flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (12/29/84)
From: Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes > Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of > coercion. But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power > to effect one's will. A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, > even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man > to do what he wants because he lacks means. As "The Fonz" would say: EXACTAMOONDO! Freedom *from* coercion, without freedom *to* do anything, is worthless. What libertarians want, and what rational people want, are as different as night and day. --The insufferable iconoclast, Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink
elron@ihuxl.UUCP (Gary F. York) (12/31/84)
Although I get impatient with those who fill up the first screen with quotes from previous articles, I think I must do much the same in fairness to the respective authors. Fortunately, the article I'm "excerpting" is brief. Author 1: Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink > responding to Author 2: Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes >> >From: Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes >> Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of >> coercion. But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power >> to effect one's will. A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, >> even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man >> to do what he wants because he lacks means. >As "The Fonz" would say: EXACTAMOONDO! Freedom *from* coercion, without >freedom *to* do anything, is worthless. What libertarians want, and >what rational people want, are as different as night and day. > --The insufferable iconoclast, > Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink Let me take this piece by piece. (Insufferable indeed!) From: Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes >> Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of >> coercion. ... Correct! My dictionary thinks so too. >> .... But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power >> to effect one's will. ... I think the word you are looking for, Richard, unless of course you INTEND to equivocate, is ability, not freedom. From the Oxford American Dictionary (1980): Ability ... 1. the quality that makes an action or process possible, the capacity or power to do something. 2. cleverness, talent. Substituting ability (in the first sense defined) for freedom and able for free, the following statements: >> .... A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, >> even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man >> to do what he wants because he lacks means. become: .... A totally paralyzed person hasn't much ability, even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less able than a rich man to do what he wants because he lacks means. which is true but tautological. From: Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink, responding to Richard's statement above. > ... Freedom *from* coercion, without freedom *to* do anything, is worthless. Surely not! The only restriction libertarians place on all the "freedom to"s is that they be accomplished without coercion. You may not achieve your own "freedom to" at the expense of another's "freedom from". I can conceive of innumerable things worth doing which do not at all involve coercing others. Can't you? > .... What libertarians want, and > what rational people want, are as different as night and day. Now really, Paul, what do you believe libertarians want? Libertarians, as libertarians, want this and only this: A world where there is broad agreement that the only proper use of force is in responding to those who initiate its use. If this be night, what then is day? Gary F. York, ihuxl!elron (312) 979-0981 ix 1b455 Bell Labs Naperville, Il.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/31/84)
> > .... What libertarians want, and > > what rational people want, are as different as night and day. > > Now really, Paul, what do you believe libertarians want? > > Libertarians, as libertarians, want this and only this: > A world where there is broad agreement that the only proper use > of force is in responding to those who initiate its use. > > If this be night, what then is day? What I have trouble with is why, out of all the possible "basic goods" people could want, libertarians seem to have a fixation for freedom from force. Whenever a philosophical position claims that one thing is an absolute good, to be followed to the exclusion of everything else, I think that this shows there is something fundamentally wrong with it. What is wrong with saying, "coercion only in a few cases where the situation justifies it"? Or, "coercion only when the majority opinion is in favor of it"? Wayne
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/02/85)
>> Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of >> coercion. But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power >> to effect one's will. A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, >> even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man >> to do what he wants because he lacks means. >> -- Richard Carnes (carnes@gargoyle) > As "The Fonz" would say: EXACTAMOONDO! Freedom *from* coercion, without > freedom *to* do anything, is worthless. What libertarians want, and > what rational people want, are as different as night and day. > -- Paul V. Torek (flink@umcp-cs) Have a look at a dictionary. You will find that "freedom" and "liberty" are defined as the ability to choose without coercion. The means to effect one's will is better defined as "wealth" in this context. It doesn't make sense to include wealth in the definition of freedom. Who's to decide how much wealth is required? What if I decide that I need a new BMW each month to be free? Is the car dealer oppressing me when he refuses to hand me the keys? Abraham Lincoln couldn't buy a television set or ride a plane to Washington, and I can; was he less "free" than I? Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/03/85)
> What I have trouble with is why, out of all the possible "basic goods" > people could want, libertarians seem to have a fixation for freedom > from force. Whenever a philosophical position claims that one thing > is an absolute good, to be followed to the exclusion of everything > else, I think that this shows there is something fundamentally wrong > with it. What is wrong with saying, "coercion only in a few cases where > the situation justifies it"? Or, "coercion only when the majority > opinion is in favor of it"? > -- Wayne (faustus@ucbcad) I have trouble with Wayne's belief in the magical properties of the majority. If I wish to skip church when the majority thinks everyone should attend, why should I be forced to comply? If I wish to speak of Marxism when the majority follows John Birch, why must I be thrown in jail? If I wish to treat my cancer with apricot pits when the majority believes this to be useless, why should I be constrained? I say that each person should choose for himself so long as his choices do not harm another. Then if you believe that others should behave in a certain way, you are free to *convince* them. Not coerce. I hold this to be an "absolute good" because in a system where every person is free, all other goods can be obtained if people agree that they want them. This is not true in other systems. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/05/85)
> > What I have trouble with is why, out of all the possible "basic goods" > > people could want, libertarians seem to have a fixation for freedom > > from force. Whenever a philosophical position claims that one thing > > is an absolute good, to be followed to the exclusion of everything > > else, I think that this shows there is something fundamentally wrong > > with it. What is wrong with saying, "coercion only in a few cases where > > the situation justifies it"? Or, "coercion only when the majority > > opinion is in favor of it"? > > -- Wayne (faustus@ucbcad) > > I have trouble with Wayne's belief in the magical properties of the > majority. If I wish to skip church when the majority thinks everyone > should attend, why should I be forced to comply? If I wish to speak of > Marxism when the majority follows John Birch, why must I be thrown in jail? > If I wish to treat my cancer with apricot pits when the majority believes > this to be useless, why should I be constrained? The point is not that the majority COULD force you to do what they want, because in any society, anarchy or whatever, they could do this (no matter how much you claim freedom from coercion). The point is that in a reasonable society, they will have thed sense to make use of this power very seldom, because they will realize that they might be a mamber of the next minority to be persecuted. This is the way most people in the US seem to think now. (Perhaps not the most visible people, like TV evangelists, but certainly the majority.) > I hold this to be an "absolute good" because in a system where every person > is free, all other goods can be obtained if people agree that they want > them. This is not true in other systems. You're not giving much of an argument for this, but I guess that this has been the point of a lot of the debate that has been going on for the last few months... At the very least, this isn't an obvious truth. There is another side to the coersion / freedom issue that you don't mention, and that is that many of the things that the government forces people to do are things that people think should be done, but will only help with themselves if they know that others are helping too. Taxes are like that -- most people (aside from libertarians) think that taxes are a necessary evil, and they will pay them, provided that other people do too. The more tax evasion there is, the more people think, why am I doing this while other people are avoiding it, and then they also try to avoid it. In a situation like this, the people are supporting their own coercion, just so long as everybody else is being coerced also. Wayne
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/07/85)
> From faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 > What I have trouble with is why, out of all the possible "basic goods" > people could want, libertarians seem to have a fixation for freedom > from force. Whenever a philosophical position claims that one thing > is an absolute good, to be followed to the exclusion of everything > else, I think that this shows there is something fundamentally wrong > with it. What is wrong with saying, "coercion only in a few cases where > the situation justifies it"? Or, "coercion only when the majority > opinion is in favor of it"? > > Wayne Wayne - You asked two different questions, so you deserve two different answers. First, "the will of the majority." Said will changes, and is not an always good. Two examples: Slavery in the US. That was the will of the majority, but was it good? Second, if two people decide that a third persons money should be redistributed, that makes them a majority. This is normally called theft. Why should the numbers being 2 million and 1 million make things any different? Now, "only when the situation justifies it." We are now getting to the heart of the matter. *How* do you decide that "the situation justifies it?" If everybody thought it was justified, then you shouldn't need to coerce anybody. If somebody thinks it isn't justified, how do you decide who is right? Majority rule? Or maybe you believe in an "Absolute Good" that you can use to make the decision? <mike
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/08/85)
> Wayne - > > You asked two different questions, so you deserve two different answers. > > First, "the will of the majority." Said will changes, and is not an always > good. Two examples: Slavery in the US. That was the will of the majority, but > was it good? Second, if two people decide that a third persons money should > be redistributed, that makes them a majority. This is normally called theft. > Why should the numbers being 2 million and 1 million make things any > different? The point is that if the majority believe that you should not have rights, your beliefs on how government should be run won't make much difference. The part of society that has the most power, which is generally the majority, will be the one to say what the government is like. Before the middle of the 19th century, most people believed in slavery, or at least believed in letting other people practice it. After the Civil War, the majority believed that slavery shouldn't be continued, and it wasn't. If you are going to start to argue about what is GOOD, I hope that you can provide a proper definition of the word so that we know what you are really talking about... > Now, "only when the situation justifies it." We are now getting to the > heart of the matter. *How* do you decide that "the situation justifies > it?" If everybody thought it was justified, then you shouldn't need to > coerce anybody. If somebody thinks it isn't justified, how do you decide > who is right? Majority rule? Or maybe you believe in an "Absolute Good" > that you can use to make the decision? I think majority rule should do fine. In any case, if the majority want something, they are going to get it, no matter how right your political views are... Wayne
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/09/85)
... > I think majority rule should do fine. In any case, if the majority want > something, they are going to get it, no matter how right your political > views are... > > Wayne Not necessarily. If the majority has a vague preference for something, and the minority has a fanatical life-and-death preference against it, the minority will (and should) have its way. Simple head-counting misses these subtleties. --JoSH
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/09/85)
> As "The Fonz" would say: EXACTAMOONDO! Freedom *from* coercion, without > freedom *to* do anything, is worthless. What libertarians want, and > what rational people want, are as different as night and day. > > --The insufferable iconoclast, > Paul V. Torek, umcp-cs!flink You spell very nicely. -- Misermite
mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (01/18/85)
From: Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes > Libertarians also seem to think that freedom is merely the absence of > coercion. But it seems to me that freedom must include the means or power > to effect one's will. A totally paralyzed person hasn't much freedom, > even though he isn't coerced. A poor man is less free than a rich man > to do what he wants because he lacks means. From: Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink > As "The Fonz" would say: EXACTAMOONDO! Freedom *from* coercion, without > freedom *to* do anything, is worthless. What libertarians want, and > what rational people want, are as different as night and day. I have never seen so much package dealing as between the concepts of political freedom and the much different concept of economic freedom. They are not equivalent at all. Political freedom is the inalienable right of man, e.g. the individual man, to pursue whatever goals he wishes so long as he does not forcibly interfere with the political freedom of other individuals. It is the proper function of government to enact laws which protect this kind of freedom. Economic freedom is the consequence of political freedom. A person in the USA is politically free to start any legitimate business he chooses. To the degree he is successful (e.g. if his goals are rational and he has the stamina and efficacy to achieve them), is the degree to which he will enjoy more economic freedom. Economic freedom is not a given; it has to be EARNED. And it cannot be earned if one is not politically free. To negate this fact is to turn hardworking individuals into sacrificial animals whose work and wealth are confiscated and given to non-producers. It is this kind of economic freedom that the Democrats keep touting as a right; e.g. a right to a job, a right to medical care, a right to a decent salary, a right to a decent home...ad infinitum. Who is to produce the wealth in order for these rights to be provided? Blank out! I always get disgusted when I hear people claiming a right to other people's hard-earned wealth and prosperity. These people simply wish to evade the reality that they are not competent or motivated enough to PRODUCE the wealth for their own continued existence and thus they endeavor to loot from those who can. Michael Bishop ihnp4!hpfcla!mike-b