This video is 4 years old.
This video is 4 years old.
Für eure Sicherheit
This was a genuine question btw NQ, I'd like to you to spell out how you view liberty/freedom and how it gets violated.Originally Posted by WMUG
I'm not going to snip at you or take cheap shots, I'm interested to see how it matches up to my own thoughts and what society should look like based on it.
You used to be everything to me
Now you're tired of fighting
Oh, okay. Sorry, I'm used to dealing with such levels of dishonesty on here that I can sometimes miss honest discourse.
True liberty? There is only true liberty, there can't be false liberty as it would not be liberty at all. It is a human contract between you and your fellow man (therefore an agreement that is consensual and equitable) not to initiate force against people or property. It really is that simple. That one construct covers all conceptual and practical eventualities and absolutely precludes any and all instances of authority, for should authority exist then liberty cannot.
The mistake made by those who do not believe liberty can exist (because there are those who would break the contract) are confused in their thinking. They assume an absence of perfection is therefore a default resignation to authoritarianism. They don't explain WHY this is a logical conclusion, as opposed to a fallacy. They assume liberty disqualifies consensual cooperation (EVEN a government operated by the people) or charity. Not true. If there are 10 people in a room and 9 of them are smart and engaged enough to appreciate the personal and collective benefits of liberty, what do they care if the one remaining occupant disagrees? They do not have to attack him, sanction him, or infringe upon him in any way (and CANNOT) as they engage in their expression of majority for the common good (as well as the individual - crucially). Should the lone dissenter attempt to disrupt the contract upon which all others have agreed, what real harm can he do as one against nine? PROVIDED HE IS NOT FOOLISHLY GRANTED AUTHORITY OVER THE MAJORITY!
People are so quick to assume we cannot do any better as a species, even though there are streams of evidence that we have successfully upheld the rights of human beings (or overturned the abuse of those rights) many times. I suspect the readiness to accept the worst as normal is a shield behind which a lack of personal responsibility is concealed. Those who suggest we cannot be better, or busy themselves with trivial and even imaginary expressions of virtue, really mean THEY, themselves, don't have it in them to be better. This is why the language has been hijacked and the definitions reversed. It allows those without the stamina for genuine virtue can console themselves with the public appearance of being "virtuous". They assume 9 out of the 10 would instantly harm them were it not for an authoritarian presence abusing liberty.
Of course they have been told as much, from the first day they were marched into school as an impressionable child. The world is a bad place filled with bad people and only politicians and bankers and ideologically driven billionaires possess the virtues and ethics and self-sacrificing goodwill to protect you from your fellow man. Or, in a single word. FEAR.
The video below explains authoritarianism very well.
Für eure Sicherheit
And...
QED.
oh go on, he loves it really
QED plus juvenile icon does not equal reason.
Go ahead then, explain the connection between the two snippets you highlighted - bearing in mind the "argument" you are "verifying" was concocted by YOU, not me, to the extent you can't even use my words, you have to use YOUR misrepresentation of them.
Your previous post was full of shit like this, your rewriting and reinterpretations set up as arguments which you could then knock down. All the while, everything you couldn't corrupt (or likely couldn't comprehend) was studiously excluded. You can't even cherry pick with an ounce of honesty.
Für eure Sicherheit
That icon really doesn't suit a person like yourself, especially as it is beyond your capability to understand why.oh go on, he loves it really
Für eure Sicherheit
Interesting. How do you define force? Unprompted violence? Attempted coersion?
How are you defining authoritarianism here? Is this any attempt to use a position of power to influence others? Is any society in which that practice exists by definition an authoritarian one?
The mistake made by those who do not believe liberty can exist (because there are those who would break the contract) are confused in their thinking. They assume an absence of perfection is therefore a default resignation to authoritarianism.
Lots, potentially, is my immediate reaction. If they're literally in a room, he can start attacking others. He may be overpowered, but he'd do some damage on his way. He could poison the water, he could start bringing others over to his side with promises of power, all depends on what he wants.
If there are 10 people in a room and 9 of them are smart and engaged enough to appreciate the personal and collective benefits of liberty, what do they care if the one remaining occupant disagrees? They do not have to attack him, sanction him, or infringe upon him in any way (and CANNOT) as they engage in their expression of majority for the common good (as well as the individual - crucially). Should the lone dissenter attempt to disrupt the contract upon which all others have agreed, what real harm can he do as one against nine? PROVIDED HE IS NOT FOOLISHLY GRANTED AUTHORITY OVER THE MAJORITY!
Can you give me some examples of what you mean here? Just so we're both clear about what we're talking about.People are so quick to assume we cannot do any better as a species, even though there are streams of evidence that we have successfully upheld the rights of human beings (or overturned the abuse of those rights) many times. I suspect the readiness to accept the worst as normal is a shield behind which a lack of personal responsibility is concealed. Those who suggest we cannot be better, or busy themselves with trivial and even imaginary expressions of virtue, really mean THEY, themselves, don't have it in them to be better.
My reading of the situation is different; people disagree about the amount of harm the 1 in 10 would be able to do, as I outlined above.
This is why the language has been hijacked and the definitions reversed. It allows those without the stamina for genuine virtue can console themselves with the public appearance of being "virtuous". They assume 9 out of the 10 would instantly harm them were it not for an authoritarian presence abusing liberty.
That video gives a whole lot of ideas, but no examples to back them up.
Of course they have been told as much, from the first day they were marched into school as an impressionable child. The world is a bad place filled with bad people and only politicians and bankers and ideologically driven billionaires possess the virtues and ethics and self-sacrificing goodwill to protect you from your fellow man. Or, in a single word. FEAR.
The video below explains authoritarianism very well.
For example, it cites Camus saying, "the welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants", but doesn't give any examples of it tyrants using the welfare of the people to be tyrannical, meaning I don't get an impression from the video of a real-world instance of what tyranny looks like. I have some ideas of my own, but I don't know if they're the same as yours or the video maker's.
It also makes the assumption that there is either liberty or authority, one or the other, black and white.
I don't find that convincing, from where I'm sitting it looks a lot more like a spectrum than a dichotomy. To use your definition, some people are more able to go about their daily lives without force being initiated on them, others are less able.
Some have more force initiated on them, some less.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the black and white view implies that one iota of force being initiated on me to, say, pay tax is equal to being enslaved, which is plainly ridiculous.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the argument here?
You used to be everything to me
Now you're tired of fighting
Force is any transaction, physical or threatened, that removes consent and equity from any party engaged in that transaction. Unprompted violence and coercion are both examples. The equity also has to materialise, it cannot be a lie, a product of fraud or any other subterfuge. The exception is charity which, by it's nature, can often lack tangible equity but this is fully understood by the donor and so no violence can possibly occur.
An authoritarian is anyone who assumes or is granted superior privileges (masquerading as rights) and then enacts violence on anyone who did not consent to the assignment of such privileges or the use of those privileges. Basically anyone who believes they have a right to instruct you how to behave (or these days, think) without your consent is an authoritarian. Somebody who justifies inequality of human rights. There is soft authoritarianism and hard. Government spends most time engaged in soft authoritarianism but, remembering the countless millions who have been slaughtered by governments, it is never shy to remove the mask and reveal its true nature.
Everyone has a right to self defence and would be perfectly justified in calling for others to assist in that form of defence. Again, picking out examples of what violent individuals might do does not discount liberty as an option for coexistence and collaboration. Are you saying a minority of evil people might seize control by using violence? Well if that happened, how does liberty leave you any worse off than you are now? Do you not already see the very worst of mankind, in control, violent and bent on self preservation and self enrichment? If it follows that liberty cannot work because violent individuals would prosper (though there is no proof to suggest this is certain) does it not also follow government cannot work given the violent individuals who prosper? A system of individual responsibility might result in more individuals standing up against the abuses of those who seek and exercise authority, as opposed to the trend of hoping violent abuse can be avoided by delegating authority to the very individuals who are violent and abusive.
As always stated, change is not expected to come overnight. Libertarianism does not demand an instant shift. As things stand, libertarians mainly concern themselves with trying to resist violent psychopaths gathering even more authority to themselves. It's not a progressive battle, it's a rearguard action. Unfortunately half the population fights against this tooth and nail and eggs the authoritarians onto even worse excess. This is the fear and lack of personal responsibility I already mentioned. It can be understood, but it can never be admired.
Examples of victories won by genuine libertarians (those who believe in consent and equity) go all the way back to the times when kings and queens seemed unassailable. If you compare those times to the present, ignoring the deeper and relatively short lived dives into stark authoritarianism for the sake of argument, we have fewer abuses of human rights. Overt slavery has been alleviated. Women's rights have been established. Religious persecution is on the decline. Workers cannot be so blatantly abused. These focus on the ownership of your own labour, a fundamental of survival, existential equity of the human being (separate to behaviour or environment), and the right to control of your own mind and beliefs and the freedom to express such beliefs. Of course all of these gains are being rolled back in the west at this point in time. But liberty goes in peaks and troughs as each new enemy rises, is confronted and then falls.
I would think Covid is a perfect example of what Camus concluded. Being just the most recent example from a tireless list stretching all the way back. What about September 11th, seeing as we are approaching another anniversary? The examples are rather obvious.
It is not an assumption to state you can either have liberty or authority. They are mutually exclusive. You cannot be a little bit free, you are either free or somebody else has final say, to at least some degree, over how you live your life. Don't confuse leaders with authority (of course the best leaders never need to exert authority). Leaders can be appointed by consent, there's no ideological issue with that (although practically it hardly ever works out well). But if a person does not consent to be led then it will take an authoritarian, bringing the implied threat of violence, to abuse that choice and that right. Obviously the person being coerced is no longer free.
Regarding tax, it is by its application theft and therefore violence. The revenue service does not propose a worthy idea whereby people can contribute to a pot and benefit collectively (there would be nothing wrong with that, provided the equity promised actually materialised). But that's not how the revenue operates. It operates by applying threats and violence against those who will not or cannot comply. Given that rights exist equally for all, it cannot be possible for one individual to steal from another and still maintain they are not an authoritarian criminal. Also, if you work for an hour but get paid for working half an hour because the state has stolen your earnings, you may not be a slave in the commonly understood sense, but half your labour has been conducted for the benefit of another. If you consent to this or view it as an act of charity then no problem, although the threats are violence of the state are still criminal behaviour. But if you do not consent to this then what would you call the portion of your labour that has been taken against your will? Enforced charity? It is slavery by any measure and I'm unsure why you would think it ridiculous to say so.
Für eure Sicherheit
Don't forget to take your horse de-wormer.And...
QED.
NOTE: The location of this post has been moved and the thread title (which was previously Wenger is Leaving) has been manipulated by a notorious pro-Wenger moderator. What was previously a message that contained no profanity and made a comment on a real life event has now been manipulated by a deliberately provocative title. An old and crude propaganda and censorship technique.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote