The closing of the political threads is really becoming annoying

[Darklord Dave]

No, because which set of principles is 'right' would vary according to what people value. I do believe that there are things which should be valued, and things which should not, but I'll be damned if I'm going to tell anyone else that they should value what I do.

So long as the same respect is extended to me, I don't much care what, how, or if anyone else thinks.

So it's even more pointless to debate those deeper principles because there can be even less agreement on them than the superficial arguments such as who would make a better president.

 

[barbelith]

You've used the "it's impossible to continue the debate if you refuse to acknowledge the science" excuse many times. The fact that you do continue to debate it belies this excuse.

Nope. It only shows my weak resolve.

The fact that some aren't convinced by scientific evidence is part of the reason there can never be agreement on these subjects. There is no common ground for the argument and thus no relevant conclusion to the discussion can be reached.

This is what I was trying to say.

 

[devilof76]

So it's even more pointless to debate those deeper principles because there can be even less agreement on them than the superficial arguments such as who would make a better president.

You don't think it would serve a purpose to point out how both candidates consistently pledge to implement policies that have a common underlying political philosophy?

I can refrain from saying that absolute political liberty is the only right way for humans to live together, but I think it helps to be able to identify that candidates who don't hold political liberty as an absolute are really no different from each other.

Perhaps I should stand by my belief that compromised liberty is evil. But then, I'd just be arguing with everyone all the time, wouldn't I? I can't imagine that would help the situation. Is there a way to defend this position without telling other people that they're wrong?

I'm starting to see barbelith's dilemma.

 

[Darklord Dave]

You don't think it would serve a purpose to point out how both candidates consistently pledge to implement policies that have a common underlying political philosophy?

I can refrain from saying that absolute political liberty is the only right way for humans to live together, but I think it helps to be able to identify that candidates who don't hold political liberty as an absolute are really no different from each other.

Perhaps I should stand by my belief that compromised liberty is evil. But then, I just be arguing with everyone all the time, wouldn't I? I can't imagine that would help the situation.

Not that I want to debate underlying principles, but I don't think anyone would disagree that "absolute political liberty" is something devoutly to be wished. However implementing it in a society that actually has to function leads to the compromises both parties have to make. It's the nature of those compromises that make up the differences.

 

[barbelith]

I can refrain from saying that absolute political liberty is the only right way for humans to live together, but I think it helps to be able to identify that candidates who don't hold political liberty as an absolute are really no different from each other.

But you don't actually believe in absolute political liberty. You believe in personal liberty up to the point it infringes on somebody else. That's a compromise just like the ones Dave references, which means we're back at details instead of principles.

 

[devilof76]

However implementing it in a society that actually has to function leads to the compromises both parties have to make. It's the nature of those compromises that make up the differences.

I disagree. I believe that the compromises are what impair society's proper functioning, and not the liberty, but I'll leave it at that.

But you don't actually believe in absolute political liberty. You believe in personal liberty up to the point it infringes on somebody else. That's a compromise just like the ones Dave references, which means we're back at details instead of principles.

I do believe in it absolutely. One is not practicing freedom by infringing upon the freedom of another. Such acts are a violation of liberty, not the veneration of it.

 

[barbelith]

One is not practicing freedom by infringing upon the freedom of another.

How can freedom have limits?

 

[devilof76]

Because the concept does not exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why freedom is a value to human beings. If elements are imported into the definition that ignore those reasons, the concept becomes inverted. It's an equivocation say that for humans to be free, they need to be free from the predations of other humans, and then to say that humans who cannot prey on each other are not free.

 

[barbelith]

It's an equivocation say that for humans to be free, they need to be free from the predations of other humans, and then to say that humans who cannot prey on each other are not free.

But freedom doesn't mean "free from threat." You're starting with a compromise right out of the gate, which brings us back to Dave's point.

 

[devilof76]

But freedom doesn't mean "free from threat." You're starting with a compromise right out of the gate, which brings us back to Dave's point.

What it means is freedom from initiated force from other human beings. There isn't any other way to enslave a person.

 

[barbelith]

What it means is freedom from initiated force from other human beings.

I think it's fair to call this an obscure definition not shared by most.

There isn't any other way to enslave a person.

Sadly that's not true.

 

[devilof76]

The meaning of words is not determined by consensus. Conceptual cognition is objective. The term identifies an existent antecedent to an observer. In this case, it's a condition or state of human beings in relation to each other. Having free will, humans may either be controlled by others against their will, or not. Freedom is the latter state.

It is wholly true that physical force (or the threat of) is the only way to destroy that state, given the definition, which is what it is given the nature of the world and the nature of the human animal. Freedom in the context of human society is the absence of initiated force.

What other ways are you thinking of?

 

[barbelith]

The meaning of words is not determined by consensus.

That's actually precisely how it works, and is one reason why dictionaries change over time and feature multiple definitions for the same words. Freedom is the ability to choose. External threat doesn't enter into it.

What other ways are you thinking of?

This is going to be a Catch-22 situation. I am sure you are familiar with wage slavery as demonstrated by Nineteenth Century mining towns. We instantly find ourselves in a situation with two options:

• You agree this is slavery.

• You suggest this is not slavery as there is no physical force involved when accepting what we'll describe as the contract.

I am not interested in scoring points, so feel free to pick the first option. But if you pick the second option it undermines your usual rallying cry against taxation, because you have the choice to reject the contract by moving away.

We really should start a new thread.

 

[devilof76]

We really should start a new thread.

We'd be the only two people in it.

Per your comments on language, does that mean if I can convince enough people that totalitarianism is freedom, it will in fact become so?

And no, I don't believe there is such thing as wage slavery, but it doesn't undermine my anti-tax position. My claim to my property and life has precedence over those who would claim them. My option is not limited to moving away, but to fighting back as well. However, the point is that I should not have to. I am being forced to.

I'll address your definition of freedom later. I need some food.

 

[barbelith]

We'd be the only two people in it.

We seem to be the only two people having a conversation in this one.

Per your comments on language, does that mean if I can convince enough people that totalitarianism is freedom, it will in fact become so?

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bad

I refer you to definition 36.

My claim to my property and life has precedence over those who would claim them.

But by remaining in the United States you are agreeing to a contract that includes taxation. You are free to leave at any time.

 

[DarthNeil]

You two are... but I get the joy-- nay, the rapture of having to read it.

 

[devilof76]

My condolences Neil.

But by remaining in the United States you are agreeing to a contract that includes taxation. You are free to leave at any time.

Similarly to 'agreeing' to give a mugger my wallet in exchange for him not shooting me.

 

[barbelith]

Similarly to 'agreeing' to give a mugger my wallet in exchange for him not shooting me.

You don't have a contract with the mugger. You do have a contract with the United States by virtue of choosing to remain here despite knowing the terms.

 

[devilof76]

Does the concept of 'rights' have any meaning to you outside of a legal context?

 

[galactiboy]

Late to the thread, but I find these political threads very annoying. If people on the boards were better at not getting whiney I think they would be fine. But if people can't even discuss action figures in a civil manner I think politics and other threads are doomed.