Libertarianism/individual freedom

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's like you don't understand what libertarianism is; freedom to act so long as you don't violate another person's rights.

Which is where my second argument comes on. Already you have denied complete freedom, and restricted it from the public to the private sphere. So now we are only free in the private sphere. This would be fine if we were robots that could be happy living on their own and keeping their ideas to themselves, but we are not. It's human nature, we have to play our role in society to be happy, and our beliefs are a part of who we are. If we cannot express them in the public sphere, are we really free? Are we able to pursue happiness unhindered? Or are only libertarians afforded such a privilege?

A libertarian ideology isn't so much 'upheld' as no ideology is enforced on the people.

The answer to this is in my third point. Since we don't begin our lives as rational agents, a sort of 'tabula rasa' situation, if we are brought up with any belief system then this infringes on our freedom to think for ourselves when we are older, since we are a product of our upbringing. As a consequence of this, a pure libertarian will argue for children not to be exposed to belief systems when they are young and totally vulnerable to them (eg Dawkins argument). However, for practical purposes, if you raise people with no belief system, then they will struggle to develop one when they are older, just as surely as they would struggle to change from one they had been brought up in. And so, a purely libertarian system raises generations with no values, a very repressive and narrow-minded system in itself.

What? Why? You can be religious and libertarian at the same time.

Depends on what exactly your religious beliefs are. Only those with libertarian values are allowed to be expressed publicly in a libertarian society. Hardly fair I think. Practical perhaps, but not fair.

Um, where? Show me this libertarian state.

A perfectly libertarian state has never existed. Generally, we use libertarianism as a sort of practical system to protect minorities etc, and I think this is how you would view it, CR, unless you are a true libertarian radical.

If people such as yourself would accept this, then they should not play the 'intolerance' card whenever an idea which threatens libertarianism is expressed.

Good grief. Here's why it's liberating; because you can do what you want so long as you don't overrun the rights of others. You can't do that in Saudi Arabia, and your criteria would apply to any form of government. I'll admit nothing to such silliness.

CR

And we're back to the original problem. How free are we if our beliefs cannot extend beyond the private sphere? Almost all the belief systems seen throughout human history are by nature absolute, in that they claim to be the right path, and to work effectively they must be enforced at the societal level. Socialism isn't a lot of good if only poor people believe in it. How can one man tax another if he can't even interfere in his private sphere? Indeed, if you support any taxation whatsoever then you are admitting that we are a social species, and our freedom must extend beyond the private sphere for it to be truly realised.

Such a person is not a true libertarian, and in admitting that libertarianism is a scale, a balance between private and public freedoms, libertarians lose their right to claim status as a special sort of ideology above and compatible with all others, and instead just become another one of the competing belief systems that every human being holds to.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Which is where my second argument comes on. Already you have denied complete freedom, and restricted it from the public to the private sphere. So now we are only free in the private sphere. This would be fine if we were robots that could be happy living on their own and keeping their ideas to themselves, but we are not. It's human nature, we have to play our role in society to be happy, and our beliefs are a part of who we are. If we cannot express them in the public sphere, are we really free? Are we able to pursue happiness unhindered? Or are only libertarians afforded such a privilege?

Libertarianism is about stating your opinions in the public sphere and being free to share them with others. It seems that you're confusing libertarianism and authoritarianism, somehow.

As a consequence of this, a pure libertarian will argue for children not to be exposed to belief systems when they are young and totally vulnerable to them (eg Dawkins argument). However, for practical purposes, if you raise people with no belief system, then they will struggle to develop one when they are older, just as surely as they would struggle to change from one they had been brought up in. And so, a purely libertarian system raises generations with no values, a very repressive and narrow-minded system in itself.

No once again. A libertarian system allows the family to freely have their own opinions and develop their own moral belief systems, regardless of what they are. A pure libertarian will not (or should not) argue for that, because the lack of a belief system is a belief system in itself. Many libertarians are Christians or have other religious beliefs.

Depends on what exactly your religious beliefs are. Only those with libertarian values are allowed to be expressed publicly in a libertarian society. Hardly fair I think. Practical perhaps, but not fair.

Not true at all. Total reedom of speech is one of the top freedoms libertarians want to ensure.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Libertarianism is about stating your opinions in the public sphere and being free to share them with others. It seems that you're confusing libertarianism and authoritarianism, somehow.

Quite so. A libertarian society doesn't restrict or forbid people from talking about or expressing their beliefs.

I think you've got a lot of mixed up ideas about libertarianism is.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK, I've obviously caused some confusion, and it seems to be my fault. I am talking about those extreme, ideologically-driven versions of libertarianism, where the private and public sphere must be kept seperate. The reasoning behind this being that some individuals private beliefs may offend others when aired in the public sphere, and since this is form of harming others, this cannot be tolerated in a 'pure' libertarian system.

For an example, look at the recent case with the bakini burqas. People said they were offensive (regardless of the private beliefs of those wearing them), and so they wanted them banned from the public sphere, because they were supposedly incompatible with libertarian western society. See how immediately we have created a sliding scale where some private beliefs are deemed unsuitable to enter the public sphere? Now, how far do these libertarians want to take this? If they are sensible, they may stop at hate speech, or anything which could cause physical violence. If they take it further, they might want to tell Islamic women what is suitable dress in a libertarian society where everyone can think for themselves (lol, irony). And now we are on this scale, there's really no barrier to taking it further. What if Richard Dawkins is offended by my preaching on the street? Then my private beliefs have come to harm another in the public sphere, and as such should arguably be banned.

See how a libertarian system can very quickly become incredibly repressive when taken to its natural, ideological extremes?

And when people do not take it to these extremes, then they lose the moral backbone of their argument. They are no longer a clear ideology compatible with all others, instead they become like the rest of us putting a limit on private freedoms when they become a threat to the public sphere.

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK, to try to turn this thread in a more positive direction, I will try to suggest some alternatives to the libertarian system I am complaining about.

In my ideal world, or perhaps state, there would be a confederacy of many smaller societies. I find the libertarian world of today is not ideal for many people. They want to live in a society which reflects their ideals, rather than having them confined to the private sphere. The libertarian ideal of inidividual freedom is noble, but as I said earlier, we are a social species, and much of our life is carried out in the public rather than the private sphere. Therefore, I think people would have true freedom (in that their ideals may be realised in the public and not just private sphere) if they could choose to form their own autonomous societies and have their own laws, education systems, etc.

For an example, well I think perhaps America in the early days of its colonisation works somewhat. There, people weren't forced to comply to a libertarian society. If you were a Puritan, you could go to Massachusetts, take their declaration of faith, and live in a society governed by Puritan laws. Even within this Puritan society there were further mini-societies to pick from. For example New Plymouth, a colony run on communalist principles, had its own system of governance, and provided an outlet for the Diggers who were unable to have their own society back in England. Of course, if you were not a Puritan, you could go and colonise other areas.

So, instead of me just complaining, maybe if people put forward their ideas it will generate some discussion. I am of course being very idealistic here and I realise my ideas are far from practical, but why not get a bit philosophical every once in a while?

[Beskar]

Problem with Total Freedom of Speech, is that some people believe absolutely everything some people say, and you get in the murky water of people for pure example: Some one purposefully accuses an .org member sitting around bushes near children playing on swings to discredit them/give them a bad name. Them and others keep attacking this .org member, even though this .org member doesn't do it and attempts to defend themself, they are soon vocally outmatched and ostracised from the .org.

Anyway one has played a mafia-game knows about these types of bandwagons.

Freedom goes towards, freedom to do something, freedom against something.

Freedom to do intelligent and damaging critiques based on fact. Freedom against racism, lander/libel, hate campaigns based on false information.

[Craterus]

Problem with Total Freedom of Speech, is that some people believe absolutely everything some people say, and you get in the murky water of people for pure example: Some one purposefully accuses an .org member sitting around bushes near children playing on swings to discredit them/give them a bad name. Them and others keep attacking this .org member, even though this .org member doesn't do it and attempts to defend themself, they are soon vocally outmatched and ostracised from the .org.

Anyway one has played a mafia-game knows about these types of bandwagons.

Freedom goes towards, freedom to do something, freedom against something.

Freedom to do intelligent and damaging critiques based on fact. Freedom against racism, lander/libel, hate campaigns based on false information.

It's pretty obvious where certain freedoms are starting to impinge on other's freedoms there though. The Harm Principle isn't difficult to understand.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Problem with Total Freedom of Speech, is that some people believe absolutely everything some people say, and you get in the murky water of people for pure example: Some one purposefully accuses an .org member sitting around bushes near children playing on swings to discredit them/give them a bad name. Them and others keep attacking this .org member, even though this .org member doesn't do it and attempts to defend themself, they are soon vocally outmatched and ostracised from the .org.

But freedom of speech also allows him to stand up for himself. You don't give people enough credit - some will believe the fictional version of events, but most people are rational and have common sense.

[Beskar]

But freedom of speech also allows him to stand up for himself. You don't give people enough credit - some will believe the fictional version of events, but most people are rational and have common sense.

You have more optimisms then what I do. I wish I could agree with the statement.

Freedom of Speech allows him to stand-up for himself, but during a vicious hate-campaign, it is akin to pee-ing in the wind. Have you ever seen what happens when the media decide to turn on some one? Ever seen what happens when the media decides to praise some one? End of the day, the person has almost be judged, tried and found guilty in the eyes of the public.

Freedom of Speech doesn't stop authoritarian institutions, but does help a lot against them, which is why I would still support it. Though, If people were rational and have common sense, the world would be a far greater place

[Kralizec]

For an example, well I think perhaps America in the early days of its colonisation works somewhat. There, people weren't forced to comply to a libertarian society. If you were a Puritan, you could go to Massachusetts, take their declaration of faith, and live in a society governed by Puritan laws. Even within this Puritan society there were further mini-societies to pick from. For example New Plymouth, a colony run on communalist principles, had its own system of governance, and provided an outlet for the Diggers who were unable to have their own society back in England. Of course, if you were not a Puritan, you could go and colonise other areas.

The Netherlands had a long period of what we call pillarization. It wasn't so much a society as a whole bunch of voluntarily self-segregating parts.
I'm glad it was all over by the time I was born.

[Crazed Rabbit]

OK, I've obviously caused some confusion, and it seems to be my fault. I am talking about those extreme, ideologically-driven versions of libertarianism, where the private and public sphere must be kept seperate. The reasoning behind this being that some individuals private beliefs may offend others when aired in the public sphere, and since this is form of harming others, this cannot be tolerated in a 'pure' libertarian system.

Your reasoning, perhaps, but no reasoning of any libertarian has led to that conclusion.

That's because there is no right to not be offended. No libertarian would say there is. The only place you'd find such things encoded into law is in a society pathetically crippled by nigh-overwhelming political correctness.

but when does freedom of speech begin to harm society.

Libel and slander, which is why it's against the law in the US.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's because there is no right to not be offended. No libertarian would say there is. The only place you'd find such things encoded into law is in a society pathetically crippled by nigh-overwhelming political correctness.

Perhaps that is part of the problem in today's society. Although IIRC, you were one of the people that said that women should not be allowed to wear burqas in public.