Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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!”