What is the world coming to. I think lenin must be spinning in his grave. A Russian Prime Minister (and former head of the KGB) Vladimir Putin, is actually lecturing the West (albeit indirectly targeting the US) and the rest of the world about the dangers of socialism!!! The below is a quote from a speech Putin delivered at the opening ceremony of the world economic forum in switzerland. The link is for the full transcript.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123317069332125243.html


"Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake.

True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state."

Yeah...As much as I love me some mother russia, Putin doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Maybe after he pulls his country out of the rut it's in sombody will give him a ear.

Which, in a way, makes him ideal to point this out as he has has directly witnessed to the results of state interference.

Especially as he has helped create them.

LuciusAR wrote:Which, in a way, makes him ideal to point this out as he has has directly witnessed to the results of state interference.

The thing to remember about Putin is that everything he does is because he believes it plays well in domestic politics. Sure, everyone is political, but with most politicians you'll see genuine plans checked by political realities. Putin has nothing but the desire to build his own political base.

Putin isn't an idiot, so he almost definitely knows there is a vast difference between a state controlled Stalinist economy and the state temporarily purchasing assets... but it's unlikely his domestic audience knows or cares for the difference. What they see is Putin the big man telling the West how it needs to be done.

No no no people.... don’t listen to history, don’t learn from history.

Obama is different... he is HOPE, he is CHANGE. And although his programs are the same thing just with a different name, he will make them work.

Soon, all will be better. The government knows best and shall fix all your problems..... All we have to do is trust in the HOPE that lord obama brings to the world.

Envy89 wrote:No no no people.... don’t listen to history, don’t learn from history.

Obama is different... he is HOPE, he is CHANGE. And although his programs are the same thing just with a different name, he will make them work.

Soon, all will be better. The government knows best and shall fix all your problems..... All we have to do is trust in the HOPE that lord obama brings to the world.

Could you at least pretend to relate your rhetoric to the conversation?

No he can't, because he doesn't want to. It's easy to just throw out cheap political low blows than actually making a valid point that can be debated. It's just taking the easy way out.

Sadly, the unfortunate progression of any democracy is towards an authoritarian form of government. The old joke sums it up best.

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”.

Greater regulation = less individual freedom.

Regulatory creep: A politician’s natural tendency is to stay in office. To stay in office they have to be seen as being effective. To be seen as being effective they have to pass laws. The more laws that are passed, the more society is regulated. The more a society is regulated the larger government has to get. The larger government is, the more powerful it is. The more power a government has, the less power the governed have. And throughout history, once a power has been appropriated by a government, that government has always been loathe to give it up.

There are always more mid level or poor in a society than there are rich. Which means in any democracy, the poor and middle class will always outnumber the wealthy. The poor and middle class will be the two wolves and the sheep will be the wealthy. So on average, in a democracy, the party that represents the poor and middle class will maintain power more frequently than the party that represents the more well off. As such they will continually vote to implement policies that favor taking more resources from the wealthy and redistributing those resources to the poor and middle class. To gain access to these resources, the government has to pass more laws and regulations. For example, the government will slant the income taxes to hit the wealthiest harder than the non wealthy.

A republic, which is a democratic form of government, but is not a democracy, will resist this trend longer than a pure democracy. A republic has more safeguards for a minority group than does a pure democracy. However, even a republic will still have a natural tendency to behave like a democracy, it will just take longer to occur.

The power of a government can lessen over time, typically through corruption, an outside entity acting upon that government, or a general collapse of the society itself. This is what happened to the Soviet Union. (it was more a combination of the three). But failing a catastrophic change enforced on a government, the tendency of the government is to grow and repress.

Unfortunately, the tendency of the US has been to move toward socialism and a more repressive government. If the founding fathers could see what the Federal Government of the United States has become they would be horrified.

Socialism isn't about government regulation as much as government ownership, I think. I also feel that regulation doesn't impact individual rights as much as something like the patriot act. I also belive with a more librial washington thing will get less repressive than more. I.E. Gay rights and Inclusion of other/non religions. I think the founding fathers would look at all the United states has survived, it's growth from 13 colonies to 50 states, Its defeat of evil in WW2 and the cold war, it's march to equal rights and the status of the worlds strongest power and be anything but horrified. I agree with 90% of your points though.

If an individual own something he or she has control over the disposition of that thing. If you own a house, you can sell it, rent it, or use it, or do whatever you want with it. You have the final say in what happens to it.

However, when a government starts regulating things, they take away some of the control that the owner has. For example, if I own a house, the government impose property taxes. If I do not pay those taxes among other things, a lien will be placed on that property, and you will not be able to sell it. You have lost a measure of control over your property. That control has passed to the government. Even though the title is still in your name, you do not control it. Therefore the government owns part of the house.

More regulations= More government control=more government ownership.

Remember the distrust of government authority is what drove the founding fathers. They would look at the gains this society has made, and maybe even approve of all of them, but still be horrified at the cost it took to achieve them. All of the things you mentioned only occurred as a result of the expansion and growth in power of a centralized federal government. Of which they were rightly afraid.

Mango wrote:There are always more mid level or poor in a society than there are rich. Which means in any democracy, the poor and middle class will always outnumber the wealthy. The poor and middle class will be the two wolves and the sheep will be the wealthy. So on average, in a democracy, the party that represents the poor and middle class will maintain power more frequently than the party that represents the more well off. As such they will continually vote to implement policies that favor taking more resources from the wealthy and redistributing those resources to the poor and middle class. To gain access to these resources, the government has to pass more laws and regulations. For example, the government will slant the income taxes to hit the wealthiest harder than the non wealthy.

Your assumption that individuals vote purely on personal gain is simplistic. Your assumption that voting power automatically equates to influence on legislation is very naive.

Look, for the longest time there was considerable voter support for a single pay health system in the US. But it was never a reality on the political scene until US manufacturing started looking into the cost of employer provided healthcare. Once corporations found it was in their best interest to change systems it appeared on the political radar again.

Sebster,
Did I say that every vote is on personal gain? No I did not. I said on average people will vote in their own self-interest. Is economic gain an interest to a person? Yes.

Voting power does indeed have an impact on legislation. If a senator or congressman passes legislation that is against what his or her constituents want, that point will most assuredly be brought up next time they run for office. A prime example is Arlen Specter. He will now face a primary battle for nomination to the US senate in 2010, based purely on his support for the stimulus bill. He went against the wishes of his constituets, and will likely pay a price for it in 2010. That is indeed an impact on legislation. If voted out of office, a politician can no longer legislate.

Considerable voter support does not equate to enough voter support to get the bill passed. If voters truly wanted health care, the democrats would not have lost control of congress in 1994. Ergo, there was voter support of universal health care, but not majority support. Corporations in America already pay one of the highest corporate tax rates in the Western world. Corporations know that universal health care will be expensive. Corporations know that to raise revenue, the politicians will raise taxes on the corporations. The more the corporations have to pay in taxes, the more they have to raise their prices. The more they raise their prices the less consumers can afford to buy. This hurts the profit a company makes. So tell me how again it is in a corporations best interest to see universal health care? I would post that the naïve and simplistic view is your own, Sebster

Our distrust of the government is seen in the short terms they are allowed to serve. As for the house thing, The government has a right to any and all land it "needs" for roads or railroads. It has claim to all land, you can't declare your spot of land not part of the us or make your own laws. So if you don't pay your taxes they can take it. What you pay for is the right to the land from all others besides Uncle sam.

Property tax is levied at the local level, bro.

You also should keep in mind that even more than the US, the Russian people need for their political leaders to make bold declarative statements. They would rather have a leader who seems strong but makes some mistakes than one who seems to be overly cautious or worse, conciliatory.

So the land can get taken but the city but not the fed? Hmmm I must have been taught wrong. In any case It's still Uncle sam.

sexiest_hero wrote:Our distrust of the government is seen in the short terms they are allowed to serve. As for the house thing, The government has a right to any and all land it "needs" for roads or railroads. It has claim to all land, you can't declare your spot of land not part of the us or make your own laws. So if you don't pay your taxes they can take it. What you pay for is the right to the land from all others besides Uncle sam.

That is like saying a person being mugged does not own the property being taken from them, the mugger owns it. The person being mugged just "owns" it from everyone but the person doing the mugging. A person owns property. A government has the ability to take it from them because the government has the power to.

avantgarde wrote:Property tax is levied at the local level, bro.

Yes property taxes in the US are levied at the local level. However is the local government still a government. My position stands. That was one example. The same would hold true for an income tax. Or any form of tax. It is the government taking by force or threat of force, the property of an individual.

I am not an anarchist. I know that some form of government is needed for a society to function. However the sheer size, scope, and reach of the government, is a direct concern. That is why the founding father's fought the revolution in the first place.

First off, let's back a little off of the whole "if the founding fathers saw our government they'd be horrified" line of reasoning. The founders hoped the government would last a generation or two. Even if the country had split over slavery in the civil war they would have been pretty impressed with how long it lasted. That the government they put into place has adapted and changed and yes, grown to meet the needs of a vastly different country than when the constitution was ratified would make them beyond proud.

The founders were learned men, and men of reason. They knew that change was coming, but they didn't know the extent to which industrialization and urbanization would have on American political life. Remember 20 years ago, when everybody though the next big thing in computers would be Virtual Reality, and the internet completely blew VR out of the water? That's what happened to our government. It was established to govern a nation of yeoman farmers, not a post industrial empire.

you can argue the good or ill of any given policy, but not even Jefferson would say that all governmental growth is bad. In fact, he'd probably be just as shocked at the extent to which government helps business as he would by the extent to which government regulates business.

Polonius,
Where did you come up with the idea that the founding father's only intended the country to last a generation or two? I have read many of the papers written by the founding father's. The ideas of freedom and limited government are throughout. However, no where did I see anything to the effect that they only intended the US to last a generation or two.

I think he meant they wanted the country to be around for awhile.

I am sure they did want the country to be around for a while. That is why they went through the whole exercise called the American Revolution. I also know, that they intended that the document could be changed over time, which is why they included provisions on changing the constitution. However they were quite explicit in the 10th amendment of the Bill of rights.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

Yet a lot of our current government is not mentioned as a power by the Constitution. Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, EPA, DHHS, DHS, CIA, NSA. NEA, NASA. Social Security, Medicare. I could go on, but you get the idea. The Federal Government has taken on a great deal more authority than was ever intended.

Yep, or at least intended by those that supported the Bill of Rights.

I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

namegoeshere wrote:I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

If by helping the economy with double digit unemployment and 0-4% annual growth, and crippling tax burdens on those who have jobs supporting the ones that are among the double digit unemployed, as seen in most EU nations, then yes, lefty lefty governments do indeed help the economy.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Hmm, I actually don't know where i read that they weren't expecting the US to last long in the form they created. I should have been more specific, I suppose.

I think they were men who realized that nations didn't always stick around. The US was weak compared to the European powers, and the internal struggles were profound. I think that both federalists and anti-federalists were afraid that the loss of sovereignty by the states would lead to conflict, which it did.

My point was that if you showed the founders a nation where the bill of rights were expanded, with universal sufferage, tons of new territory, a strict concept of rule of law, and a strong seperation of church and state they'd be pretty pleased. Add in the fact that we're the most powerful nation in terms of economics, military, science, and overall politcal influence, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any founders rolling in their graves.

It's key to separate their ideals from their politics. I think many would be surprised by the role the federal government would play, but I think they would split, along the same right/left lines that they always did, into those that see the role of the federal government as a good thing, and those that see any expansion as bad. It would become politics, not just philosophy.

My politics are socially very lefty, but economically pretty moderate. I think that the more help a government gives, the more people will expect. I also know that as economies mature and grow and change, the natural rate of unemployment changes, and there are going to be those that simply cannot support themselves through labor. There are two great dangers: encouraging dependence and ignoring unavoidable suffering. It's all grey areas, and we'll probably never find the sweet spot, but arguing that one pole is more clearly preferable is simply naive.

Respectfully, I do not believe it is naive. I believe it is the exact opposite. A priime example of a person believing one system was better than another, and struggled long and hard to change the system was Martin Luther King jr. The system of institutioalized racism was wrong in his view. the opposite view is what the southern democrats wanted. They were the ones that enacted the Jim Crow laws. He did not see civil rights as a grey area. He saw it as wrong and took a stand.

History is repleat with great men and women who argued from one pole or another an achieved great things. People arguing from the middle have achieved little, as a matter of fact, I can think of none. If you can think of examples, I am willing to listen. So again, which is view is naive?

Again, if you think the founding father's would have been so happy or 50/50 happy with our current system, why did they include the 10th amendment?


On a much more lighter note, in one of my previous posts where I listed various govenmental agencies, the built in glossary describes DHS as Daemon Hunters. I did not mean to imply that the Daemon hunters are part of the federal government. (But who knows, maybe they should be.) I was referring to Dept of Homeland Securiity

Again - demon hunters is pretty apt for Homeland Security.

Grey Knights, keeping the airports safe from demonic terror since M39...

According to the glossary, DHS is also a Dark Heresy. I'm wondering about those homeland guys...

I don't know if you misread my post, or are simply trying to bait me, but I shall assume the former. I was speaking only of the issue at hand: the size and reach of the federal government, in my assertion that aruging solely for one pole is naive. There are, or were, times of moral absolutes. Even MLK wasn't arguing for a polar opposite of the current system but a time of simple equality. Equilibrium sounds a bit like the middle, doesn't it? Keep in mind he was operating at time when there were black nationalists who saw violence as one, or possibly the only, way to gain any political say.

In terms of federal politics, neither the right nor the left have any moral absolute that seems compelling to me. It's all about compromise and finding the best way to draw a line in a large gray area.

People that argue from the middle are often remembered as statesmen. Moderates aren't remembered simply because they operate in times of realistic calm, when there are no major concerns. The ones arguing for the middle are the ones that avoid the major problems before the radicals and the reactionaries can get to them.

As for the 10th amendment, I'm not a constitutional scholar but I did take a class in Con Law. The 10th amendment is seen as explicitly stating what a close reading of the text of Article 1 says, which is that Congress (and by extension the entire federal government) is restricted only to those powers it is granted, either explicitly or implicitly. It does not have the power to legislate "for the general welfare" which state's enjoy.

Congress is given two huge ways to work around that. The first is the spending cluase, which says that Congress can spend money how ever it wishes, and by doing so can influence state laws through simple bribery. The drinking age is the best example of that in modern times.

The second work around is the Necessary and Proper clause. Essentially, Congress can enact laws that are necessary to carry out it's enumerated powers. The most common use is in the commerce clause, which states that Congress can regulate all interstate commerce. To do so, Congress finds it necessary to establish a federal bank. Congress can't start banks in the constitution, but since it's necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce, it's allowed.

The commerce clause has by now been bent to almost ludicrous extents, but the Supreme Court only steps in when the relations are extremely tangential.

What the 10th amendment still stands for is the idea that the basic jobs of the state are still conducted state wide. Marriage, education, healthcare, criminal codes, morals, and even Incorporation of business are all still entirely state matters.

The problem with the 10th amendment is that in saying everything, it says nothing. Where do you draw the line between a Necessary and Proper usage of the Commerce clause and a power retained by the states? The only way would be through a very active judiciary, and the courts generally abstain from political questions, and the expansion of the Federal Government is not illegal or unconstitutional, it's simply a political consequence.

As for redundant sections of the constitution, why is there a separate freedom of the press? What rights do the press have that aren't covered by the right to speech? The courts have seldom found any actual rights inherent in the press.

Reading too much into the 10th amendment is the Right's version of the left's obsession with a living constitution stemming from the 14th. Both are simply untenable from the viewpoint of rigorous textual interpretation.

Polonius,
I do not beleive I misread your post nor am I trying to bait you. I was merely pointing out that my earlier statements were not naive, as you seemed to imply. far from it, they are a more realistic and practical viewpoint.

Moderates are not remembered as statesmen. They are not remembered. You failed to name any. Which is my point. Arguing from the middle gets you nowhere. people argue from one extreme or another, and through compromise, end up in the middle. Which means no one is happy.

As for your statements regarding the constitution. That is basically what I am trying to point out. The political parties in control of the US, both democrat and republican, are part of the problem. They have taken liberties and twisted so far out of shape the Necessary and Proper clause, and taken so much leeway with the "regulate interstate" commerce clause, that the government has become a monstrosity that in no way resembles what was intended. Which was a LIMITED government.

The problem with the 10th amendment is not that it says nothing. It is very specific in what it says. Using the logic given in law classes, which you have repeated, and the logic of the lawmakers and lawyers that came up with the interpretation of the "Necassary and Proper" clause is that it would mean essentially, that there are NO limits to the laws that congress can pass. And that my friend is exactly what the people who wrote the constitution did not intend. They specifically wanted to limit what power the government had. Unfortunately, politicians being politicians, both parties do agree on that view of the Necassary and Proper" clause, because any other view would limit their power.

The gentleman who wrote our constitution could not agree on many things. One thing they ALL agreed on was that government needed to be limited. They also knew that a government could not be to weak, as evidenced by the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
Did I say that every vote is on personal gain? No I did not. I said on average people will vote in their own self-interest. Is economic gain an interest to a person? Yes.

Obviously self-interest is an issue. Point is your grand theory assumed only self-interest and nothing else decided votes. That's obviously wrong and a big whole in your grand theory of people voting in more laws to help themselves and hinder the rich.

Voting power does indeed have an impact on legislation. If a senator or congressman passes legislation that is against what his or her constituents want, that point will most assuredly be brought up next time they run for office. A prime example is Arlen Specter. He will now face a primary battle for nomination to the US senate in 2010, based purely on his support for the stimulus bill. He went against the wishes of his constituets, and will likely pay a price for it in 2010. That is indeed an impact on legislation. If voted out of office, a politician can no longer legislate.

Mango wrote:That is like saying a person being mugged does not own the property being taken from them, the mugger owns it. The person being mugged just "owns" it from everyone but the person doing the mugging. A person owns property. A government has the ability to take it from them because the government has the power to.

But you can only claim ownership of the property in the first place because of the laws created and enforced by... you guessed... government.

Mango wrote:Respectfully, I do not believe it is naive. I believe it is the exact opposite. A priime example of a person believing one system was better than another, and struggled long and hard to change the system was Martin Luther King jr. The system of institutioalized racism was wrong in his view. the opposite view is what the southern democrats wanted. They were the ones that enacted the Jim Crow laws. He did not see civil rights as a grey area. He saw it as wrong and took a stand.

History is repleat with great men and women who argued from one pole or another an achieved great things. People arguing from the middle have achieved little, as a matter of fact, I can think of none. If you can think of examples, I am willing to listen. So again, which is view is naive?

That's silly. People advancing centrist views aren't turned into national heroes because there's no heroic struggle to be found in progress advanced through consensus. There are no mobs marching down the streets chanting 'What do we want!?' 'Moderated advancement followed after lengthy productive debate!' When do we want it!?' 'In due course!'

But to argue that no such progress occurs is crazy talk. Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievements, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries. Situations that demand someone like MLK are fortunately pretty rare.

Sebster,
1. Other than self interst what do people vote on?
2. Where do you come up with your 70% support for government run healthcare in the US? It has never been at that level.
3. Loss of congress in 1994 had many factors, Clinton's overreach on healthcare was one major one. That and welfare reform.
4. Those costing studies you mentioned, funny that, the number is actually closer tp $5000, and the bulk of that is spent on healthcare, pensions, and benefits for people who no olonger work for the company. Hmmmmm imagine that. Why did they get that amount? Unions. Unions are heavily tilted socialist.
5. 'Not quite no." Great and logical argument that.
6. Again you are wrong. A government is not required to guarantee property ownership. Force is. Before government, there was property. Otherwise why did primitive man bury items with the dead?
7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievments, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false. Examples.

hitler's rise=> sudden
hitler's fall => sudden

Christianity as the dominant religion of the m,iddle east and north africa=>slow and incremental
The rise and spread of Islam => sudden

Rise of the roman republic=>slow and incremental
Fall of Roman republic =>sudden

Rise and maintance of Feudalism=> Slow and incremental
Collapse of French monarchy=>sudden

Dominance of the catholic Church in Europe=> slow and incremental
Rise of protestantism=>sudden
American Revolution=>Sudden

Rise and maintanence of Czarist russia => slow and incremental
Bolshevik Revolution => sudden

Jim Crow Laws and segregation=>suddenly passed => no change for a long time
MLK jr, civil rights movement=>sudden

Lets hear some examples of slow and incremental progress.

If you plan on making an argument, support it.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
1. Other than self interst what do people vote on?

Ah, now you get to the idea of self-interest vs selfishness. Selfishness is personal gain, voting for something because it would benefit the individual personally regardless of the effect on anyone else. Self-interest is simply what you believe to be the best course of action (for instance I might give money to Amnesty International while you might give money to the Red Cross - neither is more moral or less selfish than the other, just reflecting our own personal priorities).

The issue comes when you started jumping from self-interested voting to assuming people would just vote for their own pocketbooks until the whole society fell down in some Randian fantasy.

2. Where do you come up with your 70% support for government run healthcare in the US? It has never been at that level.

The Harris poll in Oct 2005 put the number between 60 and 75%.
Consumer Watchdog in Feb 2009 put the support at 64%.

3. Loss of congress in 1994 had many factors, Clinton's overreach on healthcare was one major one. That and welfare reform.

And the traditional move in mid-terms away from the party of the president.

But it is a really weird piece of historical non-context to look at the 1994 mid-term elections and see the move towards Republicans and assume it must be because of Clinton's medicare reform. To do so ignores the fact that Clinton won while promising medicare reform, and the 1994 election was held in the wake of the defeat of the Clinton plan.

4. Those costing studies you mentioned, funny that, the number is actually closer tp $5000, and the bulk of that is spent on healthcare, pensions, and benefits for people who no olonger work for the company. Hmmmmm imagine that. Why did they get that amount? Unions. Unions are heavily tilted socialist.

Yeah, it can be as high as $5,000 depending on the study. Now try and follow the point... once corporations realised how much the current scheme was costing them the issue suddenly started getting talked about again in political dialogue. Despite being an issue with broad support in the population going back .

Trying to segue into a rant about them durn unions is disappointing. Not because I'm a fan of unions, I'm not, but because it seemed like the entire reason for you to include that is to try and point score for the right wing over the left wing. I hope you're better than that but now I'm not so sure.

5. 'Not quite no." Great and logical argument that.

Argument to what? I said your initial argument was simplistic and naive, you came back with 'nuh-uh, you are!'. I said that wasn't the case.

6. Again you are wrong. A government is not required to guarantee property ownership. Force is. Before government, there was property. Otherwise why did primitive man bury items with the dead?

Man seems to have had a strong idea of personal property. My watch, your hat. Anything bigger and ownership is a lot less clear... housing and land frequently defaulted to communal ownership, let alone taking a claim of one fourteenth in a factory in a town you've never visited

You might also want to explain why Ugh the Mighty wasn't buried with his patents and copyrights.

7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievments, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false. Examples.

What on God's Earth are prattling about here? You've made a list of famous historical events... to what end? Are you trying to argue against the idea that most progress is small and incidental, undertaken . Why? Some kind of great men of history thing... are you that kind of libertarian? Or are you just saying nuh-uh to anything I post, in the hope that something might stick and you can declare a victory - perhaps instead you might want to go back to your original argument and think what possible relevance this line of argument has to do with any of it.

Meanwhile, let's look at the history and evolution of the car. Cugnot developed the model for a steam powered tractor in 1770, but it was very impractical. Murdoch developed a more practical model in 1784. Trevithick actually put one on the road in 1801. Meanwhile, Kubilin in Russia built a different model, which included seperate design elements still seen in modern cars. Countless others experimented and contributed to the field of knowledge. Many different types of fuel were experimented with, until in 1870 Marcus built one that used gasoline. In 1885 Benz built the first internal combustion engine. Then Daimler built the first car designed from the ground up as a car, not as a horse cart with an engine. Then Benz in Germany built the first production car in 1888. From there you've got countless more start up companies, employing thousands of engineers to keep evolving the design of the car, until you end up with my Mazda 6.

You want another one. I was thinking about doing Australian political history instead, the evolution from colony to independent memeber of the commonwealth. I could if you insist, or you could go back and read what you've argued here, read what you started with... think for a bit and then ask yourself 'what on Earth has my silly claim here got to do with anything in the substance of my actual claim?'

Mango wrote:

namegoeshere wrote:I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

If by helping the economy with double digit unemployment and 0-4% annual growth, and crippling tax burdens on those who have jobs supporting the ones that are among the double digit unemployed, as seen in most EU nations, then yes, lefty lefty governments do indeed help the economy.

Except Europe as a whole is richer than America, has less debt, shorter working weeks, and the unemployed are far more comfortable. America is richer in the sense of having much greater purchasing power for individuals - the tax burden is not crippling.

Mango wrote:
7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievements, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false.

Because the advances we make in science are all just sudden developments, no one at all spends years and years researching stuff. That human genome project, they actually did all the work in about 1 afternoon, and just dragged it out to squeeze as much money out of it as they could. Modern computers ? Actually invented in 1817, it's just the spiteful govt. holding back all the real advancements just to stick it to the people !

Modern democracy and the legal systems we have ? All knocked together in one afternoon on a napkin in a Tacobell.

sebster wrote:

Mango wrote:Sebster,
1. Other than self interst what do people vote on?

Ah, now you get to the idea of self-interest vs selfishness. Selfishness is personal gain, voting for something because it would benefit the individual personally regardless of the effect on anyone else. Self-interest is simply what you believe to be the best course of action (for instance I might give money to Amnesty International while you might give money to the Red Cross - neither is more moral or less selfish than the other, just reflecting our own personal priorities).

The issue comes when you started jumping from self-interested voting to assuming people would just vote for their own pocketbooks until the whole society fell down in some Randian fantasy.

Again I never said the vote only for personal gain. I said they vote for self interest. I did not say they voted based on selfishness. You are stating that I made an argument that I never made. I guess when all else fails make things up.

2. Where do you come up with your 70% support for government run healthcare in the US? It has never been at that level.

When asked if everybody should have health care the poll answer was 75%
When asked if the government should run it and pay for through higher taxes, the number dropped back to around 50%
It is all in how you ask the question.

The Harris poll in Oct 2005 put the number between 60 and 75%.
Consumer Watchdog in Feb 2009 put the support at 64%.

From the gallup poll taken in 2005
"A key to understanding the public's mandate on healthcare is to comprehend that Americans want government intervention that goes just so far. Americans like federal government's involvement in many ways, but balk at the idea of a national healthcare system or plan. A second key is the understanding that almost any plan that forces businesses to provide better healthcare coverage meets with the approval of Americans. A third key is the understanding that Americans' sense of urgency about healthcare depends on the political environment. Worry about healthcare is like potential energy, waiting to be converted to kinetic energy. At the point in which the Clinton administration was proposing a national healthcare fix in 1993 and 1994, the percentage of Americans saying healthcare was the nation's top problem zoomed up, only to fall back with a year. The fact that support for a national healthcare system jumped in 2005 is interesting; future studies will be needed to see if this is a continuing trend."

3. Loss of congress in 1994 had many factors, Clinton's overreach on healthcare was one major one. That and welfare reform.

And the traditional move in mid-terms away from the party of the president.

But it is a really weird piece of historical non-context to look at the 1994 mid-term elections and see the move towards Republicans and assume it must be because of Clinton's medicare reform. To do so ignores the fact that Clinton won while promising medicare reform, and the 1994 election was held in the wake of the defeat of the Clinton plan.

Traditionally they lose some seats, but don't a majority if they have one. The US did not want the country heading toward Socialism, which is where the Clinton was taking us.

4. Those costing studies you mentioned, funny that, the number is actually closer tp $5000, and the bulk of that is spent on healthcare, pensions, and benefits for people who no olonger work for the company. Hmmmmm imagine that. Why did they get that amount? Unions. Unions are heavily tilted socialist.

Yeah, it can be as high as $5,000 depending on the study. Now try and follow the point... once corporations realised how much the current scheme was costing them the issue suddenly started getting talked about again in political dialogue. Despite being an issue with broad support in the population going back .

Trying to segue into a rant about them durn unions is disappointing. Not because I'm a fan of unions, I'm not, but because it seemed like the entire reason for you to include that is to try and point score for the right wing over the left wing. I hope you're better than that but now I'm not so sure.

I am not trying to segue into anything, merely pointing out a flaw in your argument. That of the corporations that wanted healthcare, it was the ones that were heavily unionized. The Unions were driving the corporations to bankruptcy. They were desperate to get out of that. Union organized companies make up a small percentage of US companies, and that number is steadily declining. Unions make the companies uncompetitive, not healthcare.

5. 'Not quite no." Great and logical argument that.

Argument to what? I said your initial argument was simplistic and naive, you came back with 'nuh-uh, you are!'. I said that wasn't the case.

No I gave reasons, you gave nothing. Try again

6. Again you are wrong. A government is not required to guarantee property ownership. Force is. Before government, there was property. Otherwise why did primitive man bury items with the dead?

Man seems to have had a strong idea of personal property. My watch, your hat. Anything bigger and ownership is a lot less clear... housing and land frequently defaulted to communal ownership, let alone taking a claim of one fourteenth in a factory in a town you've never visited

You might also want to explain why Ugh the Mighty wasn't buried with his patents and copyrights.

Ah, so you agree, property came before government.

7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievments, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false. Examples.

What on God's Earth are prattling about here? You've made a list of famous historical events... to what end? Are you trying to argue against the idea that most progress is small and incidental, undertaken . Why? Some kind of great men of history thing... are you that kind of libertarian? Or are you just saying nuh-uh to anything I post, in the hope that something might stick and you can declare a victory - perhaps instead you might want to go back to your original argument and think what possible relevance this line of argument has to do with any of it.

Meanwhile, let's look at the history and evolution of the car. Cugnot developed the model for a steam powered tractor in 1770, but it was very impractical. Murdoch developed a more practical model in 1784. Trevithick actually put one on the road in 1801. Meanwhile, Kubilin in Russia built a different model, which included seperate design elements still seen in modern cars. Countless others experimented and contributed to the field of knowledge. Many different types of fuel were experimented with, until in 1870 Marcus built one that used gasoline. In 1885 Benz built the first internal combustion engine. Then Daimler built the first car designed from the ground up as a car, not as a horse cart with an engine. Then Benz in Germany built the first production car in 1888. From there you've got countless more start up companies, employing thousands of engineers to keep evolving the design of the car, until you end up with my Mazda 6.

You want another one. I was thinking about doing Australian political history instead, the evolution from colony to independent memeber of the commonwealth. I could if you insist, or you could go back and read what you've argued here, read what you started with... think for a bit and then ask yourself 'what on Earth has my silly claim here got to do with anything in the substance of my actual claim?'

The substance of my actual claim still stands. Great change happens suddenly. You again are proving my earlier points of legislative creep. Slow change in politics results in s steady eroding of freedom. So thank you for agreeing with that part of my argument. As for scientific progress, yes that happens in incremental steps wiith sudden leaps. But we were not talking of scientific progress were we, we were talking about social and economic progress.

namegoeshere wrote:

Mango wrote:

namegoeshere wrote:I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

If by helping the economy with double digit unemployment and 0-4% annual growth, and crippling tax burdens on those who have jobs supporting the ones that are among the double digit unemployed, as seen in most EU nations, then yes, lefty lefty governments do indeed help the economy.

Except Europe as a whole is richer than America, has less debt, shorter working weeks, and the unemployed are far more comfortable. America is richer in the sense of having much greater purchasing power for individuals - the tax burden is not crippling.

Using 2005 as the benchmark, since that is the last year of data from the eu webpage
EU population: 493 million
US population: 295 million
That puts the total population of the US as roughly 40% of the EU

GDP of the EU in 2005
10957.9 Billion Euros
GDP of the US in 2005
10011.9 Billion Euros
So by your logic a group of nations with a 40% larger population has a 8.6% higher GDP than the US and that makes you richer? To be on par the EU would have to have a GDP of 14000 Billion Euros. I think Europe falls a wee bit short of that.

reds8n wrote:

Mango wrote:
7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievements, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false.

Because the advances we make in science are all just sudden developments, no one at all spends years and years researching stuff. That human genome project, they actually did all the work in about 1 afternoon, and just dragged it out to squeeze as much money out of it as they could. Modern computers ? Actually invented in 1817, it's just the spiteful govt. holding back all the real advancements just to stick it to the people !

Modern democracy and the legal systems we have ? All knocked together in one afternoon on a napkin in a Tacobell.

Again we are progress in politics and economics, not science. Please compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. The changes in technology do not follow the changes in social or economic terms. Technological advancement follows a more logorithmic curve. Economies and politics do not.

But that's (one of) the essential flaws in your argument. You don't get progress in one without progress in the others. Something you spectacularly fail to account for.

For example the rise to power of Hitler -- and we're only on page 2 of the thread, damn you Godwin!-- didn't just happen suddenly and unexpectedly, it was the result of many things dating back to ( mainly) the end of WW I and the policies and events that followed.

And "why did man bury thinsg with the dead" ?... err.... religion .

namegoeshere wrote:

Mango wrote:

namegoeshere wrote:I think people are essentially good. Or at least 70% good 30% jerk. Just in response to all the absolutist statements being made.

In Western countries typically lefty lefty gov intervention has helped economies. Lack of it leads to greater peaks and troughs. Though perhaps to some degree that isn't the worst thing.

If by helping the economy with double digit unemployment and 0-4% annual growth, and crippling tax burdens on those who have jobs supporting the ones that are among the double digit unemployed, as seen in most EU nations, then yes, lefty lefty governments do indeed help the economy.

Except Europe as a whole is richer than America, has less debt, shorter working weeks, and the unemployed are far more comfortable. America is richer in the sense of having much greater purchasing power for individuals - the tax burden is not crippling.

Please show me a statistic where the EU is is wealthier than the US, and has less debt.

Please show me a statistic where any nation is wealthier than the US.

Please show me a statistic where any nation is wealthier than the US.

from the CIA factbook

Hi all,
Polonius, Sebster, Frazzled, killkrazy et. al.
I think it is time to take a step back, and sum up my arguments, since the thread itself is getting cluttered with tangents.

Original intent of the post was to point out the irony of the fact that 25 years ago, it was the US lecturing the Russians on the dangers of communism and it’s step child, communist-lite, aka socialism. No the world has turned and the Russians feel the need (however hypocritical) to lecture us on the same topic.

Then I offered a theory on how this came to be. I will now attempt to explain the logic behind my reasoning.

1. The absence of law is anarchy (or Chaos if you will, since that fits in with the whole WH40K thing better than the term anarchy)
2. Anarchy is undesirable for humans
3. If anarchy is undesirable, then organized society is more desirable
4. Chaos by definition, cannot be predicted
5. To be organized something has to follow predictable behavior
6. Rules allow for predictable behavior
7. To have an organized society, a society must have rules.
8. Rules exist to restrict human behavior. (without rules/laws/customs you have anarchy)
9. Rules to serve their purpose, must be enforced, otherwise you have no rule.
10. Whatever the purpose of a rule, it has to have some degree of force to make sure people follow it. (that force can take the form of ostracism, banishment, incarceration, fines, or physical punishment. I will substitute law instead of rule going forward.
11. So ultimately, laws exist to allow a society to function
a. laws work by restricting behavior
b. laws are enforced by the use or threat of force.
12. Governments grew out of the need to have someone enforce the laws.
13. Laws, and by extension, governments are needed to allow a society to function
14. Governments exist in many forms.
15. All have certain elements in common.
a. A government has to have the sole authority to use force
b. A government has to have the sole ability to enact laws
c. A government has to be able to maintain territorial integrity
If a government does not do these three things, it will fail.

What I am arguing is this.
Complete freedom=anarchy
Laws=less freedom
More laws = even less freedom
The bigger the government the more it requires in laws and taxes to function (a tax is the result of a law)
The more laws that are passed, the less free a society is.
No government remains static and survives. To change, a government passes new laws. Rarely do governments get rid of old laws.
So if the original laws are not reduced, and new laws are enacted, then you have more laws than previously. The more laws you have, the less freedom.
Again, I am not arguing the merit of individual laws. I am stating that more laws equals less freedom. A democracy is a government. Every year, a government passes new laws. Every year governments become more intrusive.

In the US this is exactly what has happened. A citizen of the USA today, is less free than a Citizen of 25 years ago, who is less free than a citizen of 50 years ago. They are less free because they are living under progressively more laws. That is not really disputable. That is just factual.

I think here is where most of the arguments can and will take place:

One society can be more free than another, even if both have a government. A prime example would be the Former USSR and the USA. Very few people would argue that the citizens of the USSR had more freedom than the citizens of the USA. The major difference between the two forms of government was the degree of governmental intrusion in the life of individual citizens.

Is one form of government more socially just than another? That depends. The citizens of the USSR for example had access to state run universal health care. The USA did not. This meant that some citizens of the USA had less access to health care than did a Soviet citizen. Socially, when talking only of health care, the Soviet System was more equal than was the US system. Would a citizen of the US be able to read what they wanted? Yes. Would a US citizen be able to travel where they wanted? Yes. Would a US citizen be able to gather together in a group and discuss anything they wanted? Yes. Could they do that in the Soviet Union? No. Was it better to live under the Soviet System or the US system? Again that is a matter of opinion and preference. I would say that it was better to live under the US system, but that is an opinion.

Again arguing the merits of a socialist system as opposed to a republic capitalist society, is a matter of opinion. Is one system less free than the other? Yes. Which one do you want to live in, that is personal choice. My personal choice and opinion is that the less control over my life another person has, the better. I do realize that a certain level of governmental control is necessary for a society to function. However, I want that level to be as small as possible.

My personal opinion is that justice does not equal equality. Say that over a period of years, I work hard, and collect, prime, and paint 100 models. Then I meet someone who just started collecting models, and has only acquired 50 of them. I have 100 models of space marines, and someone else has 50, equality would demand that I give that person 25 of my models. That way both would have 75 models. Is that equal? Yes. Is that justice? That depends. If I chose of my own free will to give that person 25 models, that would be justice. If a third party took them at gunpoint, and gave them to the other person would that be justice? No. If the third party passed a law (which again is backed by force) and took my models and gave them to another, is that justice? Again I would say no. Is it equal? Yes. The main difference is that amount of personal choice I have in the mater. In life of course, things are not this cut and dry. One person has more money and better health care. So a third party raises taxes on that person, and gives it to a person with less money and less healthcare. Is that person having access to more health care and money desirable? Yes. Is it still as desirable when the first person has it taken from them without their say? That is where the arguments really start heating up.

Strictly speaking there is a difference between anarchy and chaos though.

In the US this is exactly what has happened. A citizen of the USA today, is less free than a Citizen of 25 years ago, who is less free than a citizen of 50 years ago. They are less free because they are living under progressively more laws. That is not really disputable. That is just factual.

Yes and no. The access to information through things like the internet-- much bigger now than 25 years ago-- is a big enabler in many ways.

And you seem to firget that many laws exist to protect freedoms. Roe vs. Wade and the consequences of that ruling for example "frees" people in certain ways.

reds8n wrote:

Please show me a statistic where any nation is wealthier than the US.

from the CIA factbook

Thats per capita, its not the entire EU. Plus, wait a year, when the recession kicks in, we'll see who's still wealthy. The UK is forecast to have a substantially worse recession than the US. Only they and Germany come close to the US so thats a great big meh.

But you asked for "any nation" see ? and "a" statistic.

Ask and thou shall receive etc etc

And yes, I think the recession will hit harder here than over the pond. Even worse in Germany from the news this week.

Seeing as the EU isn't a nation*, and therefore it has a myriad of different taxes, costs of living etc etc, any such comparison is futile in my opinion.


* yet.

Reds8n your logic and facts cannot overcome my innate crotchetyness!

I so read that as just "crotch" for a moment there.

reds8n wrote:Strictly speaking there is a difference between anarchy and chaos though.

In the US this is exactly what has happened. A citizen of the USA today, is less free than a Citizen of 25 years ago, who is less free than a citizen of 50 years ago. They are less free because they are living under progressively more laws. That is not really disputable. That is just factual.

Yes and no. The access to information through things like the internet-- much bigger now than 25 years ago-- is a big enabler in many ways.

And you seem to firget that many laws exist to protect freedoms. Roe vs. Wade and the consequences of that ruling for example "frees" people in certain ways.

Bringing up abortion is a red herring. I will not discuss abortion on this thread, it is a topic for another. With that being said, I will discuss the jist of your argument.

You even pointed out the inherant flaw in your arguent "it frees people in certain ways" It does so by limiting the freedoms of another.
A law that exist to protect freedoms protects them by limiting the freedom of another. To use the example of free speech and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. One law exists, which says the congress shall enact no law impugning on a persons right to free speech. However, a person is not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. This is limiting free speech. The argument was that a person yelling fire in a crowded theater is endangering others, which infringes on their rights. So you can limit free speech. So free speech does not truly exist. So to sum up, one law was passed. Then another ruling came down to clarify the first law, which limited the original law in other words another law). So more laws were passed to limit freedom. Was the ruling good or bad? That again is personal opinion. Did one law (or ruling) get added? Yes. Did that rule or law decrease a persons freedom? Yes.

As for the internet, enables more people to access more information faster. In most western societies, they still had access to that information, only it took time and effort. It was called a library. The internet sped things up. But also opens up a whole bunch of oppurtunities for abuse. Google for example. We all use it and use it frequently. What if the gatekeepers of information at google decide to limit what information is available? Would we even know if they were doing it? Information and knowledge is a very powerful thing. Control of that information and knowledge is even more so. Remember, you never have to convince ALL people of a certain viewpoint, you just have to convince enough of them. If you can limit the speed and access to knowledge and information you can make it easier to control all of them. Am I saying this is happening? No. Am I saying the possibility for abuse exists? Yes. Look at China. They do control access to information on the internet. No all of it, but enough of it.

Did that rule or law decrease a persons freedom? Yes.

You've missed my point. It also increased the freedom of others more-- they know that if they hear someone shouting "fire" it ( in all probability) will be genuine and not some prick. Those peoples right to just sit down and enjoy the play/film/sex show/whatever they paid for is in fact more protected. As is the right to try and earn a crust by the hosts . And the performers etc etc

I don't think abortion is a red herring either, but I agree that can spiral off into places we'd best not go.

A lot of people didn't and don't have access to libraries, and even then the choice of what is likely to be available is far more controlled and censorious than the internet. You don't think the books therein were there by random chance do you ?

Abortion.

Make it legal. Leave it to the conscience of the individual.

Mad Doc Grotsnik,
Pissy lagers suck. So do ales. The only good thing that came out of the British Isles(beverage wise) is Balvenie Scotch. That is heaven in a bottle.

But please let's try to keep this on topic.

reds8n,
It did not increase others rights more. It kept the ones they already had, the same. It limited one persons rights.

reds8n,
I forgot to also mention that the same people without access to libraries are generally the same people without access to the internet. Libraries come in any different flavors, You have municipal libraries, school libraries, and university libraries, as well as libraries founded by individuals. They have a wide variety. More variety, less control. What percentage of market share does google control on the internet search engines? 80% 90%. Less variety equals less choice equals less freedom. Again going back to my point, the more you limit someone/thing, the less freedom people have.

On another tangent. (oh the ironies)

Does anyone but me appreciate the humor in me asking someone to stay on topic in a forum titled "off-topic"?

Now back to the whole Daemon Hunters being part of homeland security............

I said protects their rights more. Which makes them freer as the existing rights they have are mroe secure/harder to get rid of.

I am going to use the term ability in a few cases , because nowhere is it written that people have the RIGHT to go to the theater. They have the ABILITY to go to the theater.

It did not protect their rights. Before the case people had the ability to go to a theater. After the case, people had the ability to go to the theater. In that nothing changed. No new right was created. No law was passed saying people had the right to go to the theater. So all the ruling accomplished was it did not change peoples existing ability. It did, however limit one person's RIGHTS.

Again. I am not commenting on the merit of the case. I am not saying that a person should go into a theater and yell fire. What I am saying is that a law was passed that restricted a persons speech, while at the same time not creating any more freedoms or rights.

It did not protect their rights

Free assembly ? The Theater, much like whatever word is shouted is largely irrelevant, it's the context that matters.

reds8n wrote:

It did not protect their rights

Free assembly ? The Theater, much like whatever word is shouted is largely irrelevant, it's the context that matters.

I guess when looked at from the perspective of free assembly you are correct in that people had the RIGHT to go to the theater. Freedom of assembly is another law entirely. The law says peoples right to assemble shall not be impugned. And the ruling did not change that. Which is exactly my point. When they limited one persons right to free speech, they did not create another right. The other persons right in this case, assembly, existed before the ruling, and existed after the ruling. It was not changed. The only thing that changed was one persons rights were limited. And the courts have limited the right of assembly. When you want to have a demonstration in Washington DC, you have to get a permit. The government can deny that permit. If you do not get a permit, you can be arrested and the demonstration broken up. Every time a law is passed, it limits SOMEONES freedom.

Whilst protecting, safeguarding or even enhancing someone else's.

And of course that has chanegd : it's no use if you can assemble to do whatever if every single gathering is essentially prevented by people standing up and yelling "fire", "terrorist attack" whatever.

And yes, Govts. can restrict gatehrings, just as the right to private ownership might well prevent people from gatehring in/on private property.

It's all a question of balance : if something helps many people it could/can be viewed as being more "good" than something that only helps an individual. By safeguarding and protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, be definition, is what a society is.

The right of assembly did not say "you have the right to assemble in safety" It said you had the right to assemble. And again, that law was not changed. The only law that changed was that freedom of speech was limited.

And I have already pointed out that I realize it is a question of balance. But you still have not refuted my basic premise that laws exist to limit freedom, and that the more laws you have, the less freedom you have..

"By safeguarding ad protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, by definition, is what a society is" that statement is incorrect. What you create by that definition is mob rule. That is what happened in France during the French Revolution. And England during Cromwells time. And the US during Jim Crow and segregation. I would hardly characterize those as a freer society.

By definition here is what a society is (from webster's):

1: companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : company
2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends ; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <literary society>
b: a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners

Red in the US you have an absolute right to assemble if you are not trespassing on private property. There are very few limits to such-mainly that permits need to be acquired in city areas, and it can't be on government property, that sort of thing.

Even the Klan / New Black Panthers can assemble-helps to better keep an eye on 'em.

Mango wrote:The right of assembly did not say "you have the right to assemble in safety" It said you had the right to assemble. And again, that law was not changed. The only law that changed was that freedom of speech was limited.

And I have already pointed out that I realize it is a question of balance. But you still have not refuted my basic premise that laws exist to limit freedom, and that the more laws you have, the less freedom you have..

You really don't think the right of assembly defaultly includes safety as implicit ? Really ? Whole thing is kind of pointless otherwise.

"By safeguarding ad protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, by definition, is what a society is" that statement is incorrect. What you create by that definition is mob rule. That is what happened in France during the French Revolution. And England during Cromwells time. And the US during Jim Crow and segregation. I would hardly characterize those as a freer society.

No, as mob rule is ochlocracy, and defined by violence. That's not what I please don't try and put words in my "mouth". Again. And when it's a revolution there is an overthrow of the law-- that's what it is, so yes, during a revolution you are, technically, freer than previously as there are no laws. But are you actually freer if you are not in the mob or the revolutionaries ?No, of course not. In the midst of a revolution you don;t see fighters stopping to respect the rigts of ownership or freedom of speech do you ?

And damn right the common man was/is freer during and after Cromwell than he was before.

By definition here is what a society is (from webster's):

1: companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : company
2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends ; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <literary society>
b: a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners

Yes. point 3 being what I said. laws being organised patterns, instituitions etc etc. And ?

I don't really see how I'm not refuting any point you claim to be making : without laws you have tyranny or bedlam and then only the "strong" can claim to be free in any form at all. With laws to restrict and govern behavior more people are free.

So.... if a society or laws grants freedom to say 20 people, that is a freer society than one that only has rights for 1 person.

reds8n
your exact statement
"By safeguarding and protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, be definition, is what a society is."

The majority imposing its will on society is NOT making a society freer. It is imposing the will of the majority. Which is in essence what mob rule is.

Yes without laws, you have anarchy. My basic premise is that laws restrict freedom. More laws = Less freedom. Every time a law is passed it restricts SOMEONES freedom. Every year laws are passed, every year we become less free.

You would make Orwell proud.
"With laws to restrict and govern behavior more people are free."

"freedom is slavery" a direct quote from 1984.

Society and laws do not grant freedom, they restrict freedoms. Laws allow society to function. therefore society restricts freedom.

Mango wrote:reds8n
your exact statement
"By safeguarding and protecting the majority you do make a freer society as that, be definition, is what a society is."

The majority imposing its will on society is NOT making a society freer. It is imposing the will of the majority. Which is in essence what mob rule is.

No, mob rule is entirely driven by violence. Laws enable society-- organisation, co-operation etc etc. If you don't have a society in the first place you cannot have a freer society.

EG : A butterfly cake is a sponge cake with little wings cut out of the top and "glued" back using icing/butterscotch etc. If I just cut the wings out and throw the rest away I no longer have a butterfly or indeed any type of cake indeed. I have fragments.

The dog'll be happy I guess.

Yes without laws, you have anarchy. My basic premise is that laws restrict freedom. More laws = Less freedom. Every time a law is passed it restricts SOMEONES freedom. Every year laws are passed, every year we become less free.

Wrong, without laws you have chaos. Anarchy is a step beyond that. It's a subtle definition that you don't seem capable of grasping despite your otherwise masterful grasp of online dictionaries.

I'll wait for the cheap personal shot....

You would make Orwell proud.
"With laws to restrict and govern behavior more people are free."

"freedom is slavery" a direct quote from 1984.

Society and laws do not grant freedom, they restrict freedoms. Laws allow society to function. therefore society restricts freedom.

BINGO !

They cannot restrict what doesn't exist without them in the first place. If it's just THE STRONGEST SURVIVE, that's no freedom at all for the majority of people. You don't seem to be able to grasp that by lessening the "freedom" of one you can increase the freedom for others. To a vast degree.

You appear to be confusing natural law and freedom.

I've read Orwell a lot thanks

I've leave you to your John Norman Gor Chronicles.

You are the one apparetnly mistaking natural law for freedom.

What I am describing is indeed anarchy, not chaos.
Anarchy
1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Chaos
2 aoften capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme ; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms — compare cosmos b: the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a: a state of utter confusion <the blackout caused chaos throughout the city> b: a confused mass or mixture

You make fun of using a dictionary?
"ignorance is strength"
Another Orwelian concept.

From what i was able to find, the Chronicles of Gor is a series of books, and apparently not a very popular one. Not having read them, I do not see the point you are trying to make.

I stated very clearly in my earlier posts that a society is preferable to anarchy. I also stated that laws restrict freedoms. You even agree with that point.

again, quoting your own words.
"You don't seem to be able to grasp that by lessening the "freedom" of one you can increase the freedom for others. To a vast degree."

You have lessened one persons freedom. By a law. wether or not that law enables other "freedoms" for more people is irrelevant. A. Law. Reduced. Freedom.

law:
1 a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
Freedom:
1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence

So a law "binds" which means restricts. It is "enforced".
Which is the exact opposite of freedom.

More laws = less freedom.

It does not get more simple than that.

wether or not that law enables other "freedoms" for more people is irrelevant

No it isn't at all--that's the key issue.

You're not describing anarchy--you're not "describing" anything.


Laws grant freedoms as without the actual realisation of freedoms in a society they don't exist.

Again, no I think it's you who is putting forward the concept of natural law = freedom. It doesn't.

reds8n,
What came first, people or society?

Mango wrote:The substance of my actual claim still stands. Great change happens suddenly. You again are proving my earlier points of legislative creep. Slow change in politics results in s steady eroding of freedom. So thank you for agreeing with that part of my argument. As for scientific progress, yes that happens in incremental steps wiith sudden leaps. But we were not talking of scientific progress were we, we were talking about social and economic progress.

That's it? Just a restatement of the most trivial of the side issues... no attempt to actually substantiate anything you were claiming. Then a couple of posts later you reboot your whole argument. Conversation doesn't work that way, mate. It isn't just people repeating their thesis over and over again.

Anyhow, so now you're saying that it's social and economic progress (why are you saying this? because it relates to your original claim how? no-one knows...) - so let's look at another case from history;the independence movement in India. It's famous for one guy, Ghandi, and yet it started in 1867 when the Indian National Congress was formed by Surendranath Banerjee, the Indian National Congress. Meanwhile Syed Khan launched his own independence movement for Muslims. By 1900 the movement had an independence element, and Dadabhai Naoroji managed to be elected to the British House of Commons arguing for that very issue. From here you have ineffectual arguments for attack on the Raj itself, until you reach WWI. There were 1.3 million Indian troops in the Western Front, and it marked a significant change in Indian culture towards independence, people felt after the contribution of so many of their sons they had earned independence, given back to the British. There were a bunch of failed mutinies, then in 1919 Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer machine gunned a peaceful protest and killed around a thousand Indians. Now independence moves from being a political issue among the elite to a full blown issue, as well as the famous Ghandi, C. Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhash Chandra Bose become significant voices in the movement for independence. In 1928 Motilal Nehru heads a group that drafts the first Indian constitution. In 1929 the Indian National Congress, under Jawaharlal Nehru passed a resolution calling for independence from the British and called for an independence day in 1930. Following the Salt tax, Ghandi performs the Salt March. Then you've got WWII, and the Quit India campaign starts up under calls from Ghandi and this leads to massive protests and about 100,000 arrests. At the end of the war the Royal Indian Navy mutinied, led by MS Khan. Many argue the mutiny of the navy was far more significant. In 1947 Indian was granted independence under Prime Minister Nehru.

Do you want more, or will that do it? Your understanding of history as these sudden changes by individuals is bad.

Mango wrote:In the US this is exactly what has happened. A citizen of the USA today, is less free than a Citizen of 25 years ago, who is less free than a citizen of 50 years ago. They are less free because they are living under progressively more laws. That is not really disputable. That is just factual.

It is extremely disputable, to the point where I'd argue that you haven't in any way substantiated any of it. Please begin to list things an individual could do in 1984 or 1959 that he can't do today. And don't try something like firecrackers, try and make it a little bigger than that.

Is one form of government more socially just than another? That depends. The citizens of the USSR for example had access to state run universal health care. The USA did not. This meant that some citizens of the USA had less access to health care than did a Soviet citizen. Socially, when talking only of health care, the Soviet System was more equal than was the US system. Would a citizen of the US be able to read what they wanted? Yes. Would a US citizen be able to travel where they wanted? Yes. Would a US citizen be able to gather together in a group and discuss anything they wanted? Yes. Could they do that in the Soviet Union? No. Was it better to live under the Soviet System or the US system? Again that is a matter of opinion and preference. I would say that it was better to live under the US system, but that is an opinion.

Again arguing the merits of a socialist system as opposed to a republic capitalist society, is a matter of opinion. Is one system less free than the other? Yes. Which one do you want to live in, that is personal choice. My personal choice and opinion is that the less control over my life another person has, the better. I do realize that a certain level of governmental control is necessary for a society to function. However, I want that level to be as small as possible.

You seem to be assuming that the USSR is somehow representative of all socialist systems. It isn't.

My personal opinion is that justice does not equal equality. Say that over a period of years, I work hard, and collect, prime, and paint 100 models. Then I meet someone who just started collecting models, and has only acquired 50 of them. I have 100 models of space marines, and someone else has 50, equality would demand that I give that person 25 of my models. That way both would have 75 models. Is that equal? Yes. Is that justice? That depends. If I chose of my own free will to give that person 25 models, that would be justice. If a third party took them at gunpoint, and gave them to the other person would that be justice? No. If the third party passed a law (which again is backed by force) and took my models and gave them to another, is that justice? Again I would say no. Is it equal? Yes. The main difference is that amount of personal choice I have in the mater. In life of course, things are not this cut and dry. One person has more money and better health care. So a third party raises taxes on that person, and gives it to a person with less money and less healthcare. Is that person having access to more health care and money desirable? Yes. Is it still as desirable when the first person has it taken from them without their say? That is where the arguments really start heating up.

Your analogy uses the single instance of one guy painting his army and so is a bad analogy. See, in your example the guy painting his army does so alone, reliant on no-one else. But in the real case, the individual and his pay packet, things are nowhere near as simple. The firm you work for exists because of the corporation, property and contract laws written by the state. The work you do on your computer is product of the research and innovations of thousands. The desk you write at is the result of the manufacturing of a few more dozen. The road you took to get to work is the result of hundreds more, funded by government.

The job you do is one link in a vastly complex supply chain. To take your paycheck at the end of the day, pretend it's entirely the product of your own brow, and the tax drawn from it is the product of some external factor is absolute lunacy.

By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

Mango wrote:reds8n,
What came first, people or society?

packs of animals.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

Prexactly.

Sebster,
your words.
"It is extremely disputable, to the point where I'd argue that you haven't in any way substantiated any of it. Please begin to list things an individual could do in 1984 or 1959 that he can't do today. And don't try something like firecrackers, try and make it a little bigger than that. "

It does not have to be bigger than that. That is exactly my point. every time a freedom is restricted, you become less free. Even if it is a small loss of a freedom, it is still a loss of a freedom. Small losses add up. 1 penny is not worth much. 2 pennies are still not worth much, but add a penny a minute, and very soon you will have a substantial amount of money. The whole jist of my argument is that laws are passed every year. Everyyear we are less free.
Freedom is the ability to choose for yourself, free from constaints. That is the established definition. 10 years ago could I ride a bicycle? Did I have to wear a helmet? No. today it is illegal to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet. Is wearing a helmet a good idea? Yes. But did my ability to choose wether or not to wear it get taken from me by law? Yes. Did a law get passed limiting my ability to choose? yes. So if my freedom was lessened, am I less free? YES

When you demand that I give a big example of a loss of freedom what you are trying to do, is change the parameters of the debate. None of you has refuted my basic argument that laws restrict freedom and that more laws equates to less freedom.

But you want a big example of how people are less fre today than they were 25 years ago? here it is.
In january 1999, David Howard was an official in the DC mayor's office. He was discussing his administration of a fund. He said that hi was being "niggardly" in the administration of the fund. He lost his job for using a word. worse, he lost his job for using a word ina grammaticlly correct way, and in the proper context.

Before anyone gets thier knickers in a twist, here is the definition of the word niggardly:
1 : grudgingly mean about spending or granting : begrudging
2 : provided in meanly limited supply

So, he lost his job for speaking correctly. That is a loss of freedom.

1.So give me an example of a representative socialist system that is freer than a capitalist republic.
2. Show me how more laws and regulations make you more free.

Again your words:
"Your analogy uses the single instance of one guy painting his army and so is a bad analogy. See, in your example the guy painting his army does so alone, reliant on no-one else. But in the real case, the individual and his pay packet, things are nowhere near as simple. The firm you work for exists because of the corporation, property and contract laws written by the state. The work you do on your computer is product of the research and innovations of thousands. The desk you write at is the result of the manufacturing of a few more dozen. The road you took to get to work is the result of hundreds more, funded by government.

The job you do is one link in a vastly complex supply chain. To take your paycheck at the end of the day, pretend it's entirely the product of your own brow, and the tax drawn from it is the product of some external factor is absolute lunacy. "

Using your logic, the person with the models did not act alone either. Did he make the paints? No. Did he make the brushes? no. Did he make the odels? no. Others made the paints, others made the models, others drove trucks to get themodels to the store where they wer purchased. You did not refute my argument. you disagreed with it. That is an opinion.

*edited post, I originally for got to add the quotation marks around sebsters quote.

sebster wrote:By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

reds8n
We do not know what came first, becasue there is no proof. All we can do is make guesses about the early development of humans. My guess is that they arose more or less concurrently.

the point is that society at that point was small hunter gather groups. They still had rules. Even if the rules were not written down, they had rules. A society by definition is a group of individuals bound together by a set of shared circumstances. Key word "BOUND" restricted. A society restricts the actions and behaviors of its members. The more restrictions a person has placed upon them the less free they are. Even in "context" they are less free.

Mango wrote:reds8n
We do not know what came first, becasue there is no proof.

Nope, it's pretty much fact that packs of animals were around before people.

All we can do is make guesses about the early development of humans. My guess is that they arose more or less concurrently.

the point is that society at that point was small hunter gather groups. They still had rules. Even if the rules were not written down, they had rules. A society by definition is a group of individuals bound together by a set of shared circumstances. Key word "BOUND" restricted. A society restricts the actions and behaviors of its members. The more restrictions a person has placed upon them the less free they are. Even in "context" they are less free.

No, I disagree. By having rules to do with sharing food a person is freed from having to hunt/whatever, that person can... raise the infants, paint wall paintings.... whatever and won't starve. That person and others are now freer because of "laws", in turn this makes society freer overall.

You're treating "free" like it's some easily quantifiable thing, it isn't. It.... "ripples" out to affect people and society in ways you can't quantify. Tu steal an earlier analogy : I would say a society is freer if it has books like 1984 published because of it's affects and implications even if it requires certain people- soldiers for example-- to give up or have their freedom restricted in certain ways.

Basically, it seems to me that you treating "freedom" like it's an interger and you can simply add or subtract to that and easily determineif it has grown or lessened. I don't think you can do that.

here's far more laws in the USA than say Darfur but I would say the former is a much freer society.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
1. Other than self interst what do people vote on?
2. Where do you come up with your 70% support for government run healthcare in the US? It has never been at that level.
3. Loss of congress in 1994 had many factors, Clinton's overreach on healthcare was one major one. That and welfare reform.
4. Those costing studies you mentioned, funny that, the number is actually closer tp $5000, and the bulk of that is spent on healthcare, pensions, and benefits for people who no olonger work for the company. Hmmmmm imagine that. Why did they get that amount? Unions. Unions are heavily tilted socialist.
5. 'Not quite no." Great and logical argument that.
6. Again you are wrong. A government is not required to guarantee property ownership. Force is. Before government, there was property. Otherwise why did primitive man bury items with the dead?
7. "Almost all progress has been the result of minor achievments, sensible reforms, clever innovations, adding up over centuries." again you make an unsupported argument. Which happens to be false. Examples.

hitler's rise=> sudden
hitler's fall => sudden

Christianity as the dominant religion of the m,iddle east and north africa=>slow and incremental
The rise and spread of Islam => sudden

Huh? Each took it's time in reality.

Rise of the roman republic=>slow and incremental
Fall of Roman republic =>sudden

Ok. So the progress in this case was incremental built on small decisions (ie. The rise of Rome took centuries). Rome's fall took even longer though. The Roman Empire split into two portions the last of which fell after 1000 years, if that's not incremental enough nothing is.)

Rise and maintance of Feudalism=> Slow and incremental
Collapse of French monarchy=>sudden

I see you have a fascination with revolution. Not surprising. But the factors which lead to the revolution built for generations. It is also relevant to consider the rise of Parliamentary democracy in England which took almost 600 years. By comparison to parliamentary democracy, feudalism took relatively little time to establish.

Dominance of the catholic Church in Europe=> slow and incremental
Rise of protestantism=>sudden
American Revolution=>Sudden

I find it curious you choose to link these suddens. So I'll ignore the second one for now and focus on the first.
Do you think protestantism in any way was a one day development of Martin Luther? The conditions that were required for the development of Protestantism in Northern Europe had taken centuries to develop. There was a conflux of events at Luther's time that allowed his ideas to spread, but to reach that point

Rise and maintanence of Czarist russia => slow and incremental
Bolshevik Revolution => sudden

Jim Crow Laws and segregation=>suddenly passed => no change for a long time
MLK jr, civil rights movement=>sudden

Lets hear some examples of slow and incremental progress.

From your own list:
Rise of Rome
Rise of Christianity
Development of feudalism

Others:
Progress of Science
Rise of Parliamentary democracy (which your own republic could not have existed without)
Rise of England as a world power


If you plan on making an argument, support it.

If you plan on making an argument support it with facts. Not Fox facts, but real facts. History is built on small decisions that build to larger decisions. The appearance of massive change is always predicated by an entire series of events which lead to the larger decision.

For example:
Hitler's rise took almost 30 years and likely would have failed if not for the crippling penalties that were imposed on Germany following the end of the 1st world war. Hitler;s rise was built on the massive trauma of WWI. How was his rise anything other then incremental. And further too that how was it progress? As with many other unsuccessful leaders it was undone before he had died. Progress requires something that you did to outlast you. Hitler's time on this earth can thus be relagated to the dustbin. It was not progress.

An example of an incremental increase in power can be seen in the rise of two Empire which had a major impact on the world as it was known. In both cases it took several hundred years of gradual expansion. When completed both benefited enormously for the Empire then gradually declined. But even as they faded from existence they left institutions and landmarks that marked their passing.

The best example of instrumentalist changes though goes to the English Parliament. In a series of gradual developments to law and order power moved from the hands of a single man to the privileged to the common man and then to all people over a certain age. This transition was done peacefully over 700 plus years.

Mango wrote:

sebster wrote:By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

If you can prove your initial assumption that law=loss of freedom then we who disagree with you lose if we try to argue from that point. Sooo... since your initial point is debatable you lose because you have failed to successfully argue that laws truly and always represent a loss of freedom for all people involved. ie. because laws can protect other freedoms that means there can be a net increase in freedom by the addition of laws even if some freedoms are restricted.

For an example of a law that increases freedom look to laws that prevent companies from dumping toxins into the waterways. or laws that allow for people to vote without thier individual votes being known.

Right economics, greater wealth for the wealthy, greater peaks and falls in national wealth, more opportunity for competitive business to do well and uncompetitive business to fail.

Left economics, greater wealth for the poor, more stable economy, bad businesses kept going, successful businesses held back.

I'm not saying one is better than the other (personally I vote green simply because going left right left right does not amount to actual democracy). Though it is hilarious that some are trying to say the right is always better in every single way.

efarrer wrote:

Mango wrote:

sebster wrote:By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

If you can prove your initial assumption that law=loss of freedom then we who disagree with you lose if we try to argue from that point. Sooo... since your initial point is debatable you lose because you have failed to successfully argue that laws truly and always represent a loss of freedom for all people involved. ie. because laws can protect other freedoms that means there can be a net increase in freedom by the addition of laws even if some freedoms are restricted.

For an example of a law that increases freedom look to laws that prevent companies from dumping toxins into the waterways. or laws that allow for people to vote without thier individual votes being known.

Ok again, I will try to explain this using small words. Take a look back through the posts.
Look up the definition of freedom.
Look up the definition of law.
For your benefit, I will repost them:

Freedom: 1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

Now, absence means that something is not there. Necessity means you have to do something or have to have something. It does not mean you can choose to do something or choose to do without it. Coercion means forcing someone to do something. Are you still following me? Constraint means the state of being held back or restricted. I know these are very hard concepts to understand, so I will ask again, are you still following me?
You are? good

Law:1 a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Ok, again using small words. Binding means restricting. (see above definition, key words "abscence of constraint". Now let's look at another word in that definition. Enforced. to compel. to gain by force,to effect by force. see above definition of freedom "the abscence of coercion" Ok, I know that this is very trying for some of you lefty types, as it requires logiccal thinking and a basic understanding of language, but please try to follow along. Controlling is a root word, "control" with an action suffix. (suffix means something added at the end of a word). When an action suffix is added it means the act of, for example run + ing gives you running. ie the act of running.
So controlling means the act of control. Control means to exercise restraining influence. We have already established that constraint/constraining is being held back or restricted.

Now lets look at the symbol "=". It is generally used to mean "the same as"

Now lets look at the word "opposite." it is generally used to mean "not the same as", and more, means diametrically opposed to the
original.

So is restriction the the same or equal of the word freedom?
Or does restriction mean the opposite of the word freedom?
Is compel the same as or equal of the word freedom?
Is compel the opposite of freedom?
Is enforce the same as or equal of the word fredom?
Is enforce the opposite of freedom?

Now lets take a look at the word "less"
Less;: of reduced size, extent, or degree

So if you have something, and it is reduced or restricted in size or EXTENT, then you have less of it.

Law equals restrictions, constraints, enforced actions. This means you have "less" freedom in your actions

Law = less freedom

That is by definintion what it means.

So, if a company cannot dump toxins, then that company has had thier choices limited. If you HAVE to vote in secrecy, and do not have the choice of voting publically, then again, your choices have been constrained. Every law by definition constrains freedom. More law = less freedom.

Efarrer,
Your claim that i use "fox facts" is
a. spurious
b. insulting

In my previous post, I was returning the favor in the tone I used. previously, the discussions, while we 9meaning everyone who had posted) were being civil. Please let's try to keep it that way. I could easily have ridiculed the huffington post, The daily kos, CNN, CBD, or a host of other news outlets. Disagreeing with someone is fine. being rude is not.

Mango wrote:Efarrer,
Your claim that i use "fox facts" is
a. spurious
b. insulting

In my previous post, I was returning the favor in the tone I used. previously, the discussions, while we 9meaning everyone who had posted) were being civil. Please let's try to keep it that way. I could easily have ridiculed the huffington post, The daily kos, CNN, CBD, or a host of other news outlets. Disagreeing with someone is fine. being rude is not.

The comment was fair and balanced given your obvious lack of historical knowledge. The use of Fox facts was to indicate a knowledge based on a glance with an eye to seeing the facts you wish to see. Your commentary was wrong. Moreover you know that and that is why you ignored the remainder of the post. If you wish to use historical examples it is important to know what you are talking about. If you are insulted by your base lack of knowledge being exposed, so be it. Get educated and then come back and try again.

P.S.
Insulting other media institutions can be fair, I don't read those so why would I care. My comment was made in a way anyone who read it (yourself included knew what I was saying).

PPS
Further to this post you have the gall to complain about my tone when you insult my intellect in the post which precedes this one
.

efarrer wrote:

Mango wrote:Efarrer,
Your claim that i use "fox facts" is
a. spurious
b. insulting

In my previous post, I was returning the favor in the tone I used. previously, the discussions, while we 9meaning everyone who had posted) were being civil. Please let's try to keep it that way. I could easily have ridiculed the huffington post, The daily kos, CNN, CBD, or a host of other news outlets. Disagreeing with someone is fine. being rude is not.

The comment was fair and balanced given your obvious lack of historical knowledge. The use of Fox facts was to indicate a knowledge based on a glance with an eye to seeing the facts you wish to see. Your commentary was wrong. Moreover you know that and that is why you ignored the remainder of the post. If you wish to use historical examples it is important to know what you are talking about. If you are insulted by your base lack of knowledge being exposed, so be it. Get educated and then come back and try again.

P.S.
Insulting other media institutions can be fair, I don't read those so why would I care. My comment was made in a way anyone who read it (yourself included knew what I was saying).

PPS
Further to this post you have the gall to complain about my tone when you insult my intellect in the post which precedes this one
.

Hmmmm i insulted your intellignece and you feel insulted, and then ignore the rest of the post

Pot meet kettle.

Mango wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Mango wrote:

sebster wrote:By the way, this problem in this debate seems to come from looking at freedom as some absolute issue without the context of greater society. Worse, its only looking at freedom from government, ignoring economic freedom. It's such a narrow point of reference it guarantees weird conclusions.

Freedom is important. It doesn't exist without context.

No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

If you can prove your initial assumption that law=loss of freedom then we who disagree with you lose if we try to argue from that point. Sooo... since your initial point is debatable you lose because you have failed to successfully argue that laws truly and always represent a loss of freedom for all people involved. ie. because laws can protect other freedoms that means there can be a net increase in freedom by the addition of laws even if some freedoms are restricted.

For an example of a law that increases freedom look to laws that prevent companies from dumping toxins into the waterways. or laws that allow for people to vote without thier individual votes being known.

Ok again, I will try to explain this using small words. Take a look back through the posts.
Look up the definition of freedom.
Look up the definition of law.
For your benefit, I will repost them:

Freedom: 1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

Now, absence means that something is not there. Necessity means you have to do something or have to have something. It does not mean you can choose to do something or choose to do without it. Coercion means forcing someone to do something. Are you still following me? Constraint means the state of being held back or restricted. I know these are very hard concepts to understand, so I will ask again, are you still following me?
You are? good

Law:1 a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Ok, again using small words. Binding means restricting. (see above definition, key words "abscence of constraint". Now let's look at another word in that definition. Enforced. to compel. to gain by force,to effect by force. see above definition of freedom "the abscence of coercion" Ok, I know that this is very trying for some of you lefty types, as it requires logiccal thinking and a basic understanding of language, but please try to follow along. Controlling is a root word, "control" with an action suffix. (suffix means something added at the end of a word). When an action suffix is added it means the act of, for example run + ing gives you running. ie the act of running.
So controlling means the act of control. Control means to exercise restraining influence. We have already established that constraint/constraining is being held back or restricted.

Now lets look at the symbol "=". It is generally used to mean "the same as"

Now lets look at the word "opposite." it is generally used to mean "not the same as", and more, means diametrically opposed to the
original.

So is restriction the the same or equal of the word freedom?
Or does restriction mean the opposite of the word freedom?
Is compel the same as or equal of the word freedom?
Is compel the opposite of freedom?
Is enforce the same as or equal of the word fredom?
Is enforce the opposite of freedom?

Now lets take a look at the word "less"
Less;: of reduced size, extent, or degree

So if you have something, and it is reduced or restricted in size or EXTENT, then you have less of it.

Law equals restrictions, constraints, enforced actions. This means you have "less" freedom in your actions

Law = less freedom

That is by definintion what it means.

So, if a company cannot dump toxins, then that company has had thier choices limited. If you HAVE to vote in secrecy, and do not have the choice of voting publically, then again, your choices have been constrained. Every law by definition constrains freedom. More law = less freedom.

Your argument, while fun is still
a) incorrect.
b) at it's base illogical

Laws on paper do not restrict freedom any more then paper planes make mass air transit possible.

You have the right to vote privately so that you have freedom of choice. Does a person with as little knowledge as you even come close to having the ability to comprehend why that law is needed to ensure a free society? You have a law which allows you that privacy and the freedom to say out loud who you voted for if you wish.

The company when not thus restricted removes the freedom of people to use that public water. Thus it's loss of freedom results in a net gain of freedom for all people in the society. The companies choice to pollute is restricted, the rest of the societies freedom to use the water is increased. In both examples the laws allow for the weak to be freed from the tyranny of the strong.

Law need not be about restrictions that cage people but rather about rules that prevent the powerful from abusing their power.

Your arguments hold no water.
+
Law does not automatically equal lack of freedom. [u]

efarrer,
you asked me to prove that laws restrict freedom. I did so. By the very definitions of the words, they do so. Please show me, oh Superior Intellect, how my reading of two simple definitions is flawed.

Effarrer just did.
Reds8n did.
Sebster conclusively demonstrated with his example of India that your concepts as applied to societal progress are also demonstrably false.

You demonstrate a bright mind which has latched onto certain political concepts as if they were mathematically true, because that is the way they have been presented to you. Unfortunately many of the underlying assumptions of those arguments are false or misinterpretations of data. Reds8n's example of laws restricting pollution of water, and laws restricting yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, are clear proof that your mathematical formula "laws = less freedom" is wrong.

Your use of carefully-chosen dictionary definitions as the underpinnings of your argument is ignoring the forest for the trees. You're championing an argument that misses the point of the discussion, out of a desire to be "technically correct", which, despite what the beureaucrats on Futurama have told us, is NOT "the best kind of correct."

Mannahnin wrote:Effarrer just did.
Reds8n did.
Sebster conclusively demonstrated with his example of India that your concepts as applied to societal progress are also demonstrably false.

You demonstrate a bright mind which has latched onto certain political concepts as if they were mathematically true, because that is the way they have been presented to you. Unfortunately many of the underlying assumptions of those arguments are false or misinterpretations of data. Reds8n's example of laws restricting pollution of water, and laws restricting yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, are clear proof that your mathematical formula "laws = less freedom" is wrong.

Your use of carefully-chosen dictionary definitions as the underpinnings of your argument is ignoring the forest for the trees. You're championing an argument that misses the point of the discussion, out of a desire to be "technically correct", which, despite what the beureaucrats on Futurama have told us, is NOT "the best kind of correct."

Respectfully, I disagree that reds8n and sebster did so.
efrarrer most assuredly did not.

Laws exist to restrict freedom That is my basic premise. Again more laws restrict freedom. I have shown that a law when written retricts frredom

For example free speech. The law is clear. It restricts a government official from imposing furtther laws against free speech. Did it give protection to one group? yes. Did it restrict one group? yes, in this case a government offficial. Have politicians and judges passed/clarified the original laws in such a way to circumvent them? yes, as witnessed by my citing the gentleman who lost his job for saying a word. Which everyone has seemed to ignore. Yet I am blasted for not addressing every single argument posted by 5 different people. To which I do not have enough time.

All laws by nature are restrictive. You still have not disproven me.

I will get to sebsters historical arguments when I get back from the park with my son, and dinner with my wife. But I will get to them.

I will add more fuel to the fire now. For all you socialist apologists. What form of government did Nazi Germany have? was it a democratic republic? or was it a form od socialism? What type of government does china have? What type of government does North Korea or cuba have? What do just about every repressive dictatorship on the planet have for a government is it a republic capitalist system or a socialist/communist system.

And now tell me socialism makes people freer.
That is because you cannot.

I will get back to the historical content of sebsters argument, and point out its flaws.

Mango wrote:efarrer,
you asked me to prove that laws restrict freedom. I did so. .

Well...not quite.

Whilst I abhor the sacking of said gentleman for use of the word "niggardly", that does not in any way shape or form make society less "free" than before.

That was a misuse of a law. Somehting that will happen in any human (ie imperfect) society.

If you compare, top of my head example, Rosa Park's freedom to sit on a seat on a bus 60 odd years ago to that of now is she more or less free ? IE laws can indeed make a society more free.

Oh, and the Nazis, despite the name were not socialist by any way shape or means. You've got to do better than that.

Incidentally.... does not requiring a defined as opposed to accepted usage of terms mean that one's own arguments are in act not "free" ?

..how metaphysical do you want to get here ?

The term "rights" is itself entirely dependent the standardisation and formalisation of spelling and grammar. Or are you now going to claim that the very act of communication itself is a tyranny as it impugns upon an individuals "right" to use language as they choose ?

I would also point out that whilst you're very keen to claim that " such and such did NOT argue against/disprove my points" you make no attempt to actually counter any arguments put to you.

Just going " Nope, they're wrong" doesn't really count.

"socialist apologists " ?
Please !

When you throw around terms like that you're just begging to be called A/B/C/term of your choice in return. Are we going to do this dance again ? Because no " republic capitalist" system has EVER done anything wrong at all ? Ever ?
laughable.

After all it's not like people got sacked for using a word that meant something but people thought it meant..... err....

You have the time to repeat your own argument ad nauseum, but not to engage in honest dialogue with the people who have effectively poked holes in it.

I am uninterested in reading anything further from you, and thus will not, unless called upon to do so as a moderator.

Have a good day. Good luck in advancing your education, and in improving your ability to engage in the meaningful exchange of ideas.

Mango wrote:reds8n,
What came first, people or society?

I'm not reds8n, but I know foolishness when I see it.

People and society are concurrent. One did not exist before the other, because they're co-dependent. Societies are groups of people, and people are social constructs. You're equivocating people, and humans. Humans exist independent of context, people do not.

Mango wrote:efarrer,
you asked me to prove that laws restrict freedom. I did so. By the very definitions of the words, they do so. Please show me, oh Superior Intellect, how my reading of two simple definitions is flawed.

Your acknowledgment of my superior intellect aside, it is in choosing too simple definitions of the terms that you begin to go wrong.

The world is too complex for simple definitions. Only a true fool would try to divide it that way. Put into the simplest complex terms possible

1. Freedom is not possible without law.
2. Tyranny is possible with law and without.

This relatively simple truth is complex in that it is possible to have two states with the use of law.
It is the gradual growth of laws following the signing of the Magna Carta (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta) that created the system of English government and despite some changes the American system of law as well.

Is it possible for the law to become oppressive? Yes.
Is it possible for the law to increase the personal freedoms of the people who live within the law? Yes, ask the regular people who live in Somalia if they'd prefer law to what they have.

Do you know what replaces anarchy (a state of lawlessness) every time?

Tyranny is the state which is inevitable in a place without laws. A strong man will rise up and establish a rule based not on law but whim. An American like yourself, or a Canadian like myself, is lucky enough to not experience that existence. But do not, for a moment, believe that the freedom we have been blessed with is for any reason other than the gradual evolution of the law by which we enjoy the freedoms we have today.

It is the law that stops the police from pulling you from your car and beating you for running a red light.
It is the law that makes it possible for you to drive without worrying that the police might kidnap you.
It is the law which prevents melamine from being added to your child's baby formula.
It is the law which prevents mob justice, where the fearful fools can be convinced to kill anyone.
It is the law that stops the strong from taking what they want without fear of punishment.

Law frees the weak, and make no mistake, you are among the weak.

reds8n,
here is your quote

"Well...not quite.

Whilst I abhor the sacking of said gentleman for use of the word "niggardly", that does not in any way shape or form make society less "free" than before.

That was a misuse of a law. Somehting that will happen in any human (ie imperfect) society.

If you compare, top of my head example, Rosa Park's freedom to sit on a seat on a bus 60 odd years ago to that of now is she more or less free ? IE laws can indeed make a society more free."

The operative words in your statement are "can" and "imperfect". Especially when the "imperfect leader is of Stalin's stripe.

And looked at from another view. Just because laws give a benefit to the majority does not make society freer.

To use you exact example. Rosa Parks. Under Jim Crow laws, which were used to by the majority, in this case Southern Whites, to oppress a minority, in this case Southern Blacks. Did the Jim Crow laws benefit the majority of society? Yes they did, because Southern Whites were in the majority, populationwise. The majority of people had the right, under Jim Crow laws, to the best seat, the best parks, the best food, voting rights, etc. Did that make the society freer? For the southern whites, who were the majority, yes indeed it did. Did they make society freer for the minority? Most assuredly they did not. If the majority of people in a society are freer does that make the society as a whole freer? I would argue that it does not. The laws took something from one, and gave it to another. That does not make them right or freer. Laws once written, are impersonal. They restrict the actions of what they are applied to. In this case they restricted the actions of one, while not lmiting the actions of another.

Your next argument, again, your quote.

"Oh, and the Nazis, despite the name were not socialist by any way shape or means. You've got to do better than that."

Despite the name, they here indeed socialist.

Socialism: Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
De facto government ownership of the means of production was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.
The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.
Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
To cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

If smething looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and is called a duck, it is very likely a duck.

**full disclosure*** I did not write the section explaining why Nazi Germany was indeed socialist, I copied and pasted it. However, that does not make it less true.

Nazi Germany wasn't socialist by any means at all-- their "beef" with the Russians-- what were they called at the time ?-- is quite well documented.

Hitler might even have mentioned similar things in a few of his speeches.

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government.

Incorrect from the first sentence, there were a ton of companies-- many of them quite famous to this day-- that were in existence at the time.

Did the Jim Crow laws benefit the majority of society? yes they did

No it didn't, that's the key thing.

The laws took something from one, and gave it to another. That does not make them right or freer

No it didn't, what it did was give everyone the same rights. The way you're arguing is like claiming that by giving women the vote took away something from men.

It did/does make people freer, I really can't see how you can claim that laws that ensure racial equality don't contribute towards a freer society.

Again you seem to be treating freedom or benefit as easily quantifiable things, they're not.

You're just repeating the same-- to my eyes -- fallacies over and over again.

Quite a lot of Wild fowl walk and look like ducks, and the noise that ducks make can vary enormously by species. Not as many different sounds as frogs but that's life I guess.

efarrer wrote:

Mango wrote:efarrer,
you asked me to prove that laws restrict freedom. I did so. By the very definitions of the words, they do so. Please show me, oh Superior Intellect, how my reading of two simple definitions is flawed.

Your acknowledgment of my superior intellect aside, it is in choosing too simple definitions of the terms that you begin to go wrong.

The world is too complex for simple definitions. Only a true fool would try to divide it that way. Put into the simplest complex terms possible

1. Freedom is not possible without law.
2. Tyranny is possible with law and without.

This relatively simple truth is complex in that it is possible to have two states with the use of law.
It is the gradual growth of laws following the signing of the Magna Carta (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta) that created the system of English government and despite some changes the American system of law as well.

Is it possible for the law to become oppressive? Yes.
Is it possible for the law to increase the personal freedoms of the people who live within the law? Yes, ask the regular people who live in Somalia if they'd prefer law to what they have.

Do you know what replaces anarchy (a state of lawlessness) every time?

Tyranny is the state which is inevitable in a place without laws. A strong man will rise up and establish a rule based not on law but whim. An American like yourself, or a Canadian like myself, is lucky enough to not experience that existence. But do not, for a moment, believe that the freedom we have been blessed with is for any reason other than the gradual evolution of the law by which we enjoy the freedoms we have today.

It is the law that stops the police from pulling you from your car and beating you for running a red light.
It is the law that makes it possible for you to drive without worrying that the police might kidnap you.
It is the law which prevents melamine from being added to your child's baby formula.
It is the law which prevents mob justice, where the fearful fools can be convinced to kill anyone.
It is the law that stops the strong from taking what they want without fear of punishment.

Law frees the weak, and make no mistake, you are among the weak.

Ok Efarrer, now we are getting to the heart of the matter, and I thank you for bringing it up.
"It is the law that stops the police from pulling you from your car and beating you for running a red light." But what happens when a law is passed that says the Police can do so? Rather than cut and paste all of your examples and placing the phrase "yes but what happens when...." you get the idea.

In that example a law, using a line from reds8n, (thanks for the lay up), is written by an imperfect person. A law that is intended to be a benefit, will often have unintended consequences. For example. For years, people wanted the US to wean itself off of oil. Is that a desirable thing? Most people in the US believe that the United States thirst for oil is a bad thing. From the right, American believe that being so heavily reliant on foreign oil from despotic regimes leaves the US open to coercion from those regimes. From the left, because it hurts the environment, forces the US to have an imperialist foreign policy or whatever else logic the left uses. So i would say that weaning the US off of oil is a desirable thing, one of the few things the right and left in the US do agree on.

So, a law is passed. The law restricts the free choice of every american, by requiring all gasoline have 10% ethanol. You cannot choose to use the non ethanol version, because it is no longer being sold. SO if you have two choices and one is taken away, you have less choices, you are less free.
The theory behind the law was that by adding ethanol to the gas, we would reduce our need to import by 10%. Did that happen? no. We actually have to use MORE gasoline/ethanol mix to fuel our cars, because ethanol is less efficient than gasoline. So instead of say 15mpg with gasoline, you now get 14mpg with ethanol/gasoline, meaning you have to fill up more. Plus people did not change thier driving habits nor did they buy more fuel efficient cars. So did the ethanol aw have its intended consequence of having americans use less oil? No, the amount of oil we imported went UP after the law was passed.

But, it gets worse. A law passed with the best of intentions, now starts having other consequences. Corn, the primary source of material for ethanol, is also used in food. More corn started being used for ethanol production, and less was being used for food production. The first effect of this was it drove prices of corn worldwide, higher. The amount of corn that can be grown is limited by arable land available to used to grow corn. (and this was further limited by expanding population centers,, as well as zoning laws that limit what uses land can be used for, as well as laws protecting endangerd species(you can't change ther habitat), and other laws that were passed (with the best of intentions, mind you). So we have restrictions (both natural and manmade) on how much corn can be produced. Nw, this increase in the price of corn caused the price of food to go up. In western countries this did not hurt so much. We grumbled, but continued our lives much as we had before. But, people did change, in less obvious ways. People started buying rice. A higher demand for rice, led to price increaes for rice. This again did not have a major impact in the West. however, people in poorer african, pacific island, asian, our carribean countries this caused food shortages and riots because they could not afford to buy rice. (riots specifically happened in Haiti)

So every year, more laws get passed. they allow society to fuction. Then more laws get passed. They benefit some, hurt others. For example. raising taxes on the wealthy, and spreading it to the poor. Does it benefit the majority? in this case the poor, yes. Does it hurt the wealthy? Yes, taking money from a person punishes them. (that s why courts impose fines). Ratioalizing that because the wealthy have more they can afford more does not make it right. That is like ratioanlizing that thensouthern whites were more, so they deserved more. So, I still say laws restrict freedom, the more laws the less free, especially because laws are written by imperfect people, and especially because they do lead to abuse.

But of course without laws any "abuse" is going to be worse isn't it.

There's very few laws in places like Darfur, but the people who live there aren't as free as people in the USA.

For example. raising taxes on the wealthy, and spreading it to the poor. Does it benefit the majority? in this case the poor, yes. Does it hurt the wealthy? Yes, taking money from a person punishes them. (that s why courts impose fines). Rationalizing that because the wealthy have more they can afford more does not make it right. That is like rationalizing that the southern whites were more, so they deserved more

That's a terrible comparison.

taxes from "the rich" pay for things like schools, roads, police etc etc. They benefit just as much as "the poor" from these things, more so in many cases.

Efarrer, I am glad that both of us have toned down the venom in our posts and are proceding more rationally. It makes for a better conversation.

I am assuming of course that when you called me weak that you were referring to the weakness of an indiviual compared to a government, and not making a personal attack, and worded my post to be less hostile, while still disagreeing with you.

Now on to some of the other arguments that you and others have posted that I have not addressed yet.

For example, Indian independence. For 60 years, or so, various Indian groups talked about independence. Yet they were still not indepedent. It took a a combination of a financially strapped England whose economy was strapped after two majr wars, and whose population had been decimated (using the modern take on the word, as severely hurt, not a 10% loss) by those same wars, and whose populations were also sick and tired of wars, to be threatened with the spectre of another war, and make no mistake, regardless of wether or not Ghandi preached non violence, it was the threat of a wider war as evidenced by the mutiny of the Indian navy that led england to grant independence. So, fro a human perspective talk had accoplished little independence for 60 years. One action, a mutiny, was wat caused the change to happen, and it happened suddenly.

Another argument that I put forth that someone argued was not valid was the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. The person that said that was a bad example because the Roman Empire lasted arguably until the fall of constantinople a 1000 or so years later. However, I was not referring to the Roman Empire. I was specifically referring to the Roman Republic. Julius ceasar toppled the Roman republic. Before Ceasar crossed the rubicon, there was a republic. after, there was an Empire. That from a human and a historical perspective is extremely rapid. And was caused not by mmoderate talk, but by a sudden action from a person arguing from a pole. In this case Julius arguing (by use of war) that the Republic was not as good a system as the empire.

If there are additional posts that you would like me to address, please point them out, and as time permits today, I will get to them.

reds8n wrote:But of course without laws any "abuse" is going to be worse isn't it.

There's very few laws in places like Darfur, but the people who live there aren't as free as people in the USA.

For example. raising taxes on the wealthy, and spreading it to the poor. Does it benefit the majority? in this case the poor, yes. Does it hurt the wealthy? Yes, taking money from a person punishes them. (that s why courts impose fines). Rationalizing that because the wealthy have more they can afford more does not make it right. That is like rationalizing that the southern whites were more, so they deserved more

That's a terrible comparison.

taxes from "the rich" pay for things like schools, roads, police etc etc. They benefit just as much as "the poor" from these things, more so in many cases.

No, reds, it is not a terrible comparison. For example 10 people decide to go to a bar. The first does not pay a cover charge to get in. The second pays $1. The third pays $2. The fourth pays $3. The forth pays $4. numbers 5-9 pay $5. The 10th pays $10. They then go to the bar. The person who paid no money to get in, gets his beer for free. The person who paid 1$ to get in pays $1 for his beer. The one who paid $2 to get in pays $2 for his beer. The one who paid $3, pays $3, they on who paid $4 pays $4 again, the ones who paid $5, again pay $5 for thier beer. The one that was charged $10 to get in, is charged $10 for his beer. They all went to the same bar, listened to the same music, drank the same bear, wartched the same sports on the tele. The only difference is one did it for free, one paid $2 and so on, until one paid $20. Is that fair?

Reds,
Again, if someone says you own your house, do you own it? Would you feel the same way if, even though you owned it, someone could tell you that a family of 4 is allowed to move in and pay you only $1 in rent? You can still live in the house, and you get a dollar for rent. But do you still own the house if the disposition of the house is no longer your decision?

Mango wrote:
Ok Efarrer, now we are getting to the heart of the matter, and I thank you for bringing it up.
"It is the law that stops the police from pulling you from your car and beating you for running a red light." But what happens when a law is passed that says the Police can do so? Rather than cut and paste all of your examples and placing the phrase "yes but what happens when...." you get the idea.

You've hit the crux of your problem right there. There is no such law and has not been. There are laws that protect you from that so until your fantasy comes to pass the the law protects even you. In each case I presented the current laws protect you from that, typically with multiple layers of redundancy. (So even if someone were to try to pass such a law it would take so many changes to the law that all citizens could work to prevent such a law). Ultimately it is the citizen's responsibility to ensure that their freedom is protected, so paying attention is the requirement of freedom, but the laws (from Access to Information to voting laws) work to protect that freedom.

That's why the Bush Administrations attempts to circumvent legislative process scared the left (and some of the right) in your country. Any attempts to change or circumvent legal process must be watched and cut down, because tyrants try to avoid or abuse the law (as law does not apply to a tyrant- Ventari has it right on that front). The great thing about a good law is that it is patient.

Justice delayed does not mean forever denied.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing Unless you'd care to argue that the laws used to convict in this case were bad in some way. Thus the law protects and avenges.

Mango wrote:It does not have to be bigger than that. That is exactly my point. every time a freedom is restricted, you become less free. Even if it is a small loss of a freedom, it is still a loss of a freedom. Small losses add up. 1 penny is not worth much. 2 pennies are still not worth much, but add a penny a minute, and very soon you will have a substantial amount of money. The whole jist of my argument is that laws are passed every year. Everyyear we are less free.
Freedom is the ability to choose for yourself, free from constaints. That is the established definition. 10 years ago could I ride a bicycle? Did I have to wear a helmet? No. today it is illegal to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet. Is wearing a helmet a good idea? Yes. But did my ability to choose wether or not to wear it get taken from me by law? Yes. Did a law get passed limiting my ability to choose? yes. So if my freedom was lessened, am I less free? YES

No, the problem is lack of context, to the point where you think something as utterly trivial as fireworks is worth worrying about compared to the improvements made over the same period of time.

When you demand that I give a big example of a loss of freedom what you are trying to do, is change the parameters of the debate. None of you has refuted my basic argument that laws restrict freedom and that more laws equates to less freedom.

Alright, Lenny Bruce was convicted in the 70s, and wouldn't be today. A place where government once had laws and doesn't now.

What about a law passed to protect the ability to vote, for instance a law that said every individual has the right to go to a polling booth and make his vote without being attacked by private citizens of government. If a state passed that law, would society be more or less free afterwards?

But you want a big example of how people are less fre today than they were 25 years ago? here it is.
In january 1999, David Howard was an official in the DC mayor's office. He was discussing his administration of a fund. He said that hi was being "niggardly" in the administration of the fund. He lost his job for using a word. worse, he lost his job for using a word ina grammaticlly correct way, and in the proper context.

Before anyone gets thier knickers in a twist, here is the definition of the word niggardly:
1 : grudgingly mean about spending or granting : begrudging
2 : provided in meanly limited supply

So, he lost his job for speaking correctly. That is a loss of freedom.

Oh dear, before you cite examples you might want to check them. Howard resigned, was later offered his job back but instead took a different position at the university. Howard himself says he wasn't victimised, but had learnt from the incident and come to understand a more sophisticated view of race.

This case is quite famous for the attempts of the 'PC gone made' crowd to try and make it into something it isn't. Maybe next time before taking up the banner to defend someone's rights you should check to see if the assumed victim agrees with you.

1.So give me an example of a representative socialist system that is freer than a capitalist republic.
2. Show me how more laws and regulations make you more free.

You're going to need to provide definitions of free, capitalist and republic. From the proper definition of capitalism and socialism, you run into the issue that every Western democracy is both. But you're probably looking at the definitions used in pundit land... So please, define free, socialism and capitalism and we can move forward with your question.

Again your words:
"Your analogy uses the single instance of one guy painting his army and so is a bad analogy. See, in your example the guy painting his army does so alone, reliant on no-one else. But in the real case, the individual and his pay packet, things are nowhere near as simple. The firm you work for exists because of the corporation, property and contract laws written by the state. The work you do on your computer is product of the research and innovations of thousands. The desk you write at is the result of the manufacturing of a few more dozen. The road you took to get to work is the result of hundreds more, funded by government.

The job you do is one link in a vastly complex supply chain. To take your paycheck at the end of the day, pretend it's entirely the product of your own brow, and the tax drawn from it is the product of some external factor is absolute lunacy. "

Using your logic, the person with the models did not act alone either. Did he make the paints? No. Did he make the brushes? no. Did he make the odels? no. Others made the paints, others made the models, others drove trucks to get themodels to the store where they wer purchased. You did not refute my argument. you disagreed with it. That is an opinion.

No, I disagreed with your underlying thought process, which ignored the place of the individual in the greater economy.

Meanwhile, you failed to dispute that the guy taking his paycheck is just one part of complex system, as the tax levied from his pay is another part. You just said 'well that's your opinion and I have mine'. So come on then, do you agree with the premise 'the individual working at a company is part of a complex economic and social system, with input from countless individuals, companies and government throughout the value chain'.

Mango wrote:No the problem with this debate is not lack of context. the problem with this debate, is no one has yet to prove my primary assertion, that every year more laws are passed. Laws restrict freedom. Ergo we become less free every year.

Well I hadn't bothered to dispute it before now (see my Lenny Bruce and voting arguments above). I hadn't bothered because there is so much else wrong with your argument. You are ignoring the idea that there are other freedoms than freedom from government. You are ignoring that freedom isn't the only possible good. Instead you keep to this impossibly narrow corridor of only seeing laws being passed. While there are problems with the facts of your claim, the biggest problem is still 'well who cares'. There are simply so many issues tied into the issue of government and law that are bigger that 'there are more laws this year than there were last year'.

having benefits and perks does not equate to personal freedom. (ok,ok, PART of the definition of freedom I posted clearly states the absence of necessity, which could mean the absence of material necessity, ie plenty of food and water) but that is only part of freedom.

let's look at a different example. A child living in hisparents home.
He is provided health care by his parents.

He is provided shelter by his parents.

he his provided food by his parents.

he is provided clothing by his parents.

he is provided protection from strangers by his parents.

he is given an education by his parents.

His parents provide him with entertainment.

Does a child get a whole host of benefits from his parents? Yes

Would the child be able to survive without his parents? That depend on many factors, such as the age of the child and where they live.

Can the child leave his parents at anytime they wish? Technically, yes. But as the child is dependent upon thier parents, then practically, no the child cannot leave at any time they wish.


Overall, does the child benefit from living with his parents? Yes indeed the child does. Is the child free? No

Do the parents decide what clothes the child wears? Yes
Does the parent decide where the child will live? yes
Does the parent decide what time the child will go to bed? yes
Does the parent decide what the child will eat? yes
Does the parent get to choose who the child plays with? yes
Does the parent get to decide what the child learns? yes
Does the parent get to decide what religion the child has? Yes

Do the parents have the welfare of the child at heart? yes.
Do the parents love their child? yes
Does that mean the child is free? No

That is one of the reasons that children leave their parents home, to start making decisions for themselves.

So again, benefits and material things do not equate to freedom.

I personally believe, (and this is just a personal opinion)
that I should have more freedom and responsibility for the course of my life, than a government. Part of freedom, which the socially conscious people of the left try to gloss over, is freedom to succeed comes with the price of the freedom to fail. A just government is impossible. It is possible to have a governbment that is more just than another. Part of that is providing equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.

sebster,
Is there a difference between being asked to resign and resigning of your own free will? Mr Howard was indeed asked to resign and he did so. In real life when your boss asks you to resign, no technically you are not being fired. You choose to resign. But if your boss asks you to resign, it means that if you do not, you will be fired. The big difference is that if the person voluntarilly resigns, the former employer will provide a reference. If they are fired, they do not get the reference, which makes it harder ot get a job.

But the plain truth of the matter is that he was forced to leave a job because of a word. That he was later offered the job back does not change the fact that he was forced out of the job in the first place.

And I did check those facts, mostly because I live in Washington DC, and did do at hte time the event occured, and followed it very closely. My gues is you did a quick google search and pounced on the frst article you came across. Which does indeed limit ones viewpoint.

sebster,
your quote
"No, I disagreed with your underlying thought process, which ignored the place of the individual in the greater economy.

Meanwhile, you failed to dispute that the guy taking his paycheck is just one part of complex system, as the tax levied from his pay is another part. You just said 'well that's your opinion and I have mine'. So come on then, do you agree with the premise 'the individual working at a company is part of a complex economic and social system, with input from countless individuals, companies and government throughout the value chain'. "

see my previous post about the 10 guys going to a bar.

Mango wrote:having benefits and perks does not equate to personal freedom. (ok,ok, PART of the definition of freedom I posted clearly states the absence of necessity, which could mean the absence of material necessity, ie plenty of food and water) but that is only part of freedom.

I personally believe, (and this is just a personal opinion)
that I should have more freedom and responsibility for the course of my life, than a government. Part of freedom, which the socially conscious people of the left try to gloss over, is freedom to succeed comes with the price of the freedom to fail. A just government is impossible. It is possible to have a governbment that is more just than another. Part of that is providing equal opportunity. Not equal outcome.

If you don't believe you have more freedom of action then your government you have no understanding of bureaucracy.

Mango wrote:Despite the name, they here indeed socialist.

What do you mean, despite the name? 'Socialist' was in their name. National Socialist German Workers Party. The silly idea that Nazi fascism can be considered socialism came from the inclusion of socialism in the name of the party.

Thing is, the word socialism was included late in the day to broaden the base of the party. They never had anything close to socialist policy.

Second thing, the Night of Long Knives, in which Hitler and his inner circle murdered the leadership of the SA, was undertaken in large part because the better recognised leaders of the SA espoused socialist views.

Third thing, the rise of fascism was a response to the rise of communism. Once he had power, the first people Hitler turned on where the communists. This was the same in Italy, and in Spain the fascist coup overthrew a socialist government. Thing is, exactly what fascism represents is a tricky thing. It has been quite different in each country... the only really common underlying link is perhaps that it grows out of a resistance to communism.

Fourth thing, no-one in Germany at the time was going around at the time thinking it was socialism. Hitler was supported by the conservative aristocracy because despite a dislike of his working class ideas, he was the strong man against communism.

It just isn't a thing that can be debated. The Nazis weren't socialist.

As for your argument, I don't know who you're reading but you should give them up. They're lying to you or they're lying to themselves, to justify modern political point scoring. It badly misrepresents the Nazi system of corporatism (where corporations were tasked with meeting national goals but were still given considerable freedom and were expected to compete, and industry outside the cores of infrastructure and war were still private). The claim that the Nazi government caused inflation is worse, inflation was rampant under the previous Weimar government, and it was that hyper-inflation that was a major cause in Hitler's rise to power - that's just a dreadful lie you've been told.

**full disclosure*** I did not write the section explaining why Nazi Germany was indeed socialist, I copied and pasted it. However, that does not make it less true.

Wherever you pasted this from, they have little or no understanding of the rise of Nazism. I mean seriously, thinking inflation was a Nazi thing... inflation is a massive issue in Germany and a major part of the rise to power. When kids do modern history in middle school, they might spend a week on WWII, and that means a day on Germany. In that day they'll be told about the inflation in the Weimar Republic, and how that was a major cause in the rise of extremist parties like the Nazis and the Communists. To get that basic thing confused... it's like writing a new insightful analysis of the first Gulf War, but getting confused and thinking Saddam won.

reds8n wrote:Nazi Germany wasn't socialist by any means at all-- their "beef" with the Russians-- what were they called at the time ?-- is quite well documented.

Hitler might even have mentioned similar things in a few of his speeches.

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government.

Incorrect from the first sentence, there were a ton of companies-- many of them quite famous to this day-- that were in existence at the time.

Did the Jim Crow laws benefit the majority of society? yes they did

No it didn't, that's the key thing.

The laws took something from one, and gave it to another. That does not make them right or freer

No it didn't, what it did was give everyone the same rights. The way you're arguing is like claiming that by giving women the vote took away something from men.

It did/does make people freer, I really can't see how you can claim that laws that ensure racial equality don't contribute towards a freer society.

Again you seem to be treating freedom or benefit as easily quantifiable things, they're not.

You're just repeating the same-- to my eyes -- fallacies over and over again.

Quite a lot of Wild fowl walk and look like ducks, and the noise that ducks make can vary enormously by species. Not as many different sounds as frogs but that's life I guess.

The Jim crow laws DID benefit one part of society, they benefited the southern white. They got better schools, better seating on a bus, better parks et al. The underlying legal argument of the Jim crow laws was "seperate but equal". that was explicitly refuted in Suprem Court rulings that stated that separate but equal was not what was happening. It was sepearate AND unequal.

**clarification** I am a firm believer in women voting. I see it every time I go to the voting booth, so I know that it is true. They do vote. : )
All jokes aside, I also believe that a woman has every right to vote, just as a man does. I also believe women voting is a desirable thing.

With that being said, Giving women the right to vote did indeed take something from men. If you have a democracy, and 10 people live in it. 5 are men. 5 are women. However women do not have the right to vote. Therefore each man's vote is 1/5 of the total vote. If however one day you give women the right to vote, each man's vote now only is 1/10 of the total vote. You have diluted the power and effect of one mans vote. Therefore you did take something from him.

Mango wrote:sebster,
your quote
"No, I disagreed with your underlying thought process, which ignored the place of the individual in the greater economy.

Meanwhile, you failed to dispute that the guy taking his paycheck is just one part of complex system, as the tax levied from his pay is another part. You just said 'well that's your opinion and I have mine'. So come on then, do you agree with the premise 'the individual working at a company is part of a complex economic and social system, with input from countless individuals, companies and government throughout the value chain'. "

see my previous post about the 10 guys going to a bar.

Ah, that would be a story about some guys doing some private spending. Which is no different to the story about the guy with the model collection. Both rely on ignoring the individual as part of a greater society, drawing income and paying tax as part of that system. Stop reposting the same basic premise and start addressing my rebuttal.

Oh and the bit about India, I spent a bit of time referring to some old reading material for that, and it's more than a little rude for you to just ignore it after you asked for examples.

Mango wrote:sebster,
Is there a difference between being asked to resign and resigning of your own free will? Mr Howard was indeed asked to resign and he did so. In real life when your boss asks you to resign, no technically you are not being fired. You choose to resign. But if your boss asks you to resign, it means that if you do not, you will be fired. The big difference is that if the person voluntarilly resigns, the former employer will provide a reference. If they are fired, they do not get the reference, which makes it harder ot get a job.

But the plain truth of the matter is that he was forced to leave a job because of a word. That he was later offered the job back does not change the fact that he was forced out of the job in the first place.

And I did check those facts, mostly because I live in Washington DC, and did do at hte time the event occured, and followed it very closely. My gues is you did a quick google search and pounced on the frst article you came across. Which does indeed limit ones viewpoint.

No, I remember it as well. I've a long history of 'PC gone made types' and that case took everyone's attention. And you ignored the absolute key point, the guy at the centre of the case didn't think he was victimised. Who are you to come in and declare he was done wrong?

Meanwhile, you ignored my Lenny Bruce point. Asking a question then ignoring a difficult answer is the height of ignorance.

Sebster,
i provided an example of what socialism is. Again I used a definition. The article I posted showed how while not "officially" socialism, nazi Germany was socialist. That is what the "de facto" part means.

What about a tyranny?

sebster wrote:

Mango wrote:sebster,
Is there a difference between being asked to resign and resigning of your own free will? Mr Howard was indeed asked to resign and he did so. In real life when your boss asks you to resign, no technically you are not being fired. You choose to resign. But if your boss asks you to resign, it means that if you do not, you will be fired. The big difference is that if the person voluntarilly resigns, the former employer will provide a reference. If they are fired, they do not get the reference, which makes it harder ot get a job.

But the plain truth of the matter is that he was forced to leave a job because of a word. That he was later offered the job back does not change the fact that he was forced out of the job in the first place.

And I did check those facts, mostly because I live in Washington DC, and did do at hte time the event occured, and followed it very closely. My gues is you did a quick google search and pounced on the frst article you came across. Which does indeed limit ones viewpoint.

No, I remember it as well. I've a long history of 'PC gone made types' and that case took everyone's attention. And you ignored the absolute key point, the guy at the centre of the case didn't think he was victimised. Who are you to come in and declare he was done wrong?

Meanwhile, you ignored my Lenny Bruce point. Asking a question then ignoring a difficult answer is the height of ignorance.

Sebster,
When a corporation is sued by an individual, the corporation will often settle out of court. This often includes the corporation paying money to the individual. The reasons companies do this, is often even if a company does not think it did anything wrong, and maight even think they would win if the lawsuit went all the way through the courts, they will still settle out of court. Why? to avoid the bad publicity and monetary expense that comes with a law suit. However, often part of the settlement, is not only the person recieving money, that person alos has to retract thier original statements.

Another example of this, is Michael Vick. Currently in jail for dog fighting. He is currently trying to curry favor with animal rights groups, offering to do commercials for them decrying violence towards animals. Making other public sttaements apologizing for his actions. Saying his actions were horriifc. Now one school of thought, is that he has truly seen the error of his ways and repented. The other school of thought, is he lost a lot of money from this episode. More importantly, when he was suspended indefinitely from the NFL, he lost the potentail to make income when he gets out of jail. One way to regain his elligibilty to play in the NFL upon his release, is to do a masive mea culpa and become an animal rights activist. So this school of thought is that he still does give a rats arse about animal rights, he merely wants to play in the NFL again and regain his lost money. We cannot read his mind, so legally, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. However I and most people I know, think he has not changed his attitude towards animal rights, he just wants more mone.

Much the same way a deal could have been reached with Mr Howard. He lost his job. (wether completely of his own free will or by force is debatable). He still lost his job. he would have been able to sue. This at minimum would have been extremely costly to the District of Columbia, just in light of the costs associated with a legal battle. The costs to Mr Howard would likely have been born by someone else. (the ACLU comes to mind). To avoid the costly legal battle, is it likely that Mr Howard is offered a higher paying job with another institution, that the powers that be have influence with, as long as he makes a public statement that he was not a victim, and further, to allow both parties to save face and allow the public embarassment to die down, get his old job offered back, so he can decline it?


The problem I have with big intrusive governments can be summed up in the following quote. I do not know who first said it.

"a government that is pwerful enough to give you everything you want, is a government powerful enough to take it all away"

The more authority and power a government has, the less power a and authority the governed have. People in power have a tendency to abuse thier power, and alos have a tendency to try to gain more power. The difference between a benevolent socialist dictatorship and a tyranical one is only the people in charge. One the mechanisms for societal control are in place, those mechanisms can easily be subverted to other uses. For example. Traffic cameras installed to allow people to see where traffic is heaviest, and plan and reroute their morning commute accordingly. A beneficial state of affairs, right? Now what happens when the government uses those same cameras to track the movements of the citizens? Again, if used to find evidence of a crime, such as a hit and run accident, again, that is a good thing. But remember, a government decides what is a crime and what is not. So what if the government deides to become a dictatorship. It nowhas in place a system with which it can monitor the movement of its citizens. If the overnment can monitor you location, it can monitor just about everything about you. It can also find and imprison you at will. Again if this is uded to find someone who is a murderer, great. But what if the government decides that disagreeing with one of it's policies is a capital crime?

That is what I have been trying to get at with all of my arguments on laws and restrictions. A law put in place for one reason can have multiple effects, far beyond what was originally intended.

Sebster,
I had to look up Lenny Bruce. I was not familiar with his case. Anyway, I feel he proves my point more than yours. Free speech, one of the main laws enshrined in the constitution. Then MORE laws get passed. in this case obsenity laws. laws that restrict free speech. So Lenny says some words. Gets hounded by police and authorities for large parts of his career. Finally dies of an overdose. That was in the 60's. You say he wouldn't be arrested today.

However, if you curse on the radio today, you can be fined by the FCC. So limitations to free speech still exist.

look at the SuperBowl with the infamous wardrobe malfunction. the courts have decided that physical acts can be 'speech" for example, the burning of the US flag has been determined to be constitutionally protected free speech. So it could be argued that the wardrobe malfunction, which the performers admitted was not a mistake, could be constued as artistic free speech. The FCC did not see it that way, and a fine wqasimposed, and new regulations imposed that even live broadcasts must have a delay, so future "malfunctions" or words can be bleeped out.

Sebster,
The "hieght of ignorance" is rich. you have done the exact same thing in previous posts in this thread. I am not saying this in a vindictive tone, just pointing out the irony in that statement.

But you are indeed correct in stating the height of ignorance is ignoring. Since by definition ignorance is lack of knowledge, and ignoring is the willful choice to refuse to aknowledge a thing. Which means you choose not only to be ignorant, but also choose to remain ignorant.

I am going to take a break from posting for a bit. I will check back later. But I am definitely enjoying this debate. Thank you all for participating.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
i provided an example of what socialism is. Again I used a definition. The article I posted showed how while not "officially" socialism, nazi Germany was socialist. That is what the "de facto" part means.

You copy and pasted from some guy who thought Nazi policy caused the hyperinflation. The guy simply has no idea what he's talking about.

When I point this out to you, you ignore and repeat your initial premise. Please explain to me how you can take anyone commentary on the economic policies of Nazi Germany seriously when they can't get something as simple as the causes and effects of hyperinflation correct.

Mango wrote:Much the same way a deal could have been reached with Mr Howard. He lost his job. (wether completely of his own free will or by force is debatable). He still lost his job. he would have been able to sue. This at minimum would have been extremely costly to the District of Columbia, just in light of the costs associated with a legal battle. The costs to Mr Howard would likely have been born by someone else. (the ACLU comes to mind). To avoid the costly legal battle, is it likely that Mr Howard is offered a higher paying job with another institution, that the powers that be have influence with, as long as he makes a public statement that he was not a victim, and further, to allow both parties to save face and allow the public embarassment to die down, get his old job offered back, so he can decline it?

What are you talking about? The guy was offered his old job back, and instead took up a different position. Now you’re inventing some kind of compromise deal that must have taken place. Do you have any reason to suspect such a compromise occurred?

There’s a fine line between outspoken and nutter, and once you start inventing realities to protect your theory you start threatening to cross that line.

The problem I have with big intrusive governments can be summed up in the following quote. I do not know who first said it.

"a government that is pwerful enough to give you everything you want, is a government powerful enough to take it all away"

Again, just restating your original premise. It’s a nice bumper sticker but a long way short of full and reasoned debate.

The more authority and power a government has, the less power a and authority the governed have. People in power have a tendency to abuse thier power, and alos have a tendency to try to gain more power. The difference between a benevolent socialist dictatorship and a tyranical one is only the people in charge. One the mechanisms for societal control are in place, those mechanisms can easily be subverted to other uses. For example. Traffic cameras installed to allow people to see where traffic is heaviest, and plan and reroute their morning commute accordingly. A beneficial state of affairs, right? Now what happens when the government uses those same cameras to track the movements of the citizens? Again, if used to find evidence of a crime, such as a hit and run accident, again, that is a good thing. But remember, a government decides what is a crime and what is not. So what if the government deides to become a dictatorship. It nowhas in place a system with which it can monitor the movement of its citizens. If the overnment can monitor you location, it can monitor just about everything about you. It can also find and imprison you at will. Again if this is uded to find someone who is a murderer, great. But what if the government decides that disagreeing with one of it's policies is a capital crime?

Yes, one should be aware of the powers of government. I’m a member of Amnesty International and believe the work done by civil libertarians and other groups in ensuring full and accountable government is essential. But your argument, in which nothing but laws are considered, and laws are only see in the context of freedoms restricted and not in freedoms protected… is a terrible argument.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
I had to look up Lenny Bruce. I was not familiar with his case.

So you want to tell everyone your grand theory of free speech but you don’t know who Lenny Bruce was? He was kind of important…

Anyway, I feel he proves my point more than yours. Free speech, one of the main laws enshrined in the constitution. Then MORE laws get passed. in this case obsenity laws. laws that restrict free speech. So Lenny says some words. Gets hounded by police and authorities for large parts of his career. Finally dies of an overdose. That was in the 60's. You say he wouldn't be arrested today.

However, if you curse on the radio today, you can be fined by the FCC. So limitations to free speech still exist.

Lenny Bruce was arrested for comments made in a private club in front of paying customers who were aware of the act Bruce was known to perform. Everyone there was a consenting adult. It is not possible to get a conviction for a similar act today. That was what you asked for, a case where a law that used to exist and doesn’t today.

Want another one? Sodomy was a crime, and now it isn’t. Your argument that government only adds laws and never removes them is bad.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
The "hieght of ignorance" is rich. you have done the exact same thing in previous posts in this thread. I am not saying this in a vindictive tone, just pointing out the irony in that statement.

But you are indeed correct in stating the height of ignorance is ignoring. Since by definition ignorance is lack of knowledge, and ignoring is the willful choice to refuse to aknowledge a thing. Which means you choose not only to be ignorant, but also choose to remain ignorant.

I am not aware of any argument or claim you made that I’ve ignored. If there is one please point it out.

You have been unwilling to address in any way the different ideas presented in this thread. When counter arguments were given you simply repeated your original premise. When you asked for examples they were given and you ignored them… only addressing a few when called out. Even then you’ve given cursory answers and have not once questioned your own central theory.

I call that ignorance.

Sebster,

Just a quick post before I go off to bed, I will address some of your other points tommorrow.

My example of 10 guys in a bar that you claim is just private spending and an invalid argument is just not true.

your quote
"Ah, that would be a story about some guys doing some private spending. Which is no different to the story about the guy with the model collection. Both rely on ignoring the individual as part of a greater society, drawing income and paying tax as part of that system. Stop reposting the same basic premise and start addressing my rebuttal. "

In the US there is a graduated income tax. If 10 people all live in the same society (my analogy a bar) and all use the same infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, whatever (my analogy,drink the same beer, listen to the same music, watch the same tv, yet one pays nothing 1 (1 tax bracket, that after deductions, and the eic get a full refund of all taxes, pays nothing) the next tax bracket pays slightly more, etc. That is indeed a valid analogy. Just saying it isn't, well isn't. If you fail to undestand it, then try to point out my ignorance of one person (lenny Bruce) as a way of denigrating an argument is the same thing. And further, Not knowing the personal story of every person on the planet is no crime. I am sure that I could name a lot of famous people that you would have no clue who they were without looking them up first. I found that incredibly insulting and of no legitimate purpose in a discussion other than to be insulting. And one argument you failed to address, to name one, is the child in a parent's house .


I repeat my arguments, because they have not been refuted, yet people claim they have. My examples using the definitions of law and freedom. Did you provide a definition refuting them? No. has anyone? No. The closest someone came to refuting them, is saying the equivalant of "it depends on what your definition of the word is, is".

You are a member of amnesty international. Congratulations. I have a United Nations Service Medal. Your point?

Progressivity in the income tax code is a really interesting thing. Is it fair? Nope. Is there any other way to pay for everything we want? Nope.

Also, the FCC can regulate the airwaves because the government holds that they are public property, they way that say city owned theater is. I agree that it's a BS argument, but even the liberal courts have upheld it.

Mango wrote:Sebster,

Just a quick post before I go off to bed, I will address some of your other points tommorrow.

My example of 10 guys in a bar that you claim is just private spending and an invalid argument is just not true.

No, not invalid, just simplistic. What’s frustrating is the number of times I’ve mentioned the bigger picture, and you keep returning to analogies that repeat the same point. You are yet to address the bigger picture despite me mentioning it so many times. I’ll try again below.

your quote
"Ah, that would be a story about some guys doing some private spending. Which is no different to the story about the guy with the model collection. Both rely on ignoring the individual as part of a greater society, drawing income and paying tax as part of that system. Stop reposting the same basic premise and start addressing my rebuttal. "

In the US there is a graduated income tax. If 10 people all live in the same society (my analogy a bar) and all use the same infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals, whatever (my analogy,drink the same beer, listen to the same music, watch the same tv, yet one pays nothing 1 (1 tax bracket, that after deductions, and the eic get a full refund of all taxes, pays nothing) the next tax bracket pays slightly more, etc. That is indeed a valid analogy. Just saying it isn't, well isn't. If you fail to undestand it, then try to point out my ignorance of one person (lenny Bruce) as a way of denigrating an argument is the same thing. And further, Not knowing the personal story of every person on the planet is no crime. I am sure that I could name a lot of famous people that you would have no clue who they were without looking them up first. I found that incredibly insulting and of no legitimate purpose in a discussion other than to be insulting. And one argument you failed to address, to name one, is the child in a parent's house .

Obviously your bar analogy was about progressive income tax. It was scarcely different to the previous analogies you posted. In reply, I gave the same argument I have given every other time, looking purely at spending ignores the primary issue about progressive income tax. See, in your example you don’t address at all how the people at the bar got their money and that is a major blindspot. Think of it slightly differently, consider that the people at the bar own the bar and work in the bar, and only have their money because of the laws and systems built up around that bar. When that bar needs repair, surely the people who benefit the most from it should pay a little more?

Because, and here I am saying it again, people are paid what they’re paid because of the way society is set up. Because of contract laws, property laws, government spending programs and all other parts of government and society, we earn what we earn. It is foolish to look at your paycheque at the end of the fortnight and say ‘how dare they take out 34%!’ as though this was some sudden external process, and not part and parcel of the same government and society that created the system that allowed you to be paid what you were paid in the first place. The doctors and the lawyers and businessmen who earn the big dollars earn that money because of the way society interacts, and that interaction includes the tax system. So at this point you can address that issue, or you can make a new analogy that complains about tax not being the same for everyone.

And yeah, maybe my line about Lenny Bruce was a little harsh, but if you to talk about freedom of speech he’s kind of an important figure. You haven’t addressed my point that obscenity laws were much harsher in his times than they are now. Or my latter point that sodomy used to be illegal, but now isn’t. You had a blanket claim that government restricts more freedoms, and I’ve given examples where people have more freedom than they used to. Address my points or concede your claim.

I repeat my arguments, because they have not been refuted, yet people claim they have. My examples using the definitions of law and freedom. Did you provide a definition refuting them? No. has anyone? No. The closest someone came to refuting them, is saying the equivalant of "it depends on what your definition of the word is, is".

But by the definition given, every country on Earth is socialist. It isn’t a useful definition.

You are a member of amnesty international. Congratulations. I have a United Nations Service Medal. Your point?

Mentioning AI was just a way of showing that I agree with your broad concern over government power. But that doesn’t mean your ultra-narrow view of considering no freedom but freedom from government, and your view that government only increases the number of laws is anything but bad.

Sebster,
Your quote
"But by the definition given, every country on Earth is socialist. It isn’t a useful definition. "

What was my original argument?

Until such point as someone refutes my original argument by providing a valid definition of a law and a valid definition of freedom, my argument stands.

My definitions all came from the merriam webster dictionary.

My original argument was, and I repeat.
Laws restrict freedom
therefore more laws =less freedom


Then the arguments got onto what is more accurately called a discussion of socialism vs other forms of government or modern liberalism vs modern conservatism. Yet to date NO ONE has refuted my original argument. They have provided rationales. NOT PROOF. And there is a very signifigant difference between a rationale and proof. One is evidence showing something is true. The other is a belief.

So I will continue repeating my original argument until such time as that argument is proven wrong.


"Obviously your bar analogy was about progressive income tax. It was scarcely different to the previous analogies you posted. In reply, I gave the same argument I have given every other time, looking purely at spending ignores the primary issue about progressive income tax. See, in your example you don’t address at all how the people at the bar got their money and that is a major blindspot. Think of it slightly differently, consider that the people at the bar own the bar and work in the bar, and only have their money because of the laws and systems built up around that bar. When that bar needs repair, surely the people who benefit the most from it should pay a little more? "

Think of it this way. The doorman that collected the cover charge and the bartender are the government. The revenues they collect are used for the upkeep and running of the bar. So if all of them benefit equally from the bar, they should pay the same price. If one has better luck with the ladies in the bar, is that a valid reason to charge him more for veing there?

BTW, I do thank you for aknowledging the tone of the Lenny Bruce statement. I will take that and accept it as an apology. In the spirit of fairness, I will also aknowledge that I was rude to efarrer and apologize to him. Lenny Bruce might be important to a debate of free speech. Many people are important to the idea of free speech, yet that does not mean we know all of thier names. For example, off the top of my head I cannot think of the individuals involved in the law suit about fire and the theater. I could look it up, but would it matter? The facts of the case are the same regardless of wether or not I know the names of all parties invloved.

Efarrer, I apologize for the rudeness in tone of o couple of my earlier posts.

Polonius wrote:Progressivity in the income tax code is a really interesting thing. Is it fair? Nope. Is there any other way to pay for everything we want? Nope.

Also, the FCC can regulate the airwaves because the government holds that they are public property, they way that say city owned theater is. I agree that it's a BS argument, but even the liberal courts have upheld it.

Polonius,
Thank you joining us again. I also am gladthat you agree with me (at least on that specific point alone) that it is a BS argument. Now then, a couple of points with your statement, specifically "is there any other way to pay for everything we want?"
1. Yes there ARE other ways than a progressive income tax to pay for government services. One specific example is that when first written, the US constitution specifically prohibited an income tax. Yet the US still had a government. At that point the US government raised revenue primarily through consumption and excise taxes.
2.That was later changed with an amendment to the constitution to specifically allow for income taxes. And a massive expansion of government soon followed.
3. Not everyone agrees on what the basic services a government should provide.
4. Unfortunately in a democracy or a democratic form of government the majority is what decides (in theory) what the government will do.
5. Just because the majority wants something, does not make it fair or right or even a good idea. It just means that the majority want it. See above posts on Jim Crow Laws.

Mango wrote:

What was my original argument?

Until such point as someone refutes my original argument by providing a valid definition of a law and a valid definition of freedom, my argument stands.

Your original point was that any/all democracies move towards totalitarianism, and the current USA govt. is socialist.

You then basically "accused" the poor and middle classes of voting against the "rich", and--bizarrely-- complained that the rich get taxed more than the poor. It's hard to tax people for things they haven't got see.

Oh, and then some weird little tangent that tried to suggest that things "just happen", outside of any societal context or progession.


You keep stating over and over again that more laws=less free society without offering any proof to support this at all except a few odd anecdotes that don't really work if you consider them.

You're currently seriously suggesting-- from your line of reasoning-- that a woman or an ethnic minority is now less free than they were 50-60 years ago.

Anytime anyone suggests something different you just go " No, you're wrong" and move on. Waving dictionary definitions around isn't an argument.

Again-- and this is like the 5th or 6th time now-- you continually refer to "freedom" as if it is quantifiable. It isn't.

30 years ago this discussion would have been pretty much impossible given the technology at the time-- still is in parts of the world today due to censorship/similar.
But I'm freer now than X years ago, and-- in my opinion-- so is my society.

Wow, I'm just shocked I'm not part of this thread.

Reds8n,
For simplicity sake, so that people do not have to go back to my first post with an argument. (which is different from my original post, which was a statement).

Mango wrote:Sadly, the unfortunate progression of any democracy is towards an authoritarian form of government. The old joke sums it up best.

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch”.

Greater regulation = less individual freedom.

Regulatory creep: A politician’s natural tendency is to stay in office. To stay in office they have to be seen as being effective. To be seen as being effective they have to pass laws. The more laws that are passed, the more society is regulated. The more a society is regulated the larger government has to get. The larger government is, the more powerful it is. The more power a government has, the less power the governed have. And throughout history, once a power has been appropriated by a government, that government has always been loathe to give it up.

There are always more mid level or poor in a society than there are rich. Which means in any democracy, the poor and middle class will always outnumber the wealthy. The poor and middle class will be the two wolves and the sheep will be the wealthy. So on average, in a democracy, the party that represents the poor and middle class will maintain power more frequently than the party that represents the more well off. As such they will continually vote to implement policies that favor taking more resources from the wealthy and redistributing those resources to the poor and middle class. To gain access to these resources, the government has to pass more laws and regulations. For example, the government will slant the income taxes to hit the wealthiest harder than the non wealthy.

A republic, which is a democratic form of government, but is not a democracy, will resist this trend longer than a pure democracy. A republic has more safeguards for a minority group than does a pure democracy. However, even a republic will still have a natural tendency to behave like a democracy, it will just take longer to occur.

The power of a government can lessen over time, typically through corruption, an outside entity acting upon that government, or a general collapse of the society itself. This is what happened to the Soviet Union. (it was more a combination of the three). But failing a catastrophic change enforced on a government, the tendency of the government is to grow and repress.

Unfortunately, the tendency of the US has been to move toward socialism and a more repressive government. If the founding fathers could see what the Federal Government of the United States has become they would be horrified.

regulation is a synonym for rules. rules is a synonym for law.

So my original argument was, and I will quote myself.
"Greater regulation = less individual freedom."

Again, I provided a definition of law, and I have since shown that by definition a law restricts freedom. You have again provided a rationale that laws have a net benefit for society, yet you have still not refuted my original premise by proving how my (and merriam webster's) definition of law is wrong. You have given ample reasons of why you think and believe it is wrong, but have not proven that it is wrong. Until you can do that, you are arguing from a position of belief not fact.

And so are you.

..and ?

regulation is a synonym for rules. rules is a synonym for law.

I don't agree, I'd use the word "order" instead.

And

Greater regulation = less individual freedom."

no, again things like racial or sexual discrimination laws make people freer,even on an individual basis.

Again -- 7th time now ?-- you're treating free or freedom like it;s a number that you just add or subtract to/from. IT isn't like that at all.

reds8n wrote:And so are you.

..and ?

regulation is a synonym for rules. rules is a synonym for law.

I don't agree, I'd use the word "order" instead.

And

Greater regulation = less individual freedom."

no, again things like racial or sexual discrimination laws make people freer,even on an individual basis.

Again -- 7th time now ?-- you're treating free or freedom like it;s a number that you just add or subtract to/from. IT isn't like that at all.

Reds8n,
When I provide an accepted definition of a word, I am not arguing from belief. I am arguing from a point of fact.

"i don't agree, id use the word "order" instead" is an opinion. There is no proof or evidence given other than a statement of belief.

"no, again things like racial or sexual discrimination laws make people freer,even on an individual basis." is an opinion and a rationale, not a fact.

You are still merely expressing your opinion and belief, ie providing a rationale. You are not introducing evidence. You are not introducing any facts.

You have again, which everyone is accusing me of, repeated an opinion or a rationale. You have not refuted the basic premise of my argument.

Remember folks,
I have never said that all laws are bad. I have never said that the existence of laws is bad. I have never said that a state without laws is good. I have merely pointed out that laws restrict freedom. Is the fact that laws in and of themselves restrict freedom a bad thing? I have never argued that. Have I argued that laws, by the definition of a law, restricts freedom, by the definition of freedom? Yes, that is exactly what I have been arguing.

Some laws are good. Some laws are bad.(that is my personal opinion, I also believe that the vast majority of people would agree with that point.) That nearly everyone would agree with that point does not in and of itself make it a true statement however. It is still an opinion.

if a=b, then more of a=more of b

That is not a disputable opinion.

The discussion of if a law provides a benefit is different from the discussion of if a law restricts freedom.

When I provide an accepted definition of a word, I am not arguing from belief. I am arguing from a point of fact.

Rubbish. That would only be true if we were arguing over the meaning of a word. That isn't what we're doing.

Myself and others suggest that society is freer now than it was in the past-- which you fail to disprove or even acknowledge-- and then agin retreat back to trying to quantify what freedom is.

It's nothing to with "a=b" etcv and all the rest of irrelevant nonsense. You're effectivekt claiming that a law that gives womena a vote malkes for a less free society ? Which is ludicrous.

The discussion of if a law provides a benefit is different from the discussion of if a law restricts freedom.

In parts yes, in parts no. Stop trying to move the goal posts.


Oh

Law : a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society

You're not actually presenting an argument to refute.

Mango wrote:
Polonius,
Thank you joining us again. I also am gladthat you agree with me (at least on that specific point alone) that it is a BS argument.

My free speech position is pretty well documented. I'm a hard left leaning social liberal. I do know that the legal grounds for the FCC aren't really that shaky. Speech can and is regulated, it's just that some speech is much, much harder to ban or even regulate. Political speech is the safest, and of that forms of expression that are readily available to the people are absolute hardest. There was a city once that tried to ban political leafleting. It got overturned faster than you can say spit.

As for the FCC, it regulates "commercial speech," which is always been easier to restrict. The other big weapon in the government's bag is that since it gave the airwaves to broadcasters, it can call the tune. I think we're reaching a point where it's starting to matter less, as content has found much better ways to be dispersed, but I think that the FCC in general is simply an overgrown censorship organ. We'll see if things change under a new regime.

Now then, a couple of points with your statement, specifically "is there any other way to pay for everything we want?"
1. Yes there ARE other ways than a progressive income tax to pay for government services. One specific example is that when first written, the US constitution specifically prohibited an income tax. Yet the US still had a government. At that point the US government raised revenue primarily through consumption and excise taxes.
2.That was later changed with an amendment to the constitution to specifically allow for income taxes. And a massive expansion of government soon followed.
3. Not everyone agrees on what the basic services a government should provide.
4. Unfortunately in a democracy or a democratic form of government the majority is what decides (in theory) what the government will do.
5. Just because the majority wants something, does not make it fair or right or even a good idea. It just means that the majority want it. See above posts on Jim Crow Laws.

In disclosure, tax policy is actually my thing. I've written papers on aspects of it and studied it for a semester in law school.

There are other ways of raising revenue, to be sure. It's important to separate tax policy (how do we raise then money we need) from spending policy (how much money do we need in the first place). Reducing spending any appreciable amount is far harder than most people realize. Defense spending, including retirement payments, is the bulk of our budget. Transfer payments make up the next big chunk, with discretionary spending a relatively small amount, and more of that is payment back to states than is commonly viewed. The states like federal taxes, because it allows them to keep their rates artificially low. So, any massive cut in federal spending will result in a corresponding increase in state spending. If you're just a 10th amendment "feds are bad, states are good" guy, then you might like that, but if you're an actual libertarian type, that's a false victory.

There are dozens of arguments for progressivity, and just as many against. We can hash them all out here, but they end in a draw, they always do. In the end, somebody has to pay the taxes (absent a fairly unrealistic massive reduction in federal spending) and when collecting money, you simply take it from those that can afford to pay. Fun Historical note: the income tax was only held to be a direct tax in 1895, when the Court held that taxes on income from property were taxes on the property. Even then, taxes on income from labor could have been taxed, but Congress even then didn't like the idea of only taxing the working classes.

The government expanding after the 16th amendment for a variety of reasons: World War 1, our rise as an imperial power, and the simple strains of being an industrial nation. Couple all of that with the reduction in tariffs (a big source of excise taxes) and the money needs to come from somewhere.

To me, it doesn't sound like you have a problem with our current tax system, you seem to not approve of our current governments spending patterns. That's fine, but that's not the fault of the tax system.

I'm going to say, and I'm not trying to be snotty, but it's a bit of bad form to casually drop things like Jim Crow laws (which violated constitutional rights in many ways) as laws that the majority wanted when analogizing. It's possible that in 50 or 100 years it will be found that some of the federal governments expansion was unconstitutional, but until it does comparing the two is misleading at best. I'd compare it more to things like the massive tariffs that compounded the great depression, or even to something like prohibition. Popular and seemed like good ideas, but didn't work out.

Like the man said, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Having a liberal democracy (one in which people have certain rights that can't be legislated away) makes the people safer from the abuses of the majority, but there will always be people that disagree. I can't, and the best minds of our generation, can't think of a better way to govern a nation.

Mango wrote:Sebster,
Your quote
"But by the definition given, every country on Earth is socialist. It isn’t a useful definition. "

What was my original argument?

Mmm, but there's socialist and there's socialist. You're playing a game where you take the weaker form present in Western democracies, and then ignore the countless steps and major reforms needed to get to much stronger forms.

Then you ask someone to disprove your claim and fall back on the very broad definition.

My original argument was, and I repeat.
Laws restrict freedom
therefore more laws =less freedom

But you've kept up that claim by ignoring each point I've made rejecting it. You haven't addressed any of the counter claims. You've just played this little game where you pick out side issues, and when I repeat the claim, you pick out some other random side issue. It's very poor form on your part.

So, right now, in your reply, explain how your theory accounts for the fact the Lenny Bruce would not charged today. Explain how sodomy was once illegal and now isn't. Also explain the presence of laws that protect freedoms, such as the right to cast a vote.

Actually address the issues I've raised constantly.

Then the arguments got onto what is more accurately called a discussion of socialism vs other forms of government or modern liberalism vs modern conservatism. Yet to date NO ONE has refuted my original argument. They have provided rationales. NOT PROOF. And there is a very signifigant difference between a rationale and proof. One is evidence showing something is true. The other is a belief.

I really have. I refuse to believe you haven't seen them. You've just ignored them. So address the issues.

So I will continue repeating my original argument until such time as that argument is proven wrong.

On current form I expect you'll keep repeating your original argument regardless of anything anyone posts.

Think of it this way. The doorman that collected the cover charge and the bartender are the government. The revenues they collect are used for the upkeep and running of the bar. So if all of them benefit equally from the bar, they should pay the same price. If one has better luck with the ladies in the bar, is that a valid reason to charge him more for veing there?

No, that's a fail because you're just repeating your original premise again. Address the idea that the income we earn is derived from our interactions with society, and it is the same society that levies taxes. Don't just repeat 'people pay different amounts', because it's hopelessly simplistic.

BTW, I do thank you for aknowledging the tone of the Lenny Bruce statement. I will take that and accept it as an apology. In the spirit of fairness, I will also aknowledge that I was rude to efarrer and apologize to him. Lenny Bruce might be important to a debate of free speech. Many people are important to the idea of free speech, yet that does not mean we know all of thier names. For example, off the top of my head I cannot think of the individuals involved in the law suit about fire and the theater. I could look it up, but would it matter? The facts of the case are the same regardless of wether or not I know the names of all parties invloved.

Take any apology you want, but you still haven't answered the question. It's very rude on your part.

Address the point. What Bruce was convicted for is not a crime any more, and that's a big problem when your theory assumes you only get more laws, not less. Or consider that sodomy was a crime and now it isn't. Address the issue or concede the point.

You've talked around this for pages now... address the issue. Because there are two issues going on here, and you're failing to do anything but repeat your original argument again and again in each.

In one you claim 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'.
I have pointed out that there are areas where laws are removed, Bruce' obscenity charge and sodomy. I have pointed out that some laws protect freedoms, such as the right to vote without interference.
In reponse you've just repeated 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'. This is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the Bruce, sodomy and voting rights points, or form a better argument that can still be true while recognising Bruce etc, or some other approach. But you can't just repeat your original claim. That's just being obnoxious.

In the other you claim that progressive taxation is like making two people pay different amounts for the same product.
I have pointed out that the income people earn is based on society. That it is because of the presence of property laws, contract laws and corporation laws that we have a modern economy where a person can earn $200,000 as a doctor. It is therefore a bad concept to pretend earnings are purely the product of the individual, and then pretend tax is the only external factor.
In response, you've made a string of random analogies that repeat the original concept 'it is crazy that people pay different amounts for the same thing'. Again, this is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the idea that social laws massively influence earning potential, or form a better argument that accounts for the role of society in earning potential. But again, you can't just repeat your original claim.

And you never did address my point about social progress. Have you conceded that claim, or are you just keeping quiet about that and hoping we'll all forget?

Frazzled wrote:Wow, I'm just shocked I'm not part of this thread.

So am I

And compared to the teeth pulling exercise this thread has become, I'm quite missing our old battles. Right or wrong, at least you had a follow up point more often that not.

I think Mr. Mango is a pretty dedicated libertarian, and so for them it's a bit of a truism that all laws restrict freedom. Even absent that, the vast majority of laws do curtail one or more freedoms, and the regulations created by executive bodies founded by laws can often be highly intrusive onto personal freedoms.

So while he's wrong in saying that all laws = less freedom, if you change that to "nearly all laws = less freedom," you're getting there.

Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle. Absent the state, mankind has the possibility for true freedom. In practice, unless something protects those freedoms, they will quickly be taken by external forces, depending on the society and technological savvy: barbarian warlords, religious zealots, mega corporations, or evil sentient robots.

So, in practice, having a liberal government that guarantees and protects basic rights makes people in practice more free than they were without, particularly if you add freedom from want to the list.

I think it goes without saying that there was more economic freedom 200 years ago for land owning white men, but far less of all freedoms for all people, and even far less economic freedom for women, non-landowners, and of course the slaves. So, while the land owning elite had more freedom, I think the overall freedom enjoyed today is higher.

Thats just because all the voices in my head demand that I write down each of their particular points...

Reds8n and Sebster,

For your enjoyment, here is another definition. Please bear with me, but this is pertinent to our discussion. This is also a very long post. People are forewarned. Sebster, this will also answer some of your other criticisms.

Live:1: to be alive : have the life of an animal or plant2: to continue alive3: to maintain oneself : subsist <lived on rice and peas>4 a: to occupy a home : dwell <living in a shabby room> <they had always lived in the country> b: to be located or stored <the silverware lives here>5: to attain eternal life <though he die, yet shall he live — John 11:25(Revised Standard Version)>6: to conduct or pass one's life <lived only for his work>7: to remain in human memory or record <the past lives in us all — W. R. Inge>8: to have a life rich in experience

If I make the following statement:
“All fish live in water.”

It is a true statement by the definitions and meanings of the word “live” that are used, with the exception of 5 and 7. Meaning 5 is a non sequitur since fish do not as far as we know have religion, and 7 is not relevant because it is referring to “lives” in a sense that refers to human memory, and is also a non sequitur.

All fish live (1. to be alive) in water
All fish live (2.have the life of an animal or plant) in water
All fish live (3. Maintain oneself) in water
All fish live (4. to occupy a home) in water
All fish live (5. to attain eternal life) in water (non sequitur)
All fish (6. to conduct or pass one’s life) in water
All fish (7 remain in human memory or record)

So if all fish live in water, can some fish “live” out of water?Yes, depending upon the meaning.

Can some fish live (1. to be alive) out of water? Yes, but for most this is a very temporary thing. The lungfish and snake head can survive for extended periods, but still will die without returning to the water.

Can some fish live (2. to have the life of an animal) out of water? Yes see def 1

Can some fish live (3 maintain oneself) out of water? Temporarily

Can some fish live (4 to occupy a home) out of water? No, the fishes “home” is the water. Even the snakehead and lungfishes “homes” in this case is the water.

Can some fish live (6 conduct or pass ones life) out of water. No, they still need to spend the bulk of their time in water.

So the statement all fish live in water is true, even in broad terms
It is not true that all fish live out of water.

the statement all laws restrict freedom is true for the following reasons:

Law a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2): the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3): common law b (1): the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2): the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs ; also : litigation (3): the agency of or an agent of established law c: a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d: something compatible with or enforceable by established law e: control , authority

2 often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament bcapitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : pentateuch , torah — see bible table3: a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>4: the whole body of laws relating to one subject5 a: the legal profession b: law as a department of knowledge : jurisprudence c: legal knowledge6 a: a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b: a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

The statement all laws restrict freedom is true

It is true if you use meaning 1, including all sub sets of meaning 1
Meaning 2 the will of god and the first books of the bible, are again non sequiturs
It is true for meaning 3
It is true for meaning 4
Meaning 5 is a non sequitur
It is true for meaning 6
Technically it is also true for 7, but that also does not follow.

I discussed this in relation to freedom in a previous post. Now, from your point, Yes some laws protect rights. They do not however give rights. They protect rights by limiting the freedom of action of an individual or group. The difference is subtle, but it is still there. It is the same distinction between something that is “legal”, and something that is “not illegal”.

So if all laws restrict freedom
Then more laws restrict freedom more

This means that with more laws people are less free. Do they still enjoy protections from the laws? Yes. But did the laws restrict their freedom? Yes the laws did. If a law protects a right, does it give a freedom? No, because a law does not have t


Legal:1: of or relating to law2 a: deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure b: having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : titular c: established by law ; especially : statutory3: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules4: recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity5: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members6: created by the constructions of the law .

Illegal: : not according to or authorized by law : unlawful , illicit ; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)

So there is a difference between “legal” and “not illegal”. It is the argument used for example in the decriminalization of drug use or prostitution. The people are not arguing to legalize (which implies condoning) drug use or prostitution, they are arguing to make it not illegal. Which implies not condoning it, but not making it a matter for legal prosecution.

It is the same reasoning as why in the US at least, when a jury reaches a verdict, it is read as “guilty” or “not guilty”. Why don’t they say innocent in stead of “not guilty”. There is a difference between the two, but it is subtle. Even though it is subtle, it is enough of a distinction that the term “not guilty” is used instead.

Is the following a law?
“It is wrong to take property that does not belong to you.”

No, it is a statement. It can become a law if some authority enforces it.
When it becomes enforced, it becomes restrictive. A law that is not enforced is not a law. It is a statement.

A law that is not enforced, is not a law. It is a statement.

The words themselves do not make a law, it is the mechanism that is used to apply the words in practice that turns them from a simple gathering together of words, into a “law”

Another way to look at it is this. Do guns kill people? Unless acted upon by an outside force, a gun is incapable of harming anyone. It is an inanimate object. By itself, it can do nothing. If acted upon by an outside force, can a gun kill someone? No, it cannot. It can however become the mechanism by which a person is killed. The gun is still an inanimate object. It does however become the mechanism by which person was killed. For example, a gun sitting on a shelf is knocked off of the shelf by a cat. The gun falls, striking a person on the head. The gun, an inanimate object can do nothing. The person was killed by the cat. The gun falling was the mechanism by which this occurred. Do people still say that guns kill people? Yes. The more correct way to say it would be “guns can be used to kill people”. To quote a very famous person “words matter”.


Completely off the subject of what we are talking about, but funny nonetheless,

“all fishes live in water, all kippers are fish, a logical proposition is that all kippers live in water” however my wife is not logical. If given the proposition that all fishes live in water and all kippers are fish, she will say “if I wear kippers it will not rain, or even that I do not love her anymore”

I think that was a monty python skit. It was extremely funny either way.

Polonius,
You guessed it, I am a libertarian. While I would like the libertarian candidates to win, they typically do not have a prayer. So I hold my nose and vote for the republican more often than not because while not an exact match, the republican candidate is generally closer to my views than the democratic candidate. I still, after all these years, have the vain hope that one of the politicians we elect will actually do what they say they will. If you don't get elected, you can't change anything.

Mango wrote:
Law a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Notice that a binding custom, or practice of a community does not have to be codified. Laws do not have to be written.

Natural law, unwritten law governed by the nature of any given situation, changes fluidly. It can be one thing in one moment, and another in the next. There is no certain way of predicting it, or shaping one's actions around it. It is universally restrictive.

Written law is governed by the specific phrase of legal documentation. It can be referenced from a reasonable standard of objectivity, and changes predictably according to standing jurisprudence. It is not universally restrictive in the analog sense that natural law is, but in a digital sense that leaves significant, and readily discernible gaps.

Mango wrote:
This means that with more laws people are less free.

Yes it does, and natural law is a more comprehensive form of law than written law. As such, people are more free under a government legal code than they are in a state anarchy.

dogma wrote:

Mango wrote:
Law a (1): a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Notice that a binding custom, or practice of a community does not have to be codified. Laws do not have to be written.

Natural law, unwritten law governed by the nature of any given situation, changes fluidly. It can be one thing in one moment, and another in the next. There is no certain way of predicting it, or shaping one's actions around it. It is universally restrictive.

Written law is governed by the specific phrase of legal documentation. It can be referenced from a reasonable standard of objectivity, and changes predictably according to standing jurisprudence. It is not universally restrictive in the analog sense that natural law is, but in a digital sense that leaves significant, and readily discernible gaps.

Mango wrote:
This means that with more laws people are less free.

Yes it does, and natural law is a more comprehensive form of law than written law. As such, people are more free under a government legal code than they are in a state anarchy.

Dogma,
Not quite.

Again definition from merriam webster

Natural Law: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law

Key word there is still "Binding" which would make it less free.

Wait, are you posing that no law mean freedom?

Frazzled,
Yes, I am posing that no law means freedom. A law can provide protection. A law can provide benefits. A law can guarantee rights. But a law does not mean freedom, it means the opposite. By definition a law is the antithetical to freedom.

So you're down with that whole Mad Max scenario thing then heh?

Mango wrote:
Dogma,
Not quite.

Again definition from merriam webster

Natural Law: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law

Key word there is still "Binding" which would make it less free.

You missed the point completely. My argument is that freedom, in the sense you're using the word, does not exist. The existence of natural law as a universally restrictive force ensures that no individual can ever be completely free from the forces that exist outside of himself. The best we can hope for is transparency, and transparency can only be granted through the creation of legal documentation.

dogma wrote: The best we can hope for is transparency, and transparency can only be granted through the creation of legal documentation.

Respectfully, I'd have to disagree with that conclusion. I'd posit the best we can hope for is the maximum amount of freedom that does not impinge on other people's freedom. In essence, its the "you rights end at my nose" argument.

I think that Mango is simply a beleiver in an extreme doctrine, that like most extreme doctrines doens't work well in practice.

Communism works fine if people are happy working as hard as they can for the betterment of others, which they never are.

Pure Libertarianism works fine if people never abuse their power over the weak, which they almost always will.

that like most extreme doctrines doens't work well in practice.

A true maxim of life there.

Frazzled,
Liked the first mad max movie, never bothered to se the next ones. It was entertaining.

However, from what I can remember of that movie (its been almost 20 years since I saw it) it was basically a post apocolyptic world where the main doctrine was might makes right.

That is not the position I am advocating, nor am I advocating anarchy.

Polonius wrote:Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle. Absent the state, mankind has the possibility for true freedom. In practice, unless something protects those freedoms, they will quickly be taken by external forces, depending on the society and technological savvy: barbarian warlords, religious zealots, mega corporations, or evil sentient robots.

I agree with your assertion that the answer lies in the middle, however, I would tend to say that sebster lies alot closer to this "middle" than Mango does.

Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, I'd have to disagree with that conclusion. I'd posit the best we can hope for is the maximum amount of freedom that does not impinge on other people's freedom. In essence, its the "you rights end at my nose" argument.

So the freedom to compete? I can agree with that. Actually to me that isn't all the different from transparency, as for me competition only exists in conditions of reasonable transparency.

Agreed in the need for transparency. I think we're actually agreeing in toto, its just getting...wait for it...wait for it...

Lost in Translation.

Mango wrote:Frazzled,
Liked the first mad max movie, never bothered to se the next ones. It was entertaining.

However, from what I can remember of that movie (its been almost 20 years since I saw it) it was basically a post apocolyptic world where the main doctrine was might makes right.

That is not the position I am advocating, nor am I advocating anarchy.

Again, I provided a definition of law, and I have since shown that by definition a law restricts freedom. You have again provided a rationale that laws have a net benefit for society, yet you have still not refuted my original premise by proving how my (and merriam webster's) definition of law is wrong. You have given ample reasons of why you think and believe it is wrong, but have not proven that it is wrong. Until you can do that, you are arguing from a position of belief not fact.

However, the law also protects freedom. Without the law iand its enforcement there is no freedom to contract, freedom of markets, freedom of exchange, even freedom of transparency for Dogma's purposes.

Without the law there is only anarchy.

And a great quote with no relevance to anything except watching the stock market...
"What is the law?"
"No animal may walk on two legs."
"What happens if an animal breaks the law?"
"He who breaks the law, must go to the House of Pain."

Frazzled wrote:Agreed in the need for transparency. I think we're actually agreeing in toto, its just getting...wait for it...wait for it...

Then hell really has frozen over.

Frazzled wrote:
Lost in Translation.

Are you Bill Murray, or Scarlet Johanson?

Polonius,
You have the opinion that my belief is "extreme". An extremist would believe in anarchy on one end and a complete regimentation of life on the other, like in an orwellian police state.

Not once have I said all laws or all government is bad or undesirable. To the contrary, I have said that government and laws are more desirable than thier complete absence. That is not an extreme view. What I have said is that governments of all types have a tendency to get larger and more intrusive. This invariably leads to government abuse. Name one current goverment that has not abused it's power in some way shape or form.

What I have an issue with is people in the government passing laws continually without giving thought to the consequences. Or people and politicians who panic and decide that we MUST pass a law immediately to address a crisis, with no or little thought to what that will mean in the future. For example the patriot act. The most recent stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill. Creation of social security and medicaid. Intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign nation for little discernable need or benefit. Deciding how much of MY money I can keep. Deciding how much money I can make.

Did people vote for the people that passed all of these laws. yes. Did these laws make decisions for me? yes. Did these laws take away my freedom? Yes.

You claim my "extreme" doctrine would not work well in practice. But it has. Limited and minimally intrusive government is what was originally created in The United States, by the founding fathers. Enshrined in the US Constitution. It was not perfect, since nothing can be perfect. But it was arguably the best system man has ever created. (Now here is where I dive into the realm of pure opinion.) Over time, instead of perfecting it, ploiticians have been steadily eroding it. Freedom of speech is a prime example. The wording of it is pretty clear.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yet soon therafter, laws or regulations were passed that did indeed restrict or abridge free speech. Obsenity laws. The aforementioned "fire" in a theater. The Fairness doctrine (which fr decades WAS a regulation).

That is eroding freedom.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Agreed in the need for transparency. I think we're actually agreeing in toto, its just getting...wait for it...wait for it...

Then hell really has frozen over.

Frazzled wrote:
Lost in Translation.

Are you Bill Murray, or Scarlet Johanson?

That was Scarlet Johannson? Wow I never would have known.

What I have an issue with is people in the government passing laws continually without giving thought to the consequences. Or people and politicians who panic and decide that we MUST pass a law immediately to address a crisis, with no or little thought to what that will mean in the future. For example the patriot act. The most recent stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill. Creation of social security and medicaid. Intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign nation for little discernable need or benefit. Deciding how much of MY money I can keep. Deciding how much money I can make.

The boy has a point.

Mango wrote:
What I have an issue with is people in the government passing laws continually without giving thought to the consequences. Or people and politicians who panic and decide that we MUST pass a law immediately to address a crisis, with no or little thought to what that will mean in the future. For example the patriot act. The most recent stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill. Creation of social security and medicaid. Intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign nation for little discernable need or benefit. Deciding how much of MY money I can keep. Deciding how much money I can make.

I'd argue that thought has been given to the future. It has simply been decided that the present is more important.

Mango wrote:
You claim my "extreme" doctrine would not work well in practice. But it has. Limited and minimally intrusive government is what was originally created in The United States, by the founding fathers. Enshrined in the US Constitution. It was not perfect, since nothing can be perfect. But it was arguably the best system man has ever created. (Now here is where I dive into the realm of pure opinion.)

Yes, limited and minimally intrusive government worked incredibly well in an environment defined by open expanses of free territory which permitted ready expansion for those who found themselves without opportunity in the established colonies. Unfortunately that is not something which currently characterizes the United States. This is not the world of the founding fathers. Limited government has a different meaning in today's world.

Dogma,
your words
"Yes, limited and minimally intrusive government worked incredibly well in an environment defined by open expanses of free territory which permitted ready expansion for those who found themselves without opportunity in the established colonies. Unfortunately that is not something which currently characterizes the United States. This is not the world of the founding fathers. Limited government has a different meaning in today's world. "

The existence of opputunity still exists in current US society. It merely takes the will and ability to pursue it. While I doubt free land is still available, it is irrelevant to the fact that oppurtunity is still here. How much did Bill gates start with? How much did Mark Zuckerberg start with? So if opportunity is still there, why do we need a larger, more intrusive, more imperial government?

Mango wrote:
The existence of opputunity still exists in current US society. It merely takes the will and ability to pursue it. While I doubt free land is still available, it is irrelevant to the fact that oppurtunity is still here. How much did Bill gates start with? How much did Mark Zuckerberg start with? So if opportunity is still there, why do we need a larger, more intrusive, more imperial government?

Bill Gates started with an elite college preparatory education, a wealthy family, and the contacts, and resources, provided by his matriculation to Harvard. Zuckerberg has a similar background. Those are incredibly significant assets that have everything to do with luck, and very little to do with personal merit. We need government to ensure that those assets, which are necessary for individual success, are accessible to the majority of people.

dogma wrote:

Mango wrote:
The existence of opputunity still exists in current US society. It merely takes the will and ability to pursue it. While I doubt free land is still available, it is irrelevant to the fact that oppurtunity is still here. How much did Bill gates start with? How much did Mark Zuckerberg start with? So if opportunity is still there, why do we need a larger, more intrusive, more imperial government?

Bill Gates started with an elite college preparatory education, a wealthy family, and the contacts, and resources, provided by his matriculation to Harvard. Zuckerberg has a similar background. Those are incredibly significant assets that have everything to do with luck, and very little to do with personal merit. We need government to ensure that those assets, which are necessary for individual success, are accessible to the majority of people.

Luck is very much a part of success. Merit is even bigger. Yes both of them were at harvard. Does that make what they did any less impressive? Does a person require going to harvard to be successful? As a matter of fact, did Bill ad Mark graduate? i will give an example from the opposite end of the spectrum. A child that grew up without a father. Was raised by a single mother, Family was dirt poor. School systems in that area are mediocre at best, down right horrid at best. But the child does have some advantages. Those advantages are quick reflexes. Stong legs, a mind that can assess and react to a changing environment very quickly. He then applies himself dilligently to improving upon the natural gifts he was born with. He turns raw talent, through hard work and determination, into unparralled skill. He turns that skill into a full ride scholarship. He goes to a public state university. The world is awed by his pure athletic ability. He like Bill and mark, leaves school early, Bill and mark to found companies, Michael to play in the NFL. He makes millions of dollars. Was he born with certain advantages? yes. Did he overcome them? Yes. His name was Michael Vick. that he promptly threw away his success for an abhorent reason is beside the point. He reached an extremely high level of success from very humble beginnings. Is his success any less because he achieved it physically? No. HE achieved it. Through hard work and dedication.

So the opportunity is still there. People just have to have the determination to take it.

***edited post. As originally written, It would give the impression that Bill and mark left harvard to go into the nfl.
Here is the sentence that was edited:

"He like Bill and mark, leaves school early to play in the NFL"

My previous post was edited a second time to add asterics in front of the word edited.

Images of Bill Gates getting obliterated by the NY Giants front line.

Yea Baby YEA!
sorry, never mind the nutjob from Texas.

Schadenfreude is always a guilty little pleasure isn't it.

The editor of my previous post has been sacked....

Mango wrote:Polonius,
You have the opinion that my belief is "extreme". An extremist would believe in anarchy on one end and a complete regimentation of life on the other, like in an orwellian police state.

I think that your beliefs are far enough libretarian to qualify as beyond the mainstream. maybe not exteme, but fringe. My point is that the lack of practicality makes it at least unworkable in any form of reality. The belief that it's impossible for laws to protect freedom seems a bit extreme to me.

Not once have I said all laws or all government is bad or undesirable. To the contrary, I have said that government and laws are more desirable than thier complete absence. That is not an extreme view. What I have said is that governments of all types have a tendency to get larger and more intrusive. This invariably leads to government abuse. Name one current goverment that has not abused it's power in some way shape or form.

Well, power corrupts, so of course that happens. The retort to that is that all power corrupts, not just governmental.

What I have an issue with is people in the government passing laws continually without giving thought to the consequences. Or people and politicians who panic and decide that we MUST pass a law immediately to address a crisis, with no or little thought to what that will mean in the future. For example the patriot act. The most recent stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill. Creation of social security and medicaid. Intervention in the internal affairs of a foreign nation for little discernable need or benefit. Deciding how much of MY money I can keep. Deciding how much money I can make.

I agree with you there, to a point. I think Medicaid has done more good than ill, and while social security has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese, it's helped keep the elderly and disable from destitution. This is one of those times when I find your views a bit extreme. I think that in a modern society, there comes a point where the government should prevent the impovershied from starving or dying needlessly.

Did people vote for the people that passed all of these laws. yes. Did these laws make decisions for me? yes. Did these laws take away my freedom? Yes.

Ok. No real argument here.

You claim my "extreme" doctrine would not work well in practice. But it has. Limited and minimally intrusive government is what was originally created in The United States, by the founding fathers. Enshrined in the US Constitution. It was not perfect, since nothing can be perfect. But it was arguably the best system man has ever created. (Now here is where I dive into the realm of pure opinion.) Over time, instead of perfecting it, ploiticians have been steadily eroding it. Freedom of speech is a prime example. The wording of it is pretty clear.

This is where you run afoul of history. You, as a propertied white man, had more freedom back then. You keep forgetting the huge swatchs of the population that had less freedom, social or economic. The limited government enshrined there allowed slavery, prohibited women from voting or owning property in many cases, and also allowed the states to abridge whatever rights they felt like.

Umm Polonius........
Can I ask you a question? When did I ever say that I was a propertied white man?

Polonius, your racist assumption about my ethnicity aside,

"You seem to be stressing the impact these laws have on you and your rights, and ignoring the rights and freedoms that others have gained because of governmental action. Most Americans now consider education, health care, and at least food and shelter as essential rights. Freedom from fear of starvation, freedom from fear of a preventable death, and freedom to have at least a chance to gain an education are all freedoms that have been added! Add to that the fact that African Americans can now vote and own property, Women can live independently of men, and Native Americans can, you know, not be killed for sport. "

Health care, education, food and shelter are not "rights". They are something you work for. If the government provides them to you, it does nothing more than create dependency. If you want to eat, grow it, catch it, work make money and pay for it. If you want healthcare, make money and pay for it. If you want shelter...you get the idea.

Is helping others less fortunate than yourself moral? That depends on your personal code of morality. I believe that it is. Do I believe that I should be the one to decide who I help, how I help them, and how much i should help them? Yes. Is forcing someone to be charitable being charitable? No. That can also called theft. Passing a law to make it legal does not make it right, it makes it legal.

Mango wrote:Polonius, your racist assumption about my ethnicity aside
Health care, education, food and shelter are not "rights". They are something you work for. If the government provides them to you, it does nothing more than create dependency. If you want to eat, grow it, catch it, work make money and pay for it. If you want healthcare, make money and pay for it. If you want shelter...you get the idea.

Is helping others less fortunate than yourself moral? That depends on your personal code of morality. I believe that it is. Do I believe that I should be the one to decide who I help, how I help them, and how much i should help them? Yes. Is forcing someone to be charitable being charitable? No. That can also called theft. Passing a law to make it legal does not make it right, it makes it legal.

I thought I read that you were a white guy. Sorry for being racist. I so assume when a person gets on the soapbox about hard right wing economic issues it's a well of white dude. If you're not, than my apologies. If you are, then stuff your indignation. You still have not addressed the fact that more people enjoy rights than they did before. Was that the result of good old fashioned bootstrap pulling? No, it was done by government.

Says you. Why is the right to speech a right, while the right to survival not? You seem to be happy with the rights that were considered important 200 years ago, and simply stating that no new rights or freedoms have merit. I disagree.

there are two realities to keep in mind when assuming that every person can always pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The first are those cases of genuine disability, handicap, or simple age. If a person has cancer, and loses their job, should they simply die if they can't afford health care? That's ignoring the cases of children who lack food/shelter/health care, through no fault of their own, and those who simply can't find work to support themselves.

The second reality is simply public unrest. We're far larger than we were 225 years ago, and we now have a semi-permanent underclass. As long as they're not starving and are sated with cable TV and drugs (bread and circuses) they keep their anger to a low roar. I'm not sure I want to live in a society with 25 million dirt poor people that are now in a life or death struggle to survive. It's got to be cheaper to just throw them their bone.

Mango wrote:
Luck is very much a part of success. Merit is even bigger.

I completely disagree.

Mango wrote:
Yes both of them were at harvard. Does that make what they did any less impressive?

Yes. It isn't terribly difficult to attract investment when you come from a family, and environment, in which the money for investment is freely available.

Mango wrote:
Does a person require going to harvard to be successful?

No, but it makes it considerably easier.

Mango wrote:
As a matter of fact, did Bill ad Mark graduate?

No, but you're looking at in a way which consider graduation as the only pertinent matter of a collegiate education. I could have taught myself everything I learned in the course of my own $100,000 college experience for a lot less money by simply spending some time at a university library. The trouble is that all that education would be completely meaningless if I was never given a forum in which to express it. That forum is made manifest by the connections one acquires in the collegiate environment.

Mango wrote:
i will give an example from the opposite end of the spectrum. A child that grew up without a father. Was raised by a single mother, Family was dirt poor. School systems in that area are mediocre at best, down right horrid at best. But the child does have some advantages. Those advantages are quick reflexes. Stong legs, a mind that can assess and react to a changing environment very quickly.
He then applies himself dilligently to improving upon the natural gifts he was born with. He turns raw talent, through hard work and determination, into unparralled skill. He turns that skill into a full ride scholarship. He goes to a public state university. The world is awed by his pure athletic ability. He like Bill and mark, leaves school early, Bill and mark to found companies, Michael to play in the NFL. He makes millions of dollars. Was he born with certain advantages? yes. Did he overcome them? Yes. His name was Michael Vick. that he promptly threw away his success for an abhorent reason is beside the point. He reached an extremely high level of success from very humble beginnings. Is his success any less because he achieved it physically? No. HE achieved it. Through hard work and dedication.

Actually Vick was notorious for having virtually no personal work ethic. He was injury prone because he didn't take the time to actually care for his body. He was a poor decision-maker because he never took the time to learn his offensive scheme. And he had no understanding of how to utilize his gifts productively, a character flaw which inevitable lead him to personal ruin. He overcame nothing. Others recognized his raw physical abilities and handed him the world. He is a text-book counter-example to your argument for achievement as the sole result of personal merit.

Mango wrote:
So the opportunity is still there. People just have to have the determination to take it.

The opportunity to what? Make it to the NFL? There is always opportunity available. The issue is that those opportunities are becoming more, and more exclusive with each successive generation.

Polonius wrote:

Mango wrote:Polonius, your racist assumption about my ethnicity aside
Health care, education, food and shelter are not "rights". They are something you work for. If the government provides them to you, it does nothing more than create dependency. If you want to eat, grow it, catch it, work make money and pay for it. If you want healthcare, make money and pay for it. If you want shelter...you get the idea.

Is helping others less fortunate than yourself moral? That depends on your personal code of morality. I believe that it is. Do I believe that I should be the one to decide who I help, how I help them, and how much i should help them? Yes. Is forcing someone to be charitable being charitable? No. That can also called theft. Passing a law to make it legal does not make it right, it makes it legal.

I thought I read that you were a white guy. Sorry for being racist. I so assume when a person gets on the soapbox about hard right wing economic issues it's a well of white dude. If you're not, than my apologies. If you are, then stuff your indignation. You still have not addressed the fact that more people enjoy rights than they did before. Was that the result of good old fashioned bootstrap pulling? No, it was done by government.



Says you. Why is the right to speech a right, while the right to survival not? You seem to be happy with the rights that were considered important 200 years ago, and simply stating that no new rights or freedoms have merit. I disagree.

there are two realities to keep in mind when assuming that every person can always pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The first are those cases of genuine disability, handicap, or simple age. If a person has cancer, and loses their job, should they simply die if they can't afford health care? That's ignoring the cases of children who lack food/shelter/health care, through no fault of their own, and those who simply can't find work to support themselves.

The second reality is simply public unrest. We're far larger than we were 225 years ago, and we now have a semi-permanent underclass. As long as they're not starving and are sated with cable TV and drugs (bread and circuses) they keep their anger to a low roar. I'm not sure I want to live in a society with 25 million dirt poor people that are now in a life or death struggle to survive. It's got to be cheaper to just throw them their bone.

Polonius,
My ethnicity is irrelevant. What you basically said was that it is ok to be racist towards a white person. Racism is wrong regardless of a persons race. Shame on you.

As to the rest of your post, it is a personal opinion. Just as mine was a personal opinion. I believe the declaration says it best, Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. While the declaration does not have the force of law, it somes up american values. The constitution which does have legal force, also does not mention a right to health care. Or a right to food. Or a host of other so called rights. The liberal left keeps inventing "rights" for people, that they promptly use to take other peoples money. It goes back to one of my earlier posts. Of course people are going to vote themselves more and more perks. You are proving my case of the slippery slope of socialism. In an effort to make everyone "equal" they keep taking and taking and taking. That creates a moral hazard.

For example: A person works and makes $8 an hour, 40 hours a week. Gross, they make around $1280 a month. They see a neighbor that is collecting unemployment. In the state of VA, that tops out at around $1300 a month. So do you think that the person that is working will start asking himself "why am I woking, when I can sit around and do what I want, and not work, and collect the same amount of money? Then that person quits. They make the same amount of money, only now they have a lot more leisure time to do what they want.

My boss is an african immigrant. He arrived in the US virtually penniless. He eventually made or borrowed enough money to buy the company I currently work for. (it was spun off from a larger corporation). He took an unprofitable company and turned it around. For eight years the division of the corporation that I currently work for, broke even. It did not make money, but nor did it lose money. So, through skill and shrewd business acumen, he took an unprofitable company, and slowly started turning a profit. He drove a old crappy car and lived in an studio apartment. He made personal sacrifices to make the business succeed. The first year he ran the company, we made $100,000 in profit. Rather than keep $100,000 for himself, he used part of that money to buy a packaging machine. And still drove a crappy car and lived in a crappy apartment. The following year, he made a bigger profit. $500,000. He finally bought himself a new car. He bought a honda accord. he still lived in the crappy apartment. He invested the bulk of that profit back into the company. He hired more people. that's right, he created jobs), and bought more equipment. last year, the company made $1,000,000 in profit. He bought a $500,000 mixer, and a $75,000 Near infrared analyzer, and hired additional staff. More he gave us raises for the first time in 4 years. And the raises were across the board to everyone who had been there a year or longer. He also put a down payment on a house.

So far, this year, we seem to be an aberration. Our sales have went up. We have had a 1% increase in sales from this time last year. But he is not planning on investing as much into the company this year. Why? Because liberal politicians are going to raise his taxes. Money that could have been used to reinvest into the company, to CREATE jobs and wealth, will instead be going to pay people who are not working. To provide food to people who are not working. to provide for other "rights" that the liberals have decided are now rights. What benefits society more, people who work and create or earn money and wealth, and create jobs, or a people who are paid to do nothing. that is not some abstract right wing talking point. That is my job. That is my bosses company.

Dogma,
Did Vick through talent, luck, skill, and work make it to the top of his profession. Are you aying it took no work or effort on his part to become a stellar athlete?

Polonius wrote:I think Mr. Mango is a pretty dedicated libertarian, and so for them it's a bit of a truism that all laws restrict freedom. Even absent that, the vast majority of laws do curtail one or more freedoms, and the regulations created by executive bodies founded by laws can often be highly intrusive onto personal freedoms.

So while he's wrong in saying that all laws = less freedom, if you change that to "nearly all laws = less freedom," you're getting there.

Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle.

I'm not, and haven't ever, claimed that all laws improve freedom. I am arguing against the extremity and simplistic nature of Mango's argument, I haven't accepted an equally extreme and simplistic notion in the exact opposite direction.

And that's all this is. Mango made a big claim. I posted some rebuttals. He is yet to address a single from my first round of rebuttals. He's posted a lot of dictionary definitions. He's repeated his initial claim a load of times. But he's never even attempted to address my points.

Mango wrote:Reds8n and Sebster,

For your enjoyment, here is another definition. Please bear with me, but this is pertinent to our discussion. This is also a very long post. People are forewarned. Sebster, this will also answer some of your other criticisms.

No, it doesn’t answer any of my criticisms. It doesn’t address them in the slightest. It’s a complete and utter failure.

So I’ll repeat them again;

In one you claim 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'.
I have pointed out that there are areas where laws are removed, Bruce' obscenity charge and sodomy. I have pointed out that some laws protect freedoms, such as the right to vote without interference.
In reponse you've just repeated 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'. This is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the Bruce, sodomy and voting rights points, or form a better argument that can still be true while recognising Bruce etc, or some other approach. But you can't just repeat your original claim. That's just being obnoxious.

In the other you claim that progressive taxation is like making two people pay different amounts for the same product.
I have pointed out that the income people earn is based on society. That it is because of the presence of property laws, contract laws and corporation laws that we have a modern economy where a person can earn $200,000 as a doctor. It is therefore a bad concept to pretend earnings are purely the product of the individual, and then pretend tax is the only external factor.
In response, you've made a string of random analogies that repeat the original concept 'it is crazy that people pay different amounts for the same thing'. Again, this is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the idea that social laws massively influence earning potential, or form a better argument that accounts for the role of society in earning potential. But again, you can't just repeat your original claim.

Mango wrote:Frazzled,
Yes, I am posing that no law means freedom. A law can provide protection. A law can provide benefits. A law can guarantee rights. But a law does not mean freedom, it means the opposite. By definition a law is the antithetical to freedom.

Yeah, I addressed this on page two or thereabouts. You're only looking at one very limited set of freedoms, freedom from government law. By , you come up with a ludicrous and entirely pointless conclusion (that less government always means more freedom, ignoring the very obvious point that government often protects our freedoms from our fellow citizens).

This kind smarmy crap just demands a quip. I'll return the favor.

I thought I read that you were a white guy. Sorry for being racist. I so assume when a person gets on the soapbox about hard right wing economic issues it's a well of white dude.

What, like Thomas Sowell?

Mango wrote:
Polonius,
My ethnicity is irrelevant. What you basically said was that it is ok to be racist towards a white person. Racism is wrong regardless of a persons race. Shame on you.

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is a bit ridiculous. If you think that is racism, you're a lucky, lucky man. I made a mistake, man. I made an assumption, which is stereotyping, but not racism.

Oh, and I see that yet again you dodge the actual points I made, in favor of simply screaming that I"m racist. Oh well. I guess it's useful to know who's not worth debating with.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate the cliffs notes version of a horatio alger story. As sebster realized, I too see that you seem to enjoy ignoring the hard points and instead keep thrashing at strawmen.

More people have more rights now. Suck it.

Mango wrote:Dogma,
Did Vick through talent, luck, skill, and work make it to the top of his profession.

Talent and luck? Sure. Skill and work? No. Vick never worked a day in his life. He showed up, wowed some people with his natural gifts, and then never put in the effort necessary to sustain them. In fact, just before he lost everything, most reputable football commentators noted that he had gotten considerably slower, and lost a great deal of power in his throwing arm, after only 4 years in the league. Something which is a clear hallmark of poor training habits.

Mango wrote:
Are you aying it took no work or effort on his part to become a stellar athlete?

Yes. I know a bit about training athletes. Its what I do for a living at the moment. In fact, I've worked with people who have worked with Vick. He had limitless potential given his size, proportions, and nominal body chemistry. He was literally a freak of nature. Everything he had was a gift of birth, not of effort. That's how the athletic world is. Some people are just built in such a way that they don't need to work in order to obtain what our society deigns as physical perfection.

Polonius wrote:
More people have more rights now. Suck it.

Sigged.

Polonius wrote:

Mango wrote:
Polonius,
My ethnicity is irrelevant. What you basically said was that it is ok to be racist towards a white person. Racism is wrong regardless of a persons race. Shame on you.

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is a bit ridiculous. If you think that is racism, you're a lucky, lucky man. I made a mistake, man. I made an assumption, which is stereotyping, but not racism.

Nope, you're not the only one.

I think it also bears mentioning that, had the comment actually been racist, it would still have been justified. I see no problem at all with racist behavior in the name of pointing out the effect race has on individual opportunity.

Zip Napalm wrote:
What, like Thomas Sowell?

That man might well be the worst economist I've ever encountered.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think Mr. Mango is a pretty dedicated libertarian, and so for them it's a bit of a truism that all laws restrict freedom. Even absent that, the vast majority of laws do curtail one or more freedoms, and the regulations created by executive bodies founded by laws can often be highly intrusive onto personal freedoms.

So while he's wrong in saying that all laws = less freedom, if you change that to "nearly all laws = less freedom," you're getting there.

Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle.

I'm not, and haven't ever, claimed that all laws improve freedom. I am arguing against the extremity and simplistic nature of Mango's argument, I haven't accepted an equally extreme and simplistic notion in the exact opposite direction.

And that's all this is. Mango made a big claim. I posted some rebuttals. He is yet to address a single from my first round of rebuttals. He's posted a lot of dictionary definitions. He's repeated his initial claim a load of times. But he's never even attempted to address my points.

Sebster, I have rebutted your arguments. At length. If there is a specific one you would like me to address, please feel free to repost it. You keep saying that I am merely repeated definitions and the same argument over and over. Yet, when I offer a detailed and logical response, you claim it is just repeating the same argument. I will address another of your arguments. Sodomy. It was not legalised. It was decriminalized. Your rebuttals have for the most part been opinions, not logical arguments. Try using logic, not opinion.

sebster wrote:

Mango wrote:Reds8n and Sebster,

For your enjoyment, here is another definition. Please bear with me, but this is pertinent to our discussion. This is also a very long post. People are forewarned. Sebster, this will also answer some of your other criticisms.

No, it doesn’t answer any of my criticisms. It doesn’t address them in the slightest. It’s a complete and utter failure.

So I’ll repeat them again;

In one you claim 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'.
I have pointed out that there are areas where laws are removed, Bruce' obscenity charge and sodomy. I have pointed out that some laws protect freedoms, such as the right to vote without interference.
In reponse you've just repeated 'Government passes more laws, and laws restrict freedom'. This is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the Bruce, sodomy and voting rights points, or form a better argument that can still be true while recognising Bruce etc, or some other approach. But you can't just repeat your original claim. That's just being obnoxious.

In the other you claim that progressive taxation is like making two people pay different amounts for the same product.
I have pointed out that the income people earn is based on society. That it is because of the presence of property laws, contract laws and corporation laws that we have a modern economy where a person can earn $200,000 as a doctor. It is therefore a bad concept to pretend earnings are purely the product of the individual, and then pretend tax is the only external factor.
In response, you've made a string of random analogies that repeat the original concept 'it is crazy that people pay different amounts for the same thing'. Again, this is a fail on your part. You need to form an argument that rejects the idea that social laws massively influence earning potential, or form a better argument that accounts for the role of society in earning potential. But again, you can't just repeat your original claim.

Again sebster, use logic not opinion.

Polonius wrote:

Mango wrote:
Polonius,
My ethnicity is irrelevant. What you basically said was that it is ok to be racist towards a white person. Racism is wrong regardless of a persons race. Shame on you.

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is a bit ridiculous. If you think that is racism, you're a lucky, lucky man. I made a mistake, man. I made an assumption, which is stereotyping, but not racism.

Oh, and I see that yet again you dodge the actual points I made, in favor of simply screaming that I"m racist. Oh well. I guess it's useful to know who's not worth debating with.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate the cliffs notes version of a horatio alger story. As sebster realized, I too see that you seem to enjoy ignoring the hard points and instead keep thrashing at strawmen.

More people have more rights now. Suck it.

Polonius, you were the one who made a racist comment.

You people seem to keep sayingthat I have not proven apoiint. And you even use a logical tenet, the strawman, yet you have not logically refuted my basic premise. You have stated opinions.

When you cannot logically refute a claim, you resort to the ultimate in logical arguments. "suck it". And then claim that I am not worth debating.

Dogma,
Ok so maybe Vick was not a paragon of hard work. he was merely a poor talented person who through no particular merit or effort managed to make more money in a couple of years than most people make in a lifetime.

Mango wrote:
Dogma,
Ok so maybe Vick was not a paragon of hard work. he was merely a poor talented person who through no particular merit or effort managed to make more money in a couple of years than most people make in a lifetime.

Which means he isn't relevant to your argument that determination equates to success. In fact, he is a perfect example of how determined people can have their efforts circumvented by a chance encounter with someone of talent. Which is actually a good way of showing why a social safety net is necessary to encourage risk-taking.

Mango wrote:
Again sebster, use logic not opinion.

He did. His cited examples serve to break your logical progression by showing that your argument does not hold water when considered against historical precedent. Logic only matters to the extent that it aligns with actual evidence. That's what the paradoxes of material implication are about.

No, the point that more people have more rights now was my point., The suck it was simply to point out that I've made that point about four times now, and you've yet to deal with it.

Keep at it Mango, I have money on you falling in the eighth. Remember, not a second sooner!

dogma wrote:

Mango wrote:
Dogma,
Ok so maybe Vick was not a paragon of hard work. he was merely a poor talented person who through no particular merit or effort managed to make more money in a couple of years than most people make in a lifetime.

Which means he isn't relevant to your argument that determination equates to success. In fact, he is a perfect example of how determined people can have their efforts circumvented by a chance encounter with someone of talent. Which is actually a good way of showing why a social safety net is necessary to encourage risk-taking.

Mango wrote:
Again sebster, use logic not opinion.

He did. His cited examples serve to break your logical progression by showing that your argument does not hold water when considered against historical precedent. Logic only matters to the extent that it aligns with actual evidence. That's what the paradoxes of material implication are about.

No dogma, he did not. Take a look at my post with the fish example. My basic premise was that laws retrict freedom. That to date has not been refuted. Until logically someone can refute my basic premise that a law by definition, restricts freedom. The other arguments are ancillary. People have given numerous examples of where laws provide benefits. People have given numerous examples of where laws provide protection. There is a difference between a a right and freedom

Here is a definition of right:
1: righteous , upright
2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
3: conforming to facts or truth : correct <the right answer>
4: suitable , appropriate <the right man for the job>
5: straight
6: genuine , real
7 a: of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the side on which the heart is mostly located b: located nearer to the right hand than to the left c: located to the right of an observer facing the object specified or directed as the right arm would point when raised out to the side d (1): located on the right of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified <stage right> (2): located on the right when facing downstream <the right bank of a river> e: done with the right hand
8: having the axis perpendicular to the base <right cone>
9: of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an object <made sure the socks were right side out>
10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>
11 a: being in good physical or mental health or order <not in his right mind> b: being in a correct or proper state <put things right>
12: most favorable or desired : preferable ; also : socially acceptable <knew all the right people>
13often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics

Here is a list of synonyms for "right'
Text:
1 following an original exactly— see faithful 2
2 being exactly as appears or as claimed<despite the name, New Yorkʼs East River is a strait and not a right river>— see authentic 1
3 being in agreement with the truth or a fact or a standard<the obvious answer is not always the right one>— see correct 1
4 being what is called for by accepted standards of right and wrong<trying to do what is right>— see just 1
5 conforming to a high standard of morality or virtue— see good 2
6 free from irregularities (as curves, bends, or angles) in course<the first city in America laid out with broad, right avenues>— see straight 1
7 having full use of oneʼs mind and control over oneʼs actions<he hasnʼt been right since he suffered serious brain injury in the accident>— see sane
8 meeting the requirements of a purpose or situation<the right tool for the job>— see fit 1

Rights and protections are not the same as a freedom. EVERY law, even if it provides someone with a protection, even if it provides someone with a gaurantee, even if it provides someone with a benefit, restricts freedom.

That is what the definitiono f a law is. No one has refuted that definition. or come up with an alternate defintion. You just keep saying I am wrong. People have used the term "freedom" very broadly. But have NOT defined it. Logically, my basic argument has not been refuted.

Logic: 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic ; especially : syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2): relevance , propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation ; also : the circuits themselves
2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>

Using LOGIC, refute my initial claim that laws restrict freedom.

Opinion is not logic.
Benefit is not freedom
Protection is not freedom
Good is not freedom
Socialism is not freedom
Liberalism is not freedom
Justice is not freedom

Look at the definition of freedom.

Then refute my initial claim.

I'm just wondering, do you think the world would be better off without laws, really? I mean, for you, is freedom worth the actual price?
Absolute freedom is also the absolute freedom to harm whoever the hell you want with no organised recourse. It doesn't tend to lead to a nice society.

I'm using your definition of freedom here, though I understand and mostly agree with the other posters versions, I'm just quite curious as to how your political philosophy works at the end point.

The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946. All it did was allow private parties to sue the Federal Government, and served as relaxing of sovereign immunity. I can't think of any way in which that restricted the freedom of individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act_of_1946

You should also be careful when using the word law. If you mean acts of congress, you should use acts, bills, statutes, or Code. If you mean all aspects of law, that includes everything from the constitution to treaties to court decisions to Departmental regs.

If you take a broader view, many judicial decisions increase freedom. Those are law.

Treaties that allow US citizens to travel to other countries are laws, and they increase freedom.

Heck, the constitution itself is full of laws that increase freedom, with only one that regulates a persons conduct (the 13th amendment).

Most spending bills simply allocate money, the spending of which can't possibly restrict freedom. Sure, the IRC does, but that's a different law.

Da Boss,
You sound like you have not read all of my previous posts. What you are decribing is anarchy. The absence of laws. That is not what I am advocating. I am arguing that laws restrict freedom. The more laws that are passed, even if they are passed with the best of intentions, restricts freedom. What I personally advocate is as minimal government as possible. From the belief (key concept that most are missing) that the larger and more poweful a government is, the more it restricts freedoms. There is a point where the government is to small to effectively safeguard its citizens. That leads to a breakdown in society. But the flip side, is that a government that is to large or to poerful will trample the very rights it is supposed to protect. By ever expanding the role of govenment you expand its power. Everyone seems to agree with the point that a person with to much authority has the potential to abuse that authority. Look at the various critisisms of Bush. Everytime he expanded the power of the government, for example using the patriot act, the liberals started screaming that he was a power mad warmongring dictator. But, the same liberals cheer the expansion of government and government power from Obama, for example with the stimulus bill. They seem to believe that if a government means well, that is enough. That if the government gives them more goodies, then they are freer. Instead of what they truly are, which is beggars at the table clamoring for scraps.

The communists rose to power promising all sorts of benefits and goodies to the citizens of what would become the Soviet Union. The same powers and apparatus of the state that allowed the Soviet Union to give benefits to its citizens were the same powers and apparatus that they used to slaughter and oppress millions of their own citizens.

My big fear, is that with an ever expanding governement, the government will cease being a government of for and by the people and become a government of a ruling elite that dictates every facet of life. And no amount of food, safety, health care, housing, and whatecer other benefit that might accrue in that situaton is worth being a slave.

The key to remember is that Hitler was democratically elected. He promised change. he promised a better life for all germans. and for a time, they got it. But He also slowly gathered together contol oer all the levers of power within the state. When he took charge the german currency was virtually worthless, he instituted price and wage controls, he stabilised the currency, he provided free food to the germans, he provide state run health care, mandated that every german should have a car (witness the birth of the volkswagon, or "peoples car" The German loved him. They were in awe of him. many thought he could do no wrong. Then the Weimar Republic turned from being a democratic repulic into the most evil and destructive state the world has ever seen. By the time the german people realized they were in the hands of a madman, it was to late. Millions of people were slaughtered.

Then look at the french republic that arose after the French revolution. And then look at how quickly it degenerated into a brutal blood soaked regime, and finally into a Dictatorship headed by napolean.

Then look at the roman republic. The individual ciizens had enormous rights and freedoms compared to all their neighbors. They ahd one of the fairest legal codes in the ancient world. Then one man comes along, and the crowds of rome loved him. He gave them bread and circuses. Then He crowns himself Emperor. And the Roman republic dies in the space of a few years. Now the Roman citizen existed at the whim of the emperor.

The line between a democracy and an empire is a very thin one. The bigger and more powerful the state is, the easier it is for it to become a dictatorship.

(and no I do not thnik Bush or Obama are akin to hitler, I am just pointing out, that an american hitler could very well arise, and if the power of the government is strong enough, and the people are complacent enough, history could repeat.

Mango wrote:Frazzled,
Liked the first mad max movie, never bothered to se the next ones. It was entertaining.

However, from what I can remember of that movie (its been almost 20 years since I saw it) it was basically a post apocolyptic world where the main doctrine was might makes right.

That is not the position I am advocating, nor am I advocating anarchy.

No, you've seen the second movie. No film in the series ever had anything close to might makes right as a theme. No idea where you got that from.

polonius,

Here is how it limited freedoms of individuals.
It permitted citizens to sue agents that were acting on behalf of the state. It restricted the actions of the agents acting on behalf of the state. those agents were individuals.

Did the statute provide provide a protection to the majority of citizens. Yes. Did it provide a benefit to the majority of citizens. yes. Did it restrict something. Yes, In this case an individual acting on beghalf of the state

Was that a good law? I would say yes. It is a very good law from my standpoint, because it limits the power of a government. But what was the mechanism by which it worked? Did it work by restrciting the actions of a minority? Yes, in that the government agents are a distinct minority.

It still worked by restricting a freedom

Benefit does not equal freedom.

Mango: I'll admit, I've only read about half your posts. I understood that you did not advocate anarchy, but neither are your opponents advocating totalitarianism.

In a society like the one you have described, there would still be a wealthy elite who controlled most of the resources.

I also find your opinions on social welfare and taxation to be fairly drastically different from my own, and it is hard not to be insulted by your tone.

well, then congratulations, you've proved a tautology. Freedom is the absence of restrictions, and all laws restrict something. All restrictions are restrictions. You could have made this point a little clearer.

Polonius wrote:I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is a bit ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. Assuming someone with typicaly libertarian views (on a miniature gaming board as well, perhaps the whitest of all hobbies) is white isn't racist. Maybe something of a stereotype, but a fairly harmless one you quickly withdrew.

To pretend it's anywhere close to racism is ridiculous... yet it probably doesn't crack the top five of Mango be crazy found in this thread.

Mango wrote:

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think Mr. Mango is a pretty dedicated libertarian, and so for them it's a bit of a truism that all laws restrict freedom. Even absent that, the vast majority of laws do curtail one or more freedoms, and the regulations created by executive bodies founded by laws can often be highly intrusive onto personal freedoms.

So while he's wrong in saying that all laws = less freedom, if you change that to "nearly all laws = less freedom," you're getting there.

Having watched this debate before, Sebster seems to hold that government can in fact protect freedoms, and that people can be freer with a government thatn without, while Mango holds that all people are less free under a government.

The answer, as always, lies in the middle.

I'm not, and haven't ever, claimed that all laws improve freedom. I am arguing against the extremity and simplistic nature of Mango's argument, I haven't accepted an equally extreme and simplistic notion in the exact opposite direction.

And that's all this is. Mango made a big claim. I posted some rebuttals. He is yet to address a single from my first round of rebuttals. He's posted a lot of dictionary definitions. He's repeated his initial claim a load of times. But he's never even attempted to address my points.

Sebster, I have rebutted your arguments. At length. If there is a specific one you would like me to address, please feel free to repost it. You keep saying that I am merely repeated definitions and the same argument over and over. Yet, when I offer a detailed and logical response, you claim it is just repeating the same argument. I will address another of your arguments. Sodomy. It was not legalised. It was decriminalized. Your rebuttals have for the most part been opinions, not logical arguments. Try using logic, not opinion.

No, you haven't rebutted my arguments. You havent' even addressed them. I repeated them in the following post... so let's get right into that.

Mango wrote:Again sebster, use logic not opinion.

Fail. I have given the historical precedent you asked for. They aren't opinions. They're basic facts, things that happened. There were sodomy laws, now there aren't.

You have yet to even attempt to reconcile this with your greater theory. Stop stuffing around and step up to answer my rebuttal.

Mango wrote:No dogma, he did not. Take a look at my post with the fish example. My basic premise was that laws retrict freedom. That to date has not been refuted. Until logically someone can refute my basic premise that a law by definition, restricts freedom. The other arguments are ancillary. People have given numerous examples of where laws provide benefits. People have given numerous examples of where laws provide protection. There is a difference between a a right and freedom

You're altering your own argument there. You claimed govt always increases the number of laws. I gave examples of laws that used to exist that don't exist now. You have continued to pretend my counter-argument doesn't exist.

I have also pointed out that your idea of freedom as considering only freedom from government to horribly narrow, to the point where the conclusion has no relevance on the real world. Freedom has to be considered in terms of economic freedom as well, and freedom from the predations of fellow citizens. You have not addressed this point in any way.

polonius,
I used a very specific defintion of law.I have referred to it frequently. But all laws work by restricting action. that is the mechanism by which they work.

your quote.
"If you take a broader view, many judicial decisions increase freedom. Those are law"
That argument suffers from problem. It again, dos not address the mechanism by which the underlying priciple, in this case a "judicial decsions increase freedom" achieves its aim. A law cannot increase a freedom by decreaing it. Yes a judicial decsion can result in a benefit for one group. For example the Supreme court struck down Washington DC's gun ban. Did that allow more citizens to legally possess a firearm in DC? Yes. Did that same ruling also restrict the choice of other citizens to keep guns out of DC? It granted a "freedom" at the expense of another.By restricting the choice of one group.


your nexy quote
"Heck, the constitution itself is full of laws that increase freedom, with only one that regulates a persons conduct (the 13th amendment). " The constitution spells out rights. It gives those rights at the expense of another, in this case the government. However the law itself is still restrictive in nature. That is using the same argumetnas the judicial decision.

next quote
"Most spending bills simply allocate money, the spending of which can't possibly restrict freedom. Sure, the IRC does, but that's a different law"

The spending bill most assuredly restrict freedom, probably more so than most. For where did the money that a govermnment spends come from? It prints some, but most is collected in taxes. those taxes are taken from people. the people whom the money is taken from lose control over that money. It is no longer theirs. They can no longer decide how it is spent. That is taking away the freedom of choice.

All of the above arguments seem to stem from the concept that freedom=benefit or that protection=freedom.
Neither of which arguments have been proven.

By the way everyone, the trick with Mango's definitions is that they're circular. Freedom is stuff government doesn't stop you doing with their laws. Laws are things that restrict freedoms. Completely circular. Trying to argue against him on that level is completely pointless. He's got his definitions all sorted out for himself.

Problem is, all he's got is definitions, and those definitions have little to do with how the world actually operates. Better to challenge him based on real world events. Mind you, if you do that he won't actually respond...

Well, than again you're back to tautological actions. In fact, you can argue that all action restricts freedom, because every choice eliminates others. It's not a horribly useful argument, but pretty much everybody that's read Leviathan knows it.

sebster wrote:By the way everyone, the trick with Mango's definitions is that they're circular. Freedom is stuff government doesn't stop you doing with their laws. Laws are things that restrict freedoms. Completely circular. Trying to argue against him on that level is completely pointless. He's got his definitions all sorted out for himself.

Problem is, all he's got is definitions, and those definitions have little to do with how the world actually operates. Better to challenge him based on real world events. Mind you, if you do that he won't actually respond...

It's not actually circular, it's tautalogical. Laws are anything that restrict action, and freedom is the absence of restriction. So the A that is Law is also the A that is limitation of freedom.

sebster wrote:

Mango wrote:No dogma, he did not. Take a look at my post with the fish example. My basic premise was that laws retrict freedom. That to date has not been refuted. Until logically someone can refute my basic premise that a law by definition, restricts freedom. The other arguments are ancillary. People have given numerous examples of where laws provide benefits. People have given numerous examples of where laws provide protection. There is a difference between a a right and freedom

You're altering your own argument there. You claimed govt always increases the number of laws. I gave examples of laws that used to exist that don't exist now. You have continued to pretend my counter-argument doesn't exist.

I have also pointed out that your idea of freedom as considering only freedom from government to horribly narrow, to the point where the conclusion has no relevance on the real world. Freedom has to be considered in terms of economic freedom as well, and freedom from the predations of fellow citizens. You have not addressed this point in any way.

Polonius wrote:It's not actually circular, it's tautalogical. Laws are anything that restrict action, and freedom is the absence of restriction. So the A that is Law is also the A that is limitation of freedom.

Yeah, you're right. Kudos.

Polonius wrote:

sebster wrote:By the way everyone, the trick with Mango's definitions is that they're circular. Freedom is stuff government doesn't stop you doing with their laws. Laws are things that restrict freedoms. Completely circular. Trying to argue against him on that level is completely pointless. He's got his definitions all sorted out for himself.

Problem is, all he's got is definitions, and those definitions have little to do with how the world actually operates. Better to challenge him based on real world events. Mind you, if you do that he won't actually respond...

It's not actually circular, it's tautalogical. Laws are anything that restrict action, and freedom is the absence of restriction. So the A that is Law is also the A that is limitation of freedom.

polonius, i hate to diagree with you, (oh who am I kidding I love to diagree with you).
My argument is more accurately described as a deductive inference.

definition:
Deductive Inferences
When an argument claims that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion, it is said to involve a deductive inference. Deductive reasoning holds to a very high standard of correctness. A deductive inference succeeds only if its premises provide such absolute and complete support for its conclusion that it would be utterly inconsistent to suppose that the premises are true but the conclusion false.

Notice that each argument either meets this standard or else it does not; there is no middle ground. Some deductive arguments are perfect, and if their premises are in fact true, then it follows that their conclusions must also be true, no matter what else may happen to be the case. All other deductive arguments are no good at all—their conclusions may be false even if their premises are true, and no amount of additional information can help them in the least.


I point this out because while tutology is a valid logical argument, and had a slightly different definition when applied to rhetoric, it alos has an unflattering definition that says it is needless repetition. What I am doing is not needles repetition. It is stating that an agument did not disprove my initial premise, so my argument stands.

adendum to my above post, i mispelled tautological. But i will also point out that so did polonius. my poor spelling is more from a result of poor typing skills.

Well, of course your argument stands. It's simple logic. It also isn't very useful.

So, here: you are right. All laws restrict freedom.

Polonius,
The last refuge of someone who cannot win by logic is to say that the argument is not useful.

Thank you, and good night.

Well, what is the usefulness of that result? What does it show? What can be done?

All laws restrict freedom, yes, but not all freedoms are good, and so not all laws are bad.

I mean, if you're arugment is that government should be no bigger than is necessary, than I agree. We can then spend the rest of our lives discussing what necessary is.

We spend pages discussing a topic that should have taken a sentence:

If you define freedom as the ability of an entity to act as it wishes, and laws as anything that restricts any entities ability to act in any way, then all laws must somehow restrict freedom.

I don't' think anybody would have disagreed, it would have simply been a case of, so?

The reason there was hostility was partially because you weren't clear and partially because people weren't reading closely. It came off as if you were saying that "Government action will always result in less overall freedom." that not what you were saying, of course, but that's what people saw.

Mango wrote:Polonius,
The last refuge of someone who cannot win by logic is to say that the argument is not useful.

Thank you, and good night.

Wait, Mango uses logic?

Mango wrote:Sebster,
my exact words were "No government remains static and survives. To change, a government passes new laws. Rarely do governments get rid of old laws. " rarely does not mean never. It means infrequently. Yes some laws are removed. How many laws did congress pass in 2008? How many judicial decsions were made in 2008? How many Executive orders were passed in 2008? If more laws, judicial decrees, and executive orders were rescinded than were passed, I will concede my argument to you right hear and now, and will admit that you were right about everyting. If more more passed than rescinded, then the argument will go on.

So that’s it? There are more pages of laws this year than last therefore we march slowly towards oppressive socialism and must at some point revolt. Pages of laws, not quality of life or anything like that. Just pages of law made each year.

Early on you were talking about tyranny of the majority and the poor legislating. It was nonsense but it least it would have meant something if it were true. Now you seem to have abandoned all that, seem to have abandoned all the stuff about progressive taxation as theft, and been left with nothing but an obtuse definition of freedom and a complaint about having more laws on the books.

It isn’t exactly the kind of thing that’s going to get people rioting on the streets, is it?

“Every year there are more laws written and so there’s more law than ever before! Every law restricts our freedom just a little more!”
“That’s shocking! And I bet all those laws are passed because of poor people being way more common than 30 something supermen like ourselves.”
“Uh, no. I tried that argument but I couldn’t really sustain the argument. See people don’t vote purely on selfish ends, government power isn’t as simple as votes = power, and there are all sorts of power levels involved in determining legislation. Turns out the money of rich is a at least as big an influence as the votes of the poor.”
“Oh, but think about progressive taxation! That’s pretty shocking, people pay different amounts for the same government services.”
“Yeah, except people’s earning power is based on them being part of society and government having the laws and conditions it presently has. Tax is just another part of that system.”
“Oh, so why are we shocked then?”
“Well every year there’s lots more law passed by government. These laws restrict our freedoms.”
“But doesn’t that law also provide us with additional benefits and even protect our freedoms?”
“No, it protects rights. Freedoms are things you have until government passes a law stopping you from doing it”
“Well isn’t it a good thing when it protects rights?”
“We’re not talking about rights, just freedoms, and freedoms are things that government restricts.”
“Umm, when considering when government is good or bad, shouldn’t we consider a lot more than a really narrow definition of rights. It seems you aren’t considering the massive steps taken in racial equality at all. Surely those kinds of improvements need to be considered.”
“No they’re not freedoms. I have copy and pasted a definition of freedom before, don’t make me do it again.”
“Oh, all right. But, there have been a lot of laws rescinded. Obscenity laws were much stronger than they are today, and sodomy is now legal.”
“Yes, but rarely does that happen. And meanwhile there are more and more laws being passed every year.”
“So, like, what laws have made me less free?”
“Uh, firecrackers and bicycle helmets! And this guy called David Howard got sacked when he said niggardly.”
“Howard was offered his job back, but declined and instead took a different position in the same company. And he said he was insensitive and that the whole process was a learning experience.”
“Well okay, but firecrackers and bicycle helmets.”
“Well, that’s ummm… this all seems completely meaningless. Perhaps I won’t join your revolution after all.”
“You’ll get to smash up a Starbucks.”
“Oh all right then, viva la revolution!”

Polonius wrote:The reason there was hostility was partially because you weren't clear and partially because people weren't reading closely. It came off as if you were saying that "Government action will always result in less overall freedom." that not what you were saying, of course, but that's what people saw.

If you go back and read his early comments, his argument wasn’t just limited to ‘laws produce less freedom’. He started with a rant about the poor and their mighty votes running rough shod over the fragile rich. There was a thing in there about progressive tax as theft. It all came from Putin talking about the ills of socialism. He made reference to revolution and sudden, great changes in history. There were hints of a grand narrative, the US slowly becoming socialist, with no freedom, due to the constant little laws of the politicians and the poor people who control them, with a response resting in the background (revolution!). His original concept had plenty of meaning, but everything that gave it meaning was based on a poor understanding of the world. In turn each surrounding point was abandoned (never conceded, just not defended or mentioned anymore) until all Mango was left with was one meaningless tautology.

Mango wrote:
No dogma, he did not. Take a look at my post with the fish example. My basic premise was that laws retrict freedom.

By 'laws restrict freedom' do you mean that 'all laws restrict freedom', or that 'some laws restrict freedom'? I think what you're trying to indicate is that 'all laws restrict freedom' because that is the only way your argument, that more government is equivalent to less freedom, can hold any water. Unfortunately for you, there have been several examples cited in which certain laws do not restrict freedom, which disproves a fundamental assumption of your argument. You can argue from your definition all you want, but that fact remains that reality disagrees with your definition, which means your definition is insufficient.

Mango wrote:
That to date has not been refuted. Until logically someone can refute my basic premise that a law by definition, restricts freedom.

By proving that your definition does not reflect reality the foundational premise of your argument has been refuted. Paradoxes of material implication. Look them up, because you clearly do not understand them.

Mango wrote:
The other arguments are ancillary. People have given numerous examples of where laws provide benefits. People have given numerous examples of where laws provide protection. There is a difference between a a right and freedom

In the legal sense there is not. Context my man, context.

Mango wrote:
Here is a definition of right:
1: righteous , upright
2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
3: conforming to facts or truth : correct <the right answer>
4: suitable , appropriate <the right man for the job>
5: straight
6: genuine , real
7 a: of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the side on which the heart is mostly located b: located nearer to the right hand than to the left c: located to the right of an observer facing the object specified or directed as the right arm would point when raised out to the side d (1): located on the right of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified <stage right> (2): located on the right when facing downstream <the right bank of a river> e: done with the right hand
8: having the axis perpendicular to the base <right cone>
9: of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an object <made sure the socks were right side out>
10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>
11 a: being in good physical or mental health or order <not in his right mind> b: being in a correct or proper state <put things right>
12: most favorable or desired : preferable ; also : socially acceptable <knew all the right people>
13often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics

Interestingly none of those definitions have anything at all to do with legal rights.

Mango wrote:
Here is a list of synonyms for "right'
Text:
1 following an original exactly— see faithful 2
2 being exactly as appears or as claimed<despite the name, New Yorkʼs East River is a strait and not a right river>— see authentic 1
3 being in agreement with the truth or a fact or a standard<the obvious answer is not always the right one>— see correct 1
4 being what is called for by accepted standards of right and wrong<trying to do what is right>— see just 1
5 conforming to a high standard of morality or virtue— see good 2
6 free from irregularities (as curves, bends, or angles) in course<the first city in America laid out with broad, right avenues>— see straight 1
7 having full use of oneʼs mind and control over oneʼs actions<he hasnʼt been right since he suffered serious brain injury in the accident>— see sane
8 meeting the requirements of a purpose or situation<the right tool for the job>— see fit 1

Again, nothing to do with legal rights.

Mango wrote:
Rights and protections are not the same as a freedom. EVERY law, even if it provides someone with a protection, even if it provides someone with a gaurantee, even if it provides someone with a benefit, restricts freedom.

Again, reality disagrees.

Mango wrote:
That is what the definitiono f a law is. No one has refuted that definition. or come up with an alternate defintion. You just keep saying I am wrong.

Because your definition does not jive with reality. I'm sorry that's the case, but that's the way it is.

Mango wrote:
People have used the term "freedom" very broadly. But have NOT defined it. Logically, my basic argument has not been refuted.

Neither have you, conveniently enough. However, since your trying to make the broadest possible conclusion I'll assume you want to use the broadest possible definition, and not simply 'freedom from government'.

Mango wrote:
Logic: 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotic ; especially : syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2): relevance , propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation ; also : the circuits themselves
2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>

You do understand that logic is only capable of producing valid conclusions, correct? And that a valid conclusion is not necessarily an appropriate conclusion, yes? Because it seems you are hung up on that distinction. Simply because a conclusion is valid it does not follow that it is appropriate, and if it is not necessarily appropriate it is not necessarily correct.

Mango wrote:
Using LOGIC, refute my initial claim that laws restrict freedom.

Paradoxes of material implication. Claim refuted. Next.

Mango wrote:
Opinion is not logic.

Nope, but logic is also not empirical proof.

Mango wrote:
Benefit is not freedom
Protection is not freedom
Good is not freedom
Socialism is not freedom
Liberalism is not freedom
Justice is not freedom

Right, and...?

Mango wrote:
Look at the definition of freedom.

Then refute my initial claim.

Yeah, freedom is the state of being free. Which is the absence of constraint. Unfortunately, we exist in reality, and so are always constrained. The freedom you are trying predicate your argument on does not exist.

So..... being born restricts one's freedoms then ?

Oh FFS mum!

Damn you gravity !

think that your beliefs are far enough libretarian to qualify as beyond the mainstream. maybe not exteme, but fringe. My point is that the lack of practicality makes it at least unworkable in any form of reality. The belief that it's impossible for laws to protect freedom seems a bit extreme to me.

I'd have to disagree with that. He's merely espousing a Libertarian viewpoint. If you include conservatives, and ironically, hard left that likewise doesn't want the government annoying them, thats a large portion of the US population, potentially larger than the group that elected Clinton. Remember we're talking policy here, not absolute practice, which Mango has said he's not espousing.

Polonius wrote:Well, what is the usefulness of that result? What does it show? What can be done?

All laws restrict freedom, yes, but not all freedoms are good, and so not all laws are bad.

I mean, if you're arugment is that government should be no bigger than is necessary, than I agree. We can then spend the rest of our lives discussing what necessary is.

We spend pages discussing a topic that should have taken a sentence:

If you define freedom as the ability of an entity to act as it wishes, and laws as anything that restricts any entities ability to act in any way, then all laws must somehow restrict freedom.

I don't' think anybody would have disagreed, it would have simply been a case of, so?

The reason there was hostility was partially because you weren't clear and partially because people weren't reading closely. It came off as if you were saying that "Government action will always result in less overall freedom." that not what you were saying, of course, but that's what people saw.

“a person that does not arrive at his position by reason, cannot be reasoned out of it”

The reason that I say that quote is not to accuse you of having reached your conclusion and beliefs without reason. It was to show why I made the argument that I did. It was not to prove a meaningless point. It was to show that governments work by restricting and controlling the society. They do this by establishing basic rules that the majority of members of the society agree to live by. (the agreement can be formal, or it can be tacitly) For example, an immigrant from one nation to another formally agrees to live by the new societies rules. A person born into a society tacitly agrees to live by the rules as long as they don’t leave. I wanted us (and by us I meant everyone reading or taking part in the discussion) to have a basic framework to start from. If people believe that laws mean freedom then they have no compunction about passing more laws..

I needed people to see that benefits do not mean freedom. Laws can provide benefits. That can be good. But more laws do not mean better benefits. It CAN mean better benefits, but does mean better benefits.

Yes my argument is indeed that government should be no bigger than absolutely necessary. The key is the word necessary. And the slippery slope that often follows necessary. But the reason why I believe a limited government is preferable to a bigger one, we first have to come to an agreement on what government is. A law is something that operates by restriction. But it only works if that restriction is enforced. The enforcing entity is the government. I needed people to see that a government and the laws that it enforces are all about control and restriction. Even if the law has a net benefit, it is still a restrictive force. Yes, laws can be good. But laws can also be bad.

From this basic stating point, we can move on to the next stage of the discussion.

Bloodof orks, sebster, dogma, reds8n, I will address each of you in turn.

BloodofOrks wrote:

Mango wrote:Polonius,
The last refuge of someone who cannot win by logic is to say that the argument is not useful.

Thank you, and good night.

Wait, Mango uses logic?

Yes Blood, I do. You should try it one day.

sebster wrote:

Mango wrote:Sebster,
my exact words were "No government remains static and survives. To change, a government passes new laws. Rarely do governments get rid of old laws. " rarely does not mean never. It means infrequently. Yes some laws are removed. How many laws did congress pass in 2008? How many judicial decsions were made in 2008? How many Executive orders were passed in 2008? If more laws, judicial decrees, and executive orders were rescinded than were passed, I will concede my argument to you right hear and now, and will admit that you were right about everyting. If more more passed than rescinded, then the argument will go on.

So that’s it? There are more pages of laws this year than last therefore we march slowly towards oppressive socialism and must at some point revolt. Pages of laws, not quality of life or anything like that. Just pages of law made each year.

Early on you were talking about tyranny of the majority and the poor legislating. It was nonsense but it least it would have meant something if it were true. Now you seem to have abandoned all that, seem to have abandoned all the stuff about progressive taxation as theft, and been left with nothing but an obtuse definition of freedom and a complaint about having more laws on the books.

It isn’t exactly the kind of thing that’s going to get people rioting on the streets, is it?

“Every year there are more laws written and so there’s more law than ever before! Every law restricts our freedom just a little more!”
“That’s shocking! And I bet all those laws are passed because of poor people being way more common than 30 something supermen like ourselves.”
“Uh, no. I tried that argument but I couldn’t really sustain the argument. See people don’t vote purely on selfish ends, government power isn’t as simple as votes = power, and there are all sorts of power levels involved in determining legislation. Turns out the money of rich is a at least as big an influence as the votes of the poor.”
“Oh, but think about progressive taxation! That’s pretty shocking, people pay different amounts for the same government services.”
“Yeah, except people’s earning power is based on them being part of society and government having the laws and conditions it presently has. Tax is just another part of that system.”
“Oh, so why are we shocked then?”
“Well every year there’s lots more law passed by government. These laws restrict our freedoms.”
“But doesn’t that law also provide us with additional benefits and even protect our freedoms?”
“No, it protects rights. Freedoms are things you have until government passes a law stopping you from doing it”
“Well isn’t it a good thing when it protects rights?”
“We’re not talking about rights, just freedoms, and freedoms are things that government restricts.”
“Umm, when considering when government is good or bad, shouldn’t we consider a lot more than a really narrow definition of rights. It seems you aren’t considering the massive steps taken in racial equality at all. Surely those kinds of improvements need to be considered.”
“No they’re not freedoms. I have copy and pasted a definition of freedom before, don’t make me do it again.”
“Oh, all right. But, there have been a lot of laws rescinded. Obscenity laws were much stronger than they are today, and sodomy is now legal.”
“Yes, but rarely does that happen. And meanwhile there are more and more laws being passed every year.”
“So, like, what laws have made me less free?”
“Uh, firecrackers and bicycle helmets! And this guy called David Howard got sacked when he said niggardly.”
“Howard was offered his job back, but declined and instead took a different position in the same company. And he said he was insensitive and that the whole process was a learning experience.”
“Well okay, but firecrackers and bicycle helmets.”
“Well, that’s ummm… this all seems completely meaningless. Perhaps I won’t join your revolution after all.”
“You’ll get to smash up a Starbucks.”
“Oh all right then, viva la revolution!”

Ah Sebster, when you can't win an argument with a real person, you make things up and win the argument with yourself. Congratulations on your verbal equivalent of masturbation.

Dogma,
Your post will take a little bit more time. I also have a job, so When I can take a break, I will get to yours.

Mango wrote:Bloodof orks, sebster, dogma, reds8n, I will address each of you in turn.

Be still my beating heart.

I needed people to see that benefits do not mean freedom

I don't agree and you haven't "proved" this at all.

Of course more laws doesn't automatically mean a better or freer society--not one person here has suggested that. What we have said-- over and over again-- is that a the opposite is also true : a society without many (any)laws is not better or freer at all.

It is indeed a "slippery slope" but that, like any decent woman, can go both ways.


The fact that you choose to see one side as worse preferable than the other is nothing more than personal choice or anecdotal evidence. Something you've used a lot in this thread and yet attack others for doing, even if they're not.

I really don't see any point in anyone posting anymore in this thread, it's not going to achieve anything, especially when your tone gets increasingly patronising.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:The reason there was hostility was partially because you weren't clear and partially because people weren't reading closely. It came off as if you were saying that "Government action will always result in less overall freedom." that not what you were saying, of course, but that's what people saw.

If you go back and read his early comments, his argument wasn’t just limited to ‘laws produce less freedom’. He started with a rant about the poor and their mighty votes running rough shod over the fragile rich. There was a thing in there about progressive tax as theft. It all came from Putin talking about the ills of socialism. He made reference to revolution and sudden, great changes in history. There were hints of a grand narrative, the US slowly becoming socialist, with no freedom, due to the constant little laws of the politicians and the poor people who control them, with a response resting in the background (revolution!). His original concept had plenty of meaning, but everything that gave it meaning was based on a poor understanding of the world. In turn each surrounding point was abandoned (never conceded, just not defended or mentioned anymore) until all Mango was left with was one meaningless tautology.

Sebster,
Again you are misstating my argument. My Argument was not “laws produce less freedom” there is a semantic difference you are failing to note. “Laws restrict freedom.” Followed by
“more laws = less freedom” That is not the same as laws “produce” less freedom. Laws cannot “produce” anything. They are inanimate. You have a basic flawed understanding of what a deductive inference is, and are confusing it with a “tautology”.
Your lack of understanding of an argument does not invalidate the argument. It validates your individual lack of understanding. You claim I have a poor understanding of the world. I am not arguing from a point of “understanding” the world. I am arguing from the nature of how a law works.

Dogma,
Yes, my argument is all laws restrict freedom. You say there have been examples of where laws do not restrict freedom. But you are mistaken. There have been examples of laws that do not restrict one group but that does restrict another group. The mechanism by which the law worked, is by restriction. So none of those examples disproved my main point. No, “reality” does not disagree with my point. If law A says that person B cannot do something, and Person C benefits, then person C is freer, THAT is a paradox of material implication.

Dogma, you are wrong. My argument is deductive inference. Clearly you are the one that is mistaken about the meaning of paradox of material implication.

If my argument was:
“laws restrict freedom then laws are bad” that would be a paradox of material implication. But that is not my argument. If my argument was “All laws restrict everyones freedom” that also would have been a Paradox of material implication.

My argument is that laws = restriction. freedom = lack of restriction.
therefore laws do not equal freedom. If laws =restriction the Law +1=restriction +1

That is not the same as law=restriction therefore all laws = everyone is restricted.

Dogma your words:
“interestingly none of those deal with legal rights”

Did I specifically refer to legal rights? Or are you tring to put words into my mouth like sebster.

Key thing to remember here, is that “Natural Rights” are modified and acquired anew by CIVIL LAW. That means a “Natural Right” is only a “Right” as enforced by law. Which means enforced by restriction.

My conclusion that law=restriction is a valid conclusion.
My conclusion the freedom is the opposite of restriction is a valid conclusion
The idea that all freedoms are good is not a valid conclusion. But that is not what I have been arguing. An appropriate conclusion is one that follows a valid argument, if it is based on and relates to the initial valid argument. That is what deductive inference is.

An inappropriate conclusion that you and others have reached is that some laws are good, therefore laws are good. In context of course.

Try again, Dogma.



For clarification:
Paradoxes of Material Implication: The truth-function of material implication gives a proposition p → q which is true except in the case in which p is true and q is false. It also corresponds fairly well to the conditional form ‘If p then q’. But whenever p is false, p → q is true, and whenever q is true, p → q is true. So ‘If Paddington Station is in France, London is in England’ is true (it has a true consequent) and ‘If the moon is made of cheese, it is made of ketchup’ is true (it has a false antecedent). The ‘paradox’ is not a genuine paradox, but puts some pressure on the identification of the conditional form as it is found in natural languages, with material implication.



RIGHT - This word is used in various senses: 1. Sometimes it signifies a law, as when we say that natural right requires us to keep our promises, or that it commands restitution, or that it forbids murder. In our language it is seldom used in this sense. 2. It sometimes means that quality in our actions by which they are denominated just ones. This is usually denominated rectitude. 3. It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself.

In this latter sense alone, will this word be here considered. Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty.

Rights are perfect and imperfect. When the things which we have a right to possess or the actions we have a right to do, are or may be fixed and determinate, the right is a perfect one; but when the thing or the actions are vague and indeterminate, the right is an imperfect one. If a man demand his property, which is withheld from him, the right that supports his demand is a perfect one; because the thing demanded is, or may be fixed and determinate.

But if a poor man ask relief from those from whom he has reason to expect it, the right, which supports his petition, is an imperfect one; because the relief which he expects, is a vague indeterminate, thing.

Rights are also absolute and qualified. A man has an absolute right to recover property which belongs to him; an agent has a qualified right to recover such property, when it had been entrusted to his care, and which has been unlawfully taken out of his possession.

Rights might with propriety be also divided into natural and civil rights but as all the rights which man has received from nature have been modified and acquired anew from the civil law, it is more proper, when considering their object, to divide them into political and civil rights.

Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or management of government. These political rights are fixed by the constitution. Every citizen has the right of voting for public officers, and of being elected; these are the political rights which the humblest citizen possesses.

Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sentence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; for an alien, for example, has no political, although in the full enjoyment of his civil rights.

These latter rights are divided into absolute and relative. The absolute rights of mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security which consists in a person's legal and uninter-rupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; the right of personal liberty, which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's inclination may direct, without any restraint, unless by due course of law; the right of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.

The relative rights are public or private: the first are those which subsist between the people and the government, as the right of protection on the part of the people, and the right of allegiance which is due by the people to the government; the second are the reciprocal rights of hushand and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant.

Rights are also divided into legal and equitable. The former are those where the party has the legal title to a thing, and in that case, his remedy for an infringement of it, is by an action in a court of law. Although the person holding the legal title may have no actual interest, but hold only as trustee, the suit must be in his name, and not in general, in that of the cestui que trust. The latter, or equitable rights, are those which may be enforced in a court of equity by the cestui que trust.

(ps my Karma ran over your Dogma)