• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 12
onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:There have been many posts lately concerning freedom and the state- examples being the issues of drugs being legal/illegal and the threads on how governements (particularly the US and UK) are using the terrorist threat as an excuse to push legislation curtailing some personal liberties.

That's been discussed in those other threads, and some of those threads are ongoing.

So I'll say that those things are off-topic here, and merely mention them to put this thread in context.

The issue on which this thread is based is a very specific one, and one which I feel underlies the issues mentioned above; i want to get this discussion going because I feel that much of the confusion/misunderstandings which occur in the previous threads could be alleviated by clarifying this issue.

And that issue is that, IMO, for a state to be 'free' requires substantial state curtailment of some individual liberties ie 100% freedom is impossible (or at least is impossible as anything other than a temporary and highly unstable state).

Further, that many of those who critisise the current state of affairs in the west with regard to liberty, are actually failing to see just how many liberty-restricting devices are in place to maintain the freedoms they do have.

Here's a quick list of things which restrict the liberty of individuals, at least some of which I think most here will agree are good, and which actually help maintain freedom-

1. laws against adults having sex with minors

2. laws limiting alcohol comsumption for drivers

3. murder being illegal

4. gun use restricted or banned

5. discrimination against groups based on their skin colour or sexuality being illegal

6. police and other groups to enforce the above

All these things that are in place to protect freedom, necessitate curtailment of some liberties (eg the freedom of an employer to not employ blacks, the freedom of a murder to kill whom he/she wants).

Imagine that the govt. one day decides to disband, and to let the population have 100% freedom.

Inevitably individuals and groups would arise that were stronger, or had more guns, or simply more will to dominate- and then that 100% freedom is gone.

To me that suggests that-

1. our current state of freedom is actually a balance between two opposing forces of freedom and constraint

2. that that balance is an integral part of any possible nation/state

and, going back to it's relavance to those other threads- i do feel that some posters have a very black-and-white view when it comes to the issues of liberty and the state, and that they tend to profer simplistic opinions that certain state restrictions are 'against liberty' whilst neglecting the fact that the very existence of freedom actually requires the substantial work of deciding where to draw a line.

ie bag searches are not wrong because they infringe on ones personal liberty (though they may be wrong for other reasons- i'm not saying that bag searches are right here)- that can't be the reason as the very existence of freedom requires personal liberty infingements.

(please remember that this thread is about the principle of freedom being based on liberty curtailment (or not- you may disagree with that view)- it's not about bag searches, drugs etc, those have several ongoing threads already that I'm sure you can find if you want to discuss them).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete Topic

Sethis
BRONZE Member since May 2005

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:But perfect freedom is impossible in any case, so isn't the debate kinda pointless? If I am the only person alive on the planet, I am denied the freedom to socialise with other people. If I am one of two men on the planet, then my freedom to raise offspring is curtailed, because there are no women. You see? Freedom is limited by *existing* as well as by any external government.

And what is the government other than a warlord that no-one will challenge? That's how many "official" governments began. smile


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:I'm talking about freedom as it relates to states- like i said, some posters seem to believe that a state in which the govt, does not limit personal freedom, is possible. I am arguing that such a state is not possible.

In doing so I am fully aware of the following-

1. the simple act of existence itself limits freedom

2. many laws in even modern western states are a bit silly

3. some governments evolved from 'warlords'

ALL I am saying is that a state is only possible if it places some limits on individual freedoms.

As yet, no one seems to have disagreed with this- does anyone disagree? and, if so, on what grounds?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:I've been beating around the bush to disgareeing as I've been trying to get in some definitions. I still do disagree- I don't think its impossible, I truly don't. But I'm not sure if I'm ready to be coherent about what the govt would be yet. (I'd like to find a book I was reading a few years back, and I seem to have given it away :/). But I'll give it a go, and you can tear it apart for me smile After all, thats what this discussion is for, right?

So, the effective govt should be:

*Run on donations.
*Contain a volunteer military which trains only with weapons more complex than one or two people can reasonably handle on their own.
*Have volunteer officials

It is of course, not impossible for a military coup, altho, if you look at South America, you can see that having a "normal" govt is no prevention ... if someone else decides you should have a military coup and funds it. On the other hand, I'd like to point out that a small country in central america (can't think of the name atm) got invaded with no military and repelled the invaders sucessfully. The plural of anecdote is not data, and that surely applies to this case, I just want to point out that there are feasible options for an educated and involved citizenry. Such a citizenry would likely be very small, but probably bright enough to figure out ways to keep themselves free from large tyrannical bodies...

That aside, I do think you've largely proven your point to most people.

FYI I really despise age based laws, but thats neither here nor there... Thats not quite within the scope of the argument, and I'm taking a more extreme position for this thread in any event...

Now please, do list your problems, because I'm sure I havn't listed all of my solutions, altho note that I've said what I'm going to as regards military coups and border violence short of explaining further


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

Page: 12

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [freedom state] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > the best spinner in the world... and the state of spinning today [197 replies]
2. Forums > The California State Medical Board: a Rant [6 replies]
3. Forums > altered state (Take 2) [17 replies]
4. Forums > State intervention in personal choice [11 replies]
5. Forums > newbie in Washington state [3 replies]

     Show more..