behind me back!

Amicus...

 

[bluebell]

I find myself wondering whether there aren't times when we cannot separate out the person from the discussion.
Since we each have varying levels of shared intimacies here it's easy to look at words and become inflamed- especially if they're being offered by someone you find to be of disparate ilk from yourself. *nod-nod, wink-wink an' all*
I rarely (who am I kidding? Never. I never do) wade into incendiary threads with a post but I find that it's easier for me to step back even from reading at times to say, "Okay, what is the matter at hand and what is just this person being this person?" and then letting it go at that point. Which is the cloak and which is the sweater?

That is all.

 

[amicus]

"disparate ilk" why does that sound familiar...grins (you, my dear, lurk!)

ami

 

[elsol]

I knew there was some reason my ears were burning, Elsol has taken my name in vain yet again and doesn't realize I am a marksman with an attitude also, ahem.

There are some kids, like half the population, on the bell curve who neither need, want or can absorb forced education in any sector, public or private.

They are perfectly content and desire to be out of the classroom at an early age and gainfully employed or apprenticing for a trade by which to sustain their own lives.

It is cruel and inhuman punishment to force these children to a classroom just to keep the teachers Unions happy and well fed.

You know that as well as I do, you old scoundrel! Stop talking about me behind me back!

Amicus...

See amicus... I don't disagree with you.

Except there's going to be a half of the population that aren't educated and then along comes them damn evil liberal commie bastards and these poor uneducated bastards are going be convinced of stuff that just ain't right.

I mean seriously... my little brother is one of those kids -- when we were kids I could convince him that he did the things that I did and to go take his beating from mom like a good little soldier (I called it the Jedi Mind Trick.)

So you're trying to convince that leaving half the population educationally defenseless against the evil liberal commie bastards is a good thing... I just can't go there without some other method of socializing so that the ELCB's can't just swoop in and convince them that taking my shit is easier than earning their own shit.

Maybe we could take away their right to vote and own guns...

 

[bluebell]

"disparate ilk" why does that sound familiar...grins (you, my dear, lurk!)

ami

I do indeed, good sir.

 

[amicus]

Elsol..I learned an amazing thing about the market place, freedom, at the age of eight, but it took another ten years before I understood what I had learned.

I had my first job at 8 years of age and have not been without employment since. I discovered that if your did good work, you got paid. If you did bad work, you got fired.

Basically that is it in a nutshell.

I also learned that if you took someone else's stuff, you got your ass kicked.

And the reverse, if someone tries to take your stuff, you learn how to kick ass.

The free market does that for a fella, gratis, no fee charged, no teacher needed.

Extrapolate and you end up with a free market that discovers the PC, even when the big boy, IBM, says, nah, not worth it.

Amazin', ain't it?

ami

 

[DeeZire]

I had my first job at 8 years of age and have not been without employment since. I discovered that if your did good work, you got paid. If you did bad work, you got fired.

It works the same way in the ghetto - you do good work selling drugs, you get paid, you do bad work selling drugs you get shot. Unfortunately, that's more or less the only work you can find in the ghetto - unless you consider stealing other people's stuff 'work'. Is selling drugs and stealing other people's stuff part of the free market model? If so, doesn't the stealing part infringe on the freedom of others?

What if you do find a minimum wage job in the ghetto, but you can't afford to live anywhere so you are forced to get roommates? Doesn't that limit your freedom? Wouldn't this indicate that the free market model only works for some people, leaving many others imprisoned in poverty?

I'm so confused. I honestly can't understand what the free market has to do with freedom, other than sharing the word 'free'. We could just as easily be free in a socialist/democracy, where everyone earns a living wage, has a place to live, votes. A place where the unemployed work for the public sector in exchange for their food stamps and their tent under the bridge. A place where the mentally ill get cared for and veterans get prompt healthcare. A place where the addicted get free drugs, which would lower the crime rate to the point that the police forces would shrink, thereby ensuring even more freedom for law abiding citizens who want to form a religious cult, have ten wives and abuse their offspring. Why would this kind of freedom be a bad thing?

 

[amicus]

DeeZire: "...I'm so confused. I honestly can't understand what the free market has to do with freedom, other than sharing the word 'free'. We could just as easily be free in a socialist/democracy, where everyone earns a living wage, has a place to live, votes. A place where the unemployed work for the public sector in exchange for their food stamps and their tent under the bridge. A place where the mentally ill get cared for and veterans get prompt healthcare. A place where the addicted get free drugs, which would lower the crime rate to the point that the police forces would shrink, thereby ensuring even more freedom for law abiding citizens who want to form a religious cult, have ten wives and abuse their offspring. Why would this kind of freedom be a bad thing?..."

~~~

Taking you at your word, that you are, ahm, confused...

Freedom means you don't have to remain in the ghetto.

When young people leave home, the care of their parents, they carry the set of values they learned with them.

I have been watching a PBS series, "Carrier". One of the episodes featured a young black girl, around twenty years old. She spoke to the camera and said her father was a pimp, her mother a prostitute, her sister pregnant at age 16, drugs rampant, brother in jail; there are worse circumstances I could imagine of course, but that seems pretty damned hopeless.

She is in the Navy, aboard ship, apparently doing well and said, "I had to break away somehow or end up like them..."

Those 'values', I mentioned earlier, can be defined and you can look them up just by the dictionary definitions, perhaps beginning with honest or integrity. If you follow each reference to the roots of the words, then you will get a grasp on why some people lead different lives than others.

My point here is that values are a matter of choice. Choice is only available under a free society, including a free market place where each is free to make decisions.

The 'free market', capitalism, is merely an extension of human freedom moved into the area of acquiring the goods and services you choose.

If there is only one brand of cereal on the grocery shelf, you have no choice.

If you are forced to go to school, do national service, into the draft, then you have no choice, no freedom.

If there is only one state approved automobile you can purchase, you have no choice.

Guess that is enough to bore just about everyone...

amicus...

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I knew there was some reason my ears were burning, Elsol has taken my name in vain yet again and doesn't realize I am a marksman with an attitude also, ahem.

There are some kids, like half the population, on the bell curve who neither need, want or can absorb forced education in any sector, public or private.

They are perfectly content and desire to be out of the classroom at an early age and gainfully employed or apprenticing for a trade by which to sustain their own lives.

It is cruel and inhuman punishment to force these children to a classroom just to keep the teachers Unions happy and well fed.

You know that as well as I do, you old scoundrel! Stop talking about me behind me back!

Amicus...

I partly agree with you. There are some who are are mostly just wasting their time and using up space and other resources in school, but a lot less than half the students. After learning to read and write and do ordinary arithmetic, they would be better off in trade schools or apprenticeship programs. They can do well enough for themselves there and it would be more interesting and lucrative for them. They would also not be stigmatized as dropouts.

 

[amicus]

SPA..nice to have even a partial agreement....



amicus...

 

[DeeZire]

My point here is that values are a matter of choice. Choice is only available under a free society, including a free market place where each is free to make decisions.

However, in the case of the ghetto, the values come with the territory. It is common knowledge that in the ghetto, getting good grades is not 'cool'. Getting good grades gets your ass kicked. The ghetto is a direct result of the free market, so the shitty values come from the free market.

If you are forced to go to school, do national service, into the draft, then you have no choice, no freedom.

In your example, the only way that teenaged girl could get out of the ghetto was via national service. However, as stated above, "if you are forced to do national service, then you have no choice." Although the girl was not forced to do national service, it was the only way out of her predicament. So, by your definition, she's not free.

The 'free market', capitalism, is merely an extension of human freedom moved into the area of acquiring the goods and services you choose.

What if you can't afford the goods and services you choose, because the free market has you trapped in a low wage job? Are you still free?

The free market is a great ideology, but in practice, it fails. If everyone was to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' and get a good job, who would do all the shitty jobs? The economy can't survive without the shitty jobs. The economy is like a pyramid. Pull the bottom layer out and there's no foundation.

You never did explain why my example of socialism/democracy wouldn't foster more freedom than the free market. That is my point - freedom is not dependent on a free market, it's dependent on justice. Unfortunately, justice is for sale in a free market, making freedom impossible for those who can't afford it.

 

[elsol]

It works the same way in the ghetto - you do good work selling drugs, you get paid, you do bad work selling drugs you get shot. Unfortunately, that's more or less the only work you can find in the ghetto - unless you consider stealing other people's stuff 'work'. Is selling drugs and stealing other people's stuff part of the free market model? If so, doesn't the stealing part infringe on the freedom of others?

*cough*

I believe in Ami's model--drugs in the ghetto aren't really possible as they exist now.

You see, a non-interfering government does not make a substance illegal, thus the gang thing goes away because Coca-Cola can distribute making the corner bodega the local hookup. Effectively, this eliminates gangs because Coca-Cola can make it far cheaper than any drug lord that has to avoid the law.

Of course, now we're up to the rational self-interest and why would Coca-Cola sell crack... other than because there's money in it and if the consumer has the choice and he chooses to use crack then really why not let someone make profit from it legally.

I might be moral (not!) and rational, but it's irrational for me not to make a profit from self-destruction of others... that's like blaming the car salesman because someone pays sticker price AND doesn't bargain for a lower interest rate on the car loan... if you're going to bend over and spread'em, then it's not gay to fuck you.

 

[amicus]

Re reading an old book my son left, Terry Goodkind, "Wizard's First Rule", fantasy novel with magic and such and the old wizard just said, "Nothing is ever easy." to end a chapter.

You don't sound confused, you sound sure of yourself and your philosophy and I sense you don't really want an explanation of any of my premises, you just want to reject them.

However it has been a while since I attempted this and perhaps, like BlueBell, perhaps someone is quietly lurking to see if I can present a suitable answer to your questions about human freedom and how essential it is to have.

However, in the case of the ghetto, the values come with the territory. It is common knowledge that in the ghetto, getting good grades is not 'cool'. Getting good grades gets your ass kicked. The ghetto is a direct result of the free market, so the shitty values come from the free market.

Values do not come with the territory. Values, defined, exist regardless of the environment. Your 'common knowledge' fails you here, as many, many people overcome the circumstance they were born into. Lower class 'slums' are not a product of the free market, they exist everywhere, regardless of the economic system in play. I suggested going to a dictionary and defining these words for yourself so we can speak the same language. If you define values as being relative to the environment one finds oneself in then, you can never communicate with anyone outside that environment.

Words have a history, they identify specific concepts and have specific and absolute meanings. The function of language is to discover the meaning of those words and use them accurately. If you cannot do that, you cannot communicate with anyone else.

In your example, the only way that teenaged girl could get out of the ghetto was via national service. However, as stated above, "if you are forced to do national service, then you have no choice." Although the girl was not forced to do national service, it was the only way out of her predicament. So, by your definition, she's not free.

My example, was just that, an example, as it had just happened and was in my mind. I might well have offered you an immigrant from Europe, arriving at Ellis Island around the turn of the 20th century, not speaking the language, penniless and setting forth in a new land without a clue as to how he would survive.

Some of those immigrants found housing with people from their 'old' country or a room in what you would call a 'ghetto', perhaps in the clothing manufacturing district of New York. Some went to Pittsburgh or Detroit perhaps and worked in the steel mills or coal mines. Some did as you imply, found themselves trapped in the ghetto, but as others made their way out, it is a matter of personal values and not the environment that was the deciding factor.

In the case of my example, the black girl, the military was not her only avenue of escape but it was the one she 'chose', so, you see, she did have a choice and was and is free, to make other choices.

As a plug for my side, let me remind you that those millions of immigrants came to America because of the choices available under a free market system. Just having that system does not guarantee success to all, it merely offers one the opportunity to take advantage of ones own abilities and pursue a course of your choice.

The free market is a great ideology, but in practice, it fails. If everyone was to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' and get a good job, who would do all the shitty jobs? The economy can't survive without the shitty jobs. The economy is like a pyramid. Pull the bottom layer out and there's no foundation.

"Shitty jobs", as you call them, introductory level employment, was tough for me, I had a bunch of them. Mentioned stoop labor, there was also box boy in a grocery store, stock boy in a hardware store, bucking hay on a farm, setting irrigation pipe, milking 35 cows at a dairy, which included shoveling cow shit, cleaning 5,000 chicken coops 18 inches tall, I had to crawl on hands and knees for that, many more of a similar nature, but that should suffice.

I figured out soon enough that the 'shitty jobs' were not my life's ambition. Fortunately, I lived in the United States of America, and although some of the doors I chose to try, were very difficult to open, y'know what? They did open.

The amazing thing about a free market and a free economy, is that the innovative powers of individual men was set free to find ways to eliminate those 'shitty jobs'. Perhaps as a starting point, steam power replacing horse power. Now this really upset those in the horse trade, but it was progress, more effective, more efficient and more productive and more profitable for all concerned, owners and workers.

Not only that, it was humane. It eliminated horse and men as beasts of burden and put the heavy labor on machinery.

Thus capitalism, the free market, is a humanizing system for mankind and as such is a virtue and a value.

What if you can't afford the goods and services you choose, because the free market has you trapped in a low wage job? Are you still
free?

In a free market you are never trapped in a low wage job. I worked, as a boy, for fifty cents an hour doing stoop labor in a bean field and berry patch. Low wage jobs, introductory jobs are a means to learn skills and increase the value you have to offer to a prospective employer. I earned a dollar an hour the second week on the job because I could drive a tractor.

The 'goods and services', I could afford at those wages fell somewhat beneath the luxury level, but if my eyes were set on better quality things, the pathway was there to take because it was the free market and we are all upwardly mobile if we choose. There is no European Class system in a free society.

You never did explain why my example of socialism/democracy wouldn't foster more freedom than the free market. That is my point - freedom is not dependent on a free market, it's dependent on justice. Unfortunately, justice is for sale in a free market, making freedom impossible for those who can't afford it.

Again, you need to go to the dictionary and define your terms, especially 'freedom' 'free market', and 'justice'.

Why 'free will' is a value is a question. You need to understand what makes human different than animals. I think that requires a discussion of human psychology and the workings of the mind.

I don't know that anyone applauds absolute slavery, do you? Wherein a human being is totally under the control of another. Where every choice of his life is made for him. There was a sect in formal philosophy, a while back that went under the guise of, 'freedom is slavery'.

What they meant by that was that relieving a man of the necessity of thinking, of making choices, of choosing how to live his life, you were actually setting him free.

You have to think on that one for a while, but some actually believed and taught that.

Basically, that is the definition of socialism. A cradle to grave situation where all of a human beings choices are made for him; he never has to make a single decision, just follow rules and do as he is told and everything is provided for him.

A 'social democracy', modified mob rule, is just a lesser degree of socialism wherein 'most', not 'all' of your decisions are made for you. You can gauge the degree by the amount of time you must work each day to pay the extortion those in power remove from your paycheck.

Not that it matters....but for what it is...


amicus....

 

[elsol]

Elsol..I learned an amazing thing about the market place, freedom, at the age of eight, but it took another ten years before I understood what I had learned.

I had my first job at 8 years of age and have not been without employment since. I discovered that if your did good work, you got paid. If you did bad work, you got fired.

Basically that is it in a nutshell.

I also learned that if you took someone else's stuff, you got your ass kicked.

And the reverse, if someone tries to take your stuff, you learn how to kick ass.

The free market does that for a fella, gratis, no fee charged, no teacher needed.

Extrapolate and you end up with a free market that discovers the PC, even when the big boy, IBM, says, nah, not worth it.

Amazin', ain't it?

ami

See that's the probelm.

I look at your example and reach the conclusion: "Amicus learned."

Your somehow going to: "People will learn."

No -- your example only proves that "Amicus learned."

I would be willing to stretch it to "People CAN learn." But the "Market will teach & people will learn...", not proven by a singular entity learning... the person next to you could be retarded.

There's the issue... You stretch your experience to others because you have this fantastic view of humanity.

Me ... I look at myself and look around and reach the conclusion "Generally, people are stupid. Fuck, I've been known to do stupid shit myself especially when it comes to women... but some of these idiots take stupidity to a whole new level!" (I have actually stood there looking at motherfuckers thinking "I have to consider the possibility that I am the odd one here... because no one else is looking at this person like they should be taken out and shot for their own good.)

Your world sounds fantastic... but before we go there, I want a moat & big and thick walls (preferably electrified) & LOTS of big (preferably with a few BFG's thrown in.)

 

[amicus]

ElSol, your sarcasm is rampant this eve.

Being an advocate of human freedom, I have stated before that the State should have no authority to restrict, control or ban the use of any substance.

The fear of society, for the past hundred and fifty years or so, has been that if people were free to indulge in such things as Opium, they would become lazy and unproductive and remain stoned night and day.

Some probably would. But I imagine the percentage of true 'stoners' would remain about the same if all substance were legal.

No, I don't want them taxed, or controlled or regulated, totally free market enterprise.

Cost would go down, crime would diminish and the overdoses would eventually weed out the rest.

I mentioned this before a few years back, no one seemed to agree, I wonder why?

Amicus...

 

[elsol]

ElSol, your sarcasm is rampant this eve.

Being an advocate of human freedom, I have stated before that the State should have no authority to restrict, control or ban the use of any substance.

The fear of society, for the past hundred and fifty years or so, has been that if people were free to indulge in such things as Opium, they would become lazy and unproductive and remain stoned night and day.

Some probably would. But I imagine the percentage of true 'stoners' would remain about the same if all substance were legal.

No, I don't want them taxed, or controlled or regulated, totally free market enterprise.

Cost would go down, crime would diminish and the overdoses would eventually weed out the rest.

I mentioned this before a few years back, no one seemed to agree, I wonder why?

Amicus...

In the drug case, it's not sarcasm.

If you tell me: "Hey ElSol, eat some of this rat poison...", your going to have issues real quick.

Drugs are rat poison and yet people do them -- Fuck, Daryl Strawberry, worth millions and give more talent in a fucking game than anyone should rightfully be born with destroyed himself with the shit and mofo's still start doing it.

It's not worth it to me--fuck it, if you're an adult and you want to eat rat poison, then have fucking at it. That's evolution, baby! Let's keep the genetic pool strong.

 

[amicus]

ElSol:

"...See that's the probelm.

I look at your example and reach the conclusion: "Amicus learned."

Your somehow going to: "People will learn."

No -- your example only proves that "Amicus learned."

I would be willing to stretch it to "People CAN learn." But the "Market will teach & people will learn...", not proven by a singular entity learning... the person next to you could be retarded.

There's the issue... You stretch your experience to others because you have this fantastic view of humanity...."

Didn't think I had anymore to offer after that long rant El, but your statement requires a response, I think, and if not me, then whom?

According to you and what you posted, then no one can learn and no one can teach anything to anyone at anytime.

Do you really think that?

I know you don't of course. All you have to do is look around you at the marvels man has created by learning the exact same things I did.

And they learned it in entirely different circumstances than mine.

That is because 'reality' is everywhere and we all can learn from it.

It is no doubt more difficult to overcome some situations than others, the 'ghetto' example and my poverty stricken farm boy scenario are surely different, but the same reality exists for both.

Ah, well, has been a long evening...


Amicus...

 

[patrick1]

freedom, liberalism and libertarianism

Haven't butted in on one of these chats for a while...

Some stray observations. You can be freedom-loving in the sense of 'libertarian' and then be of the left or right, as I see it. For instance, I regard myself as a libertarian socialist. So I completely agree with amicus about compulsory schooling. Schools beyond a certain age are prisons.

But I completely disagree with him about the free market, which I regard as a self-justifying myth, when every known market is riddled with power-relations that make it unfree. (All the same it's a damned good system, if tempered by good regulation, lots of the time, and a sight better than State communism)

Another thought. As often here on Lit, this is a very USA-centred debate. An odd thing about freedom in the USA is that it seems to depend on a fantastically high level of imprisonment: more people per head of the population are in jail in the USA than in any other developed country except for Russia. What are the (usually hidden) values that say that it's ok to deprive such a large proportion of the population of their freedom? (Alas, this malaise has spread to British shores in the last ten years, our prisons are bursting at the seams)

patrick