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: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)

reds8n wrote:So..... being born restricts one's freedoms then ?

Oh FFS mum!

Damn you gravity !

reds8n,

Look up the definition of a non sequitur

Mango wrote:

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.

That's all? Dude it took you seven pages to make everyone too sick of you to want to talk to you anymore. You quietly abandoned about 90% of your original argument and ignored valid points other people made for pages. Your final argument is so boiled down and stripped of context that it became divorced from reality. (Don't bother asking me to clarify. I'm not going to waste my time posting here again so you can go back and read any number of the dissenting opinions you ignored for examples.) You launched into personal attacks, threw dictionary definitions around like they were functional arguments, and then when people stopping caring and walked away, you ran victory laps. I kept out of this thread for as long as I could because frankly I knew better then to waste my time trying to debate you but lost my temper when I saw you acting like you had accomplished something. By the merit that you have dragged this bloody carcass of an argument across eight pages is not an accomplishment; it is tribute to how badly you argued your points. You have behaved shamefully childishly. I'm done here. I would rather have eight days of violent diarrhea then debate with you further.

Mango wrote: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.

I'm not trying to win an argument, I spent eight pages trying to get you to actually discuss your ideas. It's become clear you weren't capable of that. You've talked around issues, you've ignored rebuttals until harassed into answering them (and sometimes not even then). And over the course of the thread you've completely changed your argument. Remember this from your second post in the thread?

"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."

That was your grand idea, all these little laws being passed every year, they were all about the poor wolves deciding which of the rich sheep to have for dinner. People pointed out the mistakes in your argument; you gave a couple of responses but ultimately gave up on that issue. Like you gave up the idea of great sudden changes in history, or the one about how progressive tax was really people paying different amounts for one thing? You stopped raising them, but you were never honest enough to actually properly concede any of them.

And that's the thing, intellectual honesty. I had to ask you constantly to address rebuttal - even when you challenged the board for counterpoints you wouldn't address them when given. Because you lack the honesty to address anything that might be inconvenient to your argument. There are still issues you haven't responded to.

Now here you are, eight pages in, having talked around so many points, and never once engaging in honest conversation. But that doesn't seem to bother you, because now you're pretending the whole thing was just about an obscure and meaningless definition of freedom, and how government restricts that freedom because there's more laws written every year. There’s no effort any more to support any of the claims you made earlier, claims that would have given the theory some meaning. Instead, you’ve played this final little game, where you’ve pretended the streamlined, cut down argument is all you were ever talking about. Instead of calling it a day and figuring maybe you aren't as world wise as you'd have assumed, instead you've pretended you're some paragon of logic. So yeah, I made fun of your argument. Your argument needs to be mocked because you've been incapable of discussing it.

Mango wrote:

reds8n wrote:So..... being born restricts one's freedoms then ?

Oh FFS mum!

Damn you gravity !

reds8n,

Look up the definition of a non sequitur

"someone who gives up on paedophiles" ....?

Modquisition on:

Politeness is required people, even in the OT zone. This is a friendly reminder that all comments must follow the Dakka #1 rule-be polite.

Modquisition off.

Mango wrote: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.

Go back and read your original posts. They were full of claims that would have given your 'laws restrict freedom' argument some meaning. You've given up on each of those points, and ultimately all you're left with, 'laws restrict freedom provided freedom is defined as those things restricted by laws' is a worthless observation.

And yeah, it is a tautology. As long as you use a definition of freedom that is defined purely by law and nothing else, it's a tautology.

Sebster,
My original statement was
"Greater regulation = less individual freedom."

I then put forth an argument. As you pointed out. Then you and many others said that my argument was flawed because the initial statement upon which it was based was wrong.

So, that meant that I had to prove my initial statement. Using the rules of logical argument I did so. People were not then able to disprove the original statement. Then you in particular, started spouting examples of benefits and protections and equating those with freedom. You never proved that benefits and protections = freedom.

That is what I asked.
The majority of posts were as I was accused of doing, repeating the same point over and over. were merely providing examples of benefits and protections but were not proving anything.

If I answered a bunch of posts, that were saying essentially the same thing, in 1 post. I am accused of ignoring posts. Yet has everyone that has participated in this discussion answered every one of my posts? No. Do you hear me continually crying that everyone is ignoring all of my posts?

When I clarify my position, I am accused of changing it. Clarification does not mean changing it. It means making it clearer.


A child, when it wants attention, will start yelling louder and louder until it gets the attention.

Let's imagine there is a society on an alien world which lives in a state of anarchy where everyone bullies and kills whomever they can.

One faction in the society gets fed up with this and they form a kind of vigilante force which stops the bullying by force.

The society has a democratic assembly where the people meet and decide what to do about making temples for the gods and stuff like that-- not laws but collective decisions they all agree in.

The assembly decide they need to do something about the bullying and killing and vigilantes. So they pass a law that bullying and killing is not to be prevented by the vigilantes as this is trespassing on people's rights to freely bully and kill.

Is the sum total of freedom in the society greater or smaller after the law is passed?

Killkrazy,
Before I answer, I have one point, and then a couple of questions.

Point: It stopped being an anarchy when the group formed.

2.I want to make sure that I am reading and understanding correctly what you put. Did the society where the people meet exist before the vigilantes formed, or did they form this group after?

3. If a law was passed, who enforced the law?

The society existed before the vigilantes arose. It was a utopian society whose members enjoyed complete freedom without government. Occasionally the members would meet to decide what to do about religious issues.

The vigilantes were a faction that arose within the society.

I have no idea who enforced the law. There was no government so no police force.

Presumably there would be a fight between the vigilantes who opposed bullying and killing and the members of the society who favoured it. There would probably be other members of the society who did not join in on either side.

This is a thought experiment.

Killkrazy,
Then if no one enforced the law, there was no law. It was a statement.

Much as if I were to say for example,
"It is now the law, that killkrazy is the supreme dictator for life of the United States of Earth."

Because I say it is a law does not make it a law, because I do not have the ability to get people to follow it if they do not want to.

Suppose someone did enforce the law, so that the population were now liberated from the cruel grip of the vigilantes forcing them not to kill each other freely and without let, as they wished to.

Would the amount of freedom in the society have increased or decreased?

Killkrazy,
How did the law get enforced? Did they kill the vigilantes? Did they Imprison them? Did they restrict everyones movement by building a barrier that seperated the two groups?

They enFORCED the law, as in bending others to their will. The mechansim of the law was tto restrict people by some way or another. Did the law provide a benefit to the people that were now protected? Yes it did. Did the law make the society a better place? In my opinion yes it would have. Did the law still restrict someones freedom? Yes. So in that sense, freedom was lessened.

Benefit: 1archaic : an act of kindness : benefaction
2 a: something that promotes well-being : advantage b: useful aid : help
3 a: financial help in time of sickness, old age, or unemployment b: a payment or service provided for under an annuity, pension plan, or insurance policy c: a service (as health insurance) or right (as to take vacation time) provided by an employer in addition to wages or salary
4: an entertainment or social event to raise funds for a person or cause

Is a benefit a freedom?

Mango wrote:Sebster,
My original statement was
"Greater regulation = less individual freedom."

I then put forth an argument. As you pointed out. Then you and many others said that my argument was flawed because the initial statement upon which it was based was wrong.

That wasn’t your original statement. I have already pointed out that your original claim had a lot of other elements in it. Things that would have given “greater regulation = less individual freedom” some kind of meaning. But you didn’t address that, the substance of my recent posts. Instead you’re just going back and repeating your latest claim ‘I’m just clarifying what I said all along’.

That kind of malarkey can work in normal conversation, where it can be hard to remember who said what and when. But anyone here is free to go back and read your original posts. Reading those posts, it is clear you were talking about a lot of things.

So, that meant that I had to prove my initial statement. Using the rules of logical argument I did so. People were not then able to disprove the original statement. Then you in particular, started spouting examples of benefits and protections and equating those with freedom. You never proved that benefits and protections = freedom.

The distinction is arbitrary and pointless. Whether it is a freedom or a protection or a benefit, people like it when they go to a voting booth without being attacked by a different political party. You can call the terms whatever you want, but what you’re doing is defining important considerations out of your model. You’re doing this because once you recognise that many of the things you consider ‘benefits’ and ‘protections’ are extremely important, and that once you have to consider them the situation becomes a lot more complex, to the point where ‘more regulation = less freedom’ becomes horribly simplistic, and far too narrow a view.

That is what I asked.
The majority of posts were as I was accused of doing, repeating the same point over and over. were merely providing examples of benefits and protections but were not proving anything.

You mean like all the examples of progressive taxation as paying more for the same thing? Do you even remember how that used to be a part of your argument?

If I answered a bunch of posts, that were saying essentially the same thing, in 1 post. I am accused of ignoring posts. Yet has everyone that has participated in this discussion answered every one of my posts? No. Do you hear me continually crying that everyone is ignoring all of my posts?

When I clarify my position, I am accused of changing it. Clarification does not mean changing it. It means making it clearer.

But you weren’t clarifying. Clarifying would be changing a term to something better understood. Or providing greater detail on an analogy, to demonstrate the underlying logic. You just repeated original claims, over and over again. Over time, you just stopped repeating most of them, until you were left with one claim, devoid of context or meaning; ‘regulation is less freedom’.

Meanwhile, I had to ask constantly for you to address rebuttal I put forward in posts you quoted. If I had been posting and you had been posting, then yeah, I wouldn’t have had any claim to you to address my points. But you were quoting my posts, and skipping over the hard bits and picking out single points to misinterpret or debate out of context. In that situation I have every right to ask you to properly address my argument.

Even now in this latest post you’ve misinterpreted my point, and completely failed to address the key point, that you have abandoned a whole lot of claims, and that your argument was never as simple as ‘law equals less freedom’.

A child, when it wants attention, will start yelling louder and louder until it gets the attention.

Really? Asking someone to answer properly is childish?

Ok sebster, if that wasn't my original statement, what was my original statement?

There I have aknowledged your existence again. Are you happy? Now run along and play.

Mango wrote: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.

My mistake then, I thought someone had brought up positive law. For example, the United States Code, Section 204, article 1:

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, the matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

Mango wrote:
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.

Yes it is, good thing I'm only talking about laws that say person A can take action B.

Mango wrote:
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.

Your argument has been, at several points, 'if there are more laws, then there is less freedom'. That is a paradox of material implication.

Mango wrote:
My argument is that laws = restriction. freedom = lack of restriction.
therefore laws do not equal freedom.

You modified your point again. You began this argument from the stand that more law = less freedom. Now your stating that law does not = freedom. These are different statements. More law = less freedom carries the meaning that law cannot generate freedom. Law does not = freedom carries the meaning that law does not necessarily generate freedom.

Mango wrote:
If laws =restriction the Law +1=restriction +1

That is not the same as law=restriction therefore all laws = everyone is restricted.

So you really are only arguing from tautology? Really? I take it you find Anselm's proof of God compelling as well.

Mango wrote:
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.

Why mention rights at all if you aren't dealing in legal rights? The word is irrelevant to the matter in all other cases.

Mango wrote:
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.

If they're modified and acquired anew in accordance with civil law they are not natural, they are legal. Your point is irrelevant.

Mango wrote:
My conclusion that law=restriction is a valid conclusion.
My conclusion the freedom is the opposite of restriction is a valid conclusion

And, again, your argument becomes if law = restriction, and restriction does not = freedom, then more law = less freedom. Paradox of material implication.

Mango wrote:
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.

A valid conclusion follows valid argument. An appropriate conclusion follows a body of evidence. A logical argument is a type of evidence, but to possess a logical argument is not necessarily to possess a sound body of evidence. For example, Anselm's proof of God.

Mango wrote:
An inappropriate conclusion that you and others have reached is that some laws are good, therefore laws are good. In context of course.

I reached no such conclusion. Neither did anyone else.

Mango wrote:
Needless bloviation to indicate that I was in fact referencing legal rights.

Simplified.

Dogma,
Your quote

"And, again, your argument becomes if law = restriction, and restriction does not = freedom, then more law = less freedom. Paradox of material implication. "

For you to validate that argument you need to show how it is a paradox of material implication, not just say it is.

Mango wrote:Ok sebster, if that wasn't my original statement, what was my original statement?

There I have aknowledged your existence again. Are you happy? Now run along and play.

I've already posted it, but as it seems your ability to read is somewhat lacking, I'll do it again. Your second post (your OP just described the Putin speach and quoted a portion of it) read as follows;

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.

Your opening line is that government gets more authoritarian over time. This is a much bigger charge that ‘more laws mean less freedom as long as freedom means things government won’t stop you doing and absolutely nothing else’. But for the purpose of moving this forward we’ll pretend they’re the same thing.

See, you then immediately make reference to old saying, a much stronger criticism about democracy as direct self interest, ultimately the tyranny of the majority. This thought is followed up in the third paragraph with an observation about the poor outnumbering the wealthy, and how they will apparently control politics and take from the rich, and this results in income taxes hitting the wealthy more than the poor.

See, if that part were true the idea of ever-expanding government would have meaning, because that expansion would be institutionally biased against minority sections of society. But you stopped make that claim pages back, and now seem to be playing some bizarre shell game where you pretend you never made the claim, or that it wasn’t ever part of your grand idea or something.