Libertarianism/individual freedom

[Rhyfelwyr]

Libertarianism is pretty commonly accepted by most people today, in that most people do not believe in hindering a person's beliefs or their acting upon them, so long as they harm nobody else's ability to do the same. And for this reason, libertarianism is treated as a special sort of ideology, in that is should supposedly be compatible, at least concerning the beliefs of individuals, with other ideologies.

However, when in its purest form, libertarianism for all practical purposes loses its status as an ideology to protect all others, and instead just becomes another one of the bunch which is forced on people; just like communism, nationalism, Christianity, Islam, fascism, or anything else. Why is this? Well, I think the idea of libertarianism as giving individual freedom is flawed for three reasons.

Firstly, libertarianism makes a lot of assumptions about human nature and the rights that follow it. In many ways it is a bastardised form of the ideologies of the likes of John Locke and those he influenced who carried on the tradition off into various branches. One of the biggest assumptions it makes is that people are rational agents capable of willing whatever they please (without of course always being able to act upon it). And this the root belief from which we get all the various human rights etc. However, the underlying assumption is a very bold one to make. What if someone believed that people are born depraved and unable to do any good? Lunacy! And this isn't of course just a religious thing, I think it is quite difficult to defend free will from a purely scientific point of view. And yet, most people believe that the underlying assumption of libertarianism is correct, and so it is in effect no different from other ideologies built on what are unfounded assumptions, and all the resulting beliefs of this assumption are then formed into a system to which people are forced to comply.

Secondly, we are by nature a social species, and our individualism has always been something which has fitted into the framework of society. The only way this could be avoided is to remove people from society, which would in itself violate their liberty. People simply don't want to be left alone with their beliefs, they want to share them with other people, and shape their role in society. Pure libertarianism allows individual freedom, but completely shackles society to its chains. And yet, almost all the ideologies which people hold to are concerned with society as a whole. A Christian may want shops to close on Sundays. A socialist may want to take one person's money to help another. And yet, this cannot be allowed in a libertarian system. So long as the libertarian ideology is upheld by the state, no ideology can ever come to prominence. The private sphere is free, but that abstract concept of society (something dear to the individual) is strictly confined.

Thirdly, we are largely a product of our upbringings, and the ideas we were exposed to in our younger years. Of course, on the face of it you could say this is not true and point to some extreme in examples. Heck, I wasn't raised a Christian, but look at me now. However, I reckon, looking back on my life, I can see just how all the little things, a very complicated network of ideas and experiences etc, came together in unpredictable ways leading me to where I am now. In a libertarian system, people are not exposed to any values when they are young (or at least theoretically they must not be). When a young mind is consuming all the information available to it, it is inevitable that this will shape its development later in life. All this is of course presuming children are not rational, free agents, which I would think most libertarians agree with (otherwise stop complaining about those brainwashed from birth religous people). And so, libertarianism denies children from exposure to any belief system (as far as this is even possible), leading to adults who have no belief system. The sad thing is, when they start with no values as an adult, it is in reality just as difficult for them to gain them as it is for them to change them if they had been brought up in a more ideological environment. Want proof, just look at society now.

Therefore, I think we should stop seeing libertarianism as the cure to all the world's problems. Sadly, these problems are a product of human nature, and they won't disappear until our human nature's are completely suppressed from having any impact on society (which is therefore what libertarianism must aim to do, though it claims otherwise). And so, what role should libertarianism, or individual freedom have? Well, it has practical uses. When applied sensibly it can help to maintain the market place of ideas. Of course, you can see my own assumptions in this idea as well, because it assumes that it is healthy for humanity as a whole to have a market place of ideas, and that the best of truthful ideas will be able to win the hearts of people - a very great assumption this is in fact.

Of course, I am playing somewhat of a devils advocate here. I do believe that individual freedom is generally speaking a good thing, probably moresoe than most people. However, I get a bit annoyed when libertarians who generally lack other values treat their own ideology as being special. It is not, it is a belief system based on several very great assumptions, that is then effectively forced onto society above all other belief systems. It takes the beliefs of some individuals, and constructs a framework for society around them, and as such is no more inherently 'liberating' than Wahibism. I am not arguing against libertarianism, I just want people to admit to it being what it is.

[Centurion1]

LOOOONGGGGGGG POST...........
(i am sorta intimidated now)

Anyway, i agree that when Libertarianism is pushed as an ideology it loses much of its luster. It should be considered as more of a natural human right than a privilege, as many people seem to believe.

[Kralizec]

Are you talking about classical liberalism, or about this quasi-anarchist ideology?

Either way:

Firstly, libertarianism makes a lot of assumptions about human nature and the rights that follow it. In many ways it is a bastardised form of the ideologies of the likes of John Locke and those he influenced who carried on the tradition off into various branches. One of the biggest assumptions it makes is that people are rational agents capable of willing whatever they please (without of course always being able to act upon it). And this the root belief from which we get all the various human rights etc. However, the underlying assumption is a very bold one to make. What if someone believed that people are born depraved and unable to do any good? Lunacy! And this isn't of course just a religious thing, I think it is quite difficult to defend free will from a purely scientific point of view. And yet, most people believe that the underlying assumption of libertarianism is correct, and so it is in effect no different from other ideologies built on what are unfounded assumptions, and all the resulting beliefs of this assumption are then formed into a system to which people are forced to comply.

Eh, no. Wether people act rationaly with their freedom is besides the point.
Those whom we now call "liberal" thinkers directed most of their attacks against government interference wich they saw as despotic, not against the benevolent nanny-states wich we're now accostumed to. But some arguments still apply; individuals should have rights and freedom wich should not just be cast aside for the benefit of the king or wider society.

Secondly, we are by nature a social species, and our individualism has always been something which has fitted into the framework of society. The only way this could be avoided is to remove people from society, which would in itself violate their liberty. People simply don't want to be left alone with their beliefs, they want to share them with other people, and shape their role in society. Pure libertarianism allows individual freedom, but completely shackles society to its chains. And yet, almost all the ideologies which people hold to are concerned with society as a whole. A Christian may want shops to close on Sundays. A socialist may want to take one person's money to help another. And yet, this cannot be allowed in a libertarian system. So long as the libertarian ideology is upheld by the state, no ideology can ever come to prominence. The private sphere is free, but that abstract concept of society (something dear to the individual) is strictly confined.

A lot depends on how we define "freedom". You could argue that the ultimate freedom is being completely isolated from society, but that's not what most people have in mind.
Or you could define "freedom" as meaning an artificial construct that derives entirely from laws, like Montesquieu did. Everybody agrees that there needs to be some sort of government to uphold order and punish crimes etc, but those things wich are permissable are all "freedom".
Isaiah Berlin wrote a brilliant piece about so-called "negative freedoms" and "positive freedoms". Negative freedom implies no government interference, like freedom from arbitrary seizure etc. Positive freedom implies active government interference, like freedom from starvation or the right to education. The problem is that many things wich have been taken for granted, and wich have conveniently been glossed over, are the product of government interference. Everybody thinks it's completely normal that contracts are enforcable, but that wouldn't be the case without laws and a judiciary.
A liberal can see why it's a crime to steal, but why is it a misdemeanor to open a shop on sundays? A liberal realizes that he must pay taxes to pay for the police and judiciary, but why should he pay taxes for the sake of wealth redistribution?

(Slightly off topic, but I think sunday closure laws are ridiculous and hypocritical. Even religious people recognise that some services need to be available on sundays, of wich law enforcement and medical services are just the tip of the iceberg. The reasonable ones even go as far as saying that ambulance workers don't necessarily go to hell. But they want to walk through their towns and cities without being exposed to people working on sundays, so they demand that shops are closed. Yet they never wonder how it is that they can buy fresh meat and vegetables on monday morning.)

Thirdly, we are largely a product of our upbringings, and the ideas we were exposed to in our younger years. Of course, on the face of it you could say this is not true and point to some extreme in examples. Heck, I wasn't raised a Christian, but look at me now. However, I reckon, looking back on my life, I can see just how all the little things, a very complicated network of ideas and experiences etc, came together in unpredictable ways leading me to where I am now. In a libertarian system, people are not exposed to any values when they are young (or at least theoretically they must not be). When a young mind is consuming all the information available to it, it is inevitable that this will shape its development later in life. All this is of course presuming children are not rational, free agents, which I would think most libertarians agree with (otherwise stop complaining about those brainwashed from birth religous people). And so, libertarianism denies children from exposure to any belief system (as far as this is even possible), leading to adults who have no belief system. The sad thing is, when they start with no values as an adult, it is in reality just as difficult for them to gain them as it is for them to change them if they had been brought up in a more ideological environment. Want proof, just look at society now.

Liberalism isn't inherently atheist, like you seem to be suggesting. I certainly haven't read anyone making a case that kids have to be raised without religious influences. "Nobody" really questions parents' rights to raise their own kids, and as you say adults are really just the product of their upbringing. Once you're old enough to think for yourself though (earlier than 18 in most cases), you are what you are - and you can't reasonably complain that you've been "indoctrinated" since nobody gets to pick their own parents, just as nobody gets to chose wether they're born or not.
(This discussion reminds me of that Time article from 1970 where a judge denied an adoption to an atheist couple because kids supposedly have the "privilege" to be raised with a religion)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

point of order: Many, including Richard Dawkins, Enemy of God, have indeed argued that children should not be exposed to religion, as it can shape their world view.

I think it's that sort of thinking that Rhy is kicking against.

[Kralizec]

Is Richard Dawkins a liberal?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

point of order: Many, including Richard Dawkins, Enemy of God, have indeed argued that children should not be exposed to religion, as it can shape their world view.

Ridiculously amusing that Dawkins believes that, since anything, including (or even especially) atheism will influence a world view as well.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A Christian may want shops to close on Sundays. A socialist may want to take one person's money to help another. And yet, this cannot be allowed in a libertarian system. So long as the libertarian ideology is upheld by the state, no ideology can ever come to prominence.

What? In a libertarian system, you could close your shop any darn time you please. And your second example would be called theft or charity, depending on the coercion of the socialist.

It's like you don't understand what libertarianism is; freedom to act so long as you don't violate another person's rights. A libertarian ideology isn't so much 'upheld' as no ideology is enforced on the people.

In a libertarian system, people are not exposed to any values when they are young (or at least theoretically they must not be). When a young mind is consuming all the information available to it, it is inevitable that this will shape its development later in life.

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

It is not, it is a belief system based on several very great assumptions, that is then effectively forced onto society above all other belief systems.

Um, where? Show me this libertarian state.

It takes the beliefs of some individuals, and constructs a framework for society around them, and as such is no more inherently 'liberating' than Wahibism. I am not arguing against libertarianism, I just want people to admit to it being what it is.

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

[Centurion1]

Ridiculously amusing that Dawkins believes that, since anything, including (or even especially) atheism will influence a world view as well.

The problem is that he believes that his world view is of course correct, the stereotypical superior-complex liberal.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Are you talking about classical liberalism, or about this quasi-anarchist ideology?

I am talking about the quasi-anarchist one, and in its most pure form at that.

The point in this thread isn't really to argue against libertarianism, its more just a protest against the 'holier-than-thou' attitude expressed by some people who see their libertarian beliefs as the beacon of enlightenment and tolerance.

It is not, libertarianism is a belief system just like any other which seeks to control society. It leaves the individual free, but my point is that individual freedom is of little use, simply because we are a social species. To force us to keep our beliefs only within the private sphere is one of the most repressive things that could ever be done to a creature with anything like the human nature.

As for your arguments Kralizec, I generally agree with you (and I don't support Sunday laws btw, if I was a sabbatarian it would be Saturday for me, but I'm not). However, what you are expressing is not the most pure, ideological version of libertarianism. You use it more as a sort of practical guide, and concede on the practicalities of a few points. As such, I think you are saying that libertarianism is not perfect, but generally helpful, and this is how I view it.

I think this is how most sane libertarians would classify their beliefs, and if they will agree on this point, then they should remember it next time they tell people to stop being so intolerant whenever they allow their personal views to influence society, since such a complaint is hypocritical.

[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

[Centurion1]

but when does freedom of speech begin to harm society. In a perfect world we could have total freedom of speech, but at some point you need to set some ground rules down for the good of society.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm interested no one has mentioned personal restraint at all as far as I can see.

[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.

[Furunculus]

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

maybe its a mis-characterisation on my part, i always percieve lefty politics as pessimistic and with zero trust in humans to get along without guidelines, strictures, and conditioning.

[Beskar]

maybe its a mis-characterisation on my part, i always percieve lefty politics as pessimistic and with zero trust in humans to get along without guidelines, strictures, and conditioning.

It depends. Individuality with people, on a grander scale, I think it is a possibility on what I deducted is "right" to occur. It is only realistic to know that if I stood up saying what to do as an end result, I will be shot down to pieces by 60 odd people, on this sub-forum alone, never mind at a political congress. Many criticisms would be the practicality, if not ideological opposition, and many people cannot see the steps and stages part, but only looking at end results which right now, would be completely unviable.

Aren't politics inherently pessimistic? I as a whole, see many laws as pointless and if anything, against the idea of laws (I approve of rights though). On the downside, some of these are in place to deter people, and they are 100% successful in that either.

In a sense, I wish I was more egocentric as in, I believe this can be a certain way, as by "people" I mean those just like myself, think on the same morale beliefs and guidelines as I do. Unfortunately, I am quite empathic and I know exactly that people aren't like me.

In many ways, a conditioning which occurs to us everyday and everywhere, needs to be conducted in some way to help people go along the path to obtain some characteristics. It is a powerful tool that can be used for good purposes, or evil purposes.

More towards your point, I will comment on each bit.

Guidelines: Are these bad? From your mother saying not to put your hand in acid, to packaging saying "this substance is flammable". I be honest, I need need more specification on what you mean, because I am failing to see how this is bad.

Strictures: "A rule restricting behaviour or action" this can be summed up as "Do not murder". I think we can all agree there are restrictions on behaviour. On one-hand, to me and you, I know going out into the streets murdering bystanders is a pretty much a good thing to have a rule against. What I think you are meaning, is regulation of sorts or more personal affairs? The left is pretty open, a quote a youtube video I saw ages ago,in reference to sex for example.. I can't seem to find it at the moment, so I will edit in later if I do... however, main message is what people do in the bedroom is not my business, it is not your business, it is not our business, etc. It is generally what is classed as ont he right, with especially the religious ones that do believe on strictures in these regards.

Conditioning: We are conditioned constantly, right now, on the TV, in magazines and newspapers. We cannot be helped but be conditioned. As for outright conditioning, I propose a model which gets you thinking, and legitimises certain points of view, such as the value of human life, etc through your own understanding, actually getting people to develop these thoughts, opposed to just telling then, and shutting them up.

[Furunculus]

i guess it hangs on:
1. a value judgment on the degree of micromanaging that is required to effect a given level of social control
2. a value judgment on the how much anarchy is permissible vs how much interference is tolerable to the individual
3. a value judgment on how appropriate it is to try and exercise social control via government legislation & mandate

my answers to the above:
1. not much, people are inherently good, and the longer their shared cultural history the easier they will rub along
2. quite a lot, do whatever you want as long as you don't scare the horses (within the confines of common law)
3. very inappropriate, as the state is very ineffective at achieving social cohesion, and often makes things worse

[Beskar]

Oh, I found that youtube video, if you was curious, from a Communism stand-point -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NQXkL6ahk

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

Freedom of speech 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.

The fact that in areas with extensive freedom of speech that National Socialists and Communists have been pushed to the margins rather proves my point. People aren't stupid. I would remind you that you are one of them. What gives the government the right to control what I say? Why should someone else tell me what I cannot say? There is no good reason for it.

[Beskar]

The fact that in areas with extensive freedom of speech that National Socialists and Communists have been pushed to the margins rather proves my point. People aren't stupid. I would remind you that you are one of them. What gives the government the right to control what I say? Why should someone else tell me what I cannot say? There is no good reason for it.

Don't worry, I wasn't advocating against freedom of speech, I was merely pointing out how it can be abused. Freedom of Speech is better than the alternative. With freedom of speech, you can listen to what people are saying, allowing you to understand their situation or feeling better, thus, can hopefully be improved, or relevance facts and information can be provided to assist them form alternatives if what they are saying is too incorrect.

[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.

[Furunculus]

Oh, I found that youtube video, if you was curious, from a Communism stand-point -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NQXkL6ahk

other than being a bit of a pillock, he seemed to be saying what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business and no-one elses.

quite sensible, is he representative of communists, or just a communist with some common sense*?







* oxymoron alert!!!