07-11-2003 01:48									#91
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Whaleboy,

Absolute morality is required for me to be able to say that it is wrong to violate my rights. If morality isn't absolute, then I see no reasonable way to make murder, for example, illegal.

	07-11-2003 01:50									#92
	Remove this text

quote: The idea of better society is in cultural relativism, which is completely separate to moral relativism, and only has implications for foreign policies, like pacifism etc, not necessarily libertarianism. Retract your strawman!

a) since you're both, my point stands.
b) since culture entails values, and values are morals, this is once again, the same thing.

QED, Homeboy.

Arrian: that's ok. But I feel you're a pragmatic, and that means that you basically quasi-utilitarian, you just don't know it.

	07-11-2003 01:51									#93
	Tired of ads?

*I* want a retraction of your argument that we are inconsistent re: reparations

	07-11-2003 01:57									#94
	Tired of ads?

Ah, so the moral absolute, in other words, the subjective view of libertarianism, is that "liberty is good", or "m.relativism is good". Within those viewpoints is the features of lib. that are relativist.

Of course the thing is there you have the classic thing of "which view is better". I will say libertarianism, someone else who disagrees will say something else. As a relativist I will say that objectively, no one view is better than another, but again, like any debate, we fall back to "to each his own".

Nonetheless, we are comparing the merits of either position here, as a libertarian I am purporting mine, a society may choose lib. based on its own predisposition, and that is absolute for it, but within that context, the context of our discussion, relativism exists within lib.

	07-11-2003 01:59									#95
	Support Apolyton

quote: Ah, so the moral absolute, in other words, the subjective view of libertarianism, is that "liberty is good", or "m.relativism is good". Within those viewpoints is the features of lib. that are relativist.

Actually, the moral absolute is that violations of my freedom, of my rights, are bad. This can, I suppose, be reversed to say that freedom is good, although this sort of misses part of the point, but in any case, this can't be twisted to say that Libertarianism exists on the basis of moral relativity. If it did, it would not be Libertarianism

	07-11-2003 02:11									#96
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: a) since you're both, my point stands. b) since culture entails values, and values are morals, this is once again, the same thing

a) I can be a libertarian and a cultural absolutist. Indeed, I could have quite easily supported the spread of lib. ideas to Iraq if I were not a pacifist and a cultural/cognetive relativist. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

b) Values do not need be imposed on people. We are socialised into values via family, school, the media, peers etc etc, we are not obliged to accept them, but most of us do, and we are not living in a particularly libertarian society, at least by my standards.

	07-11-2003 02:29									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: a) I can be a libertarian and a cultural absolutist.

not 'can', 'MUST'. Saying that all views are of the same value, while at the same time sticking to your own, is illogical.

quote: Indeed, I could have quite easily supported the spread of lib. ideas to Iraq if I were not a pacifist and a cultural/cognetive relativist. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

nah. that means that you'd have to organize an army of volounteers to liberate Iraq, remember? you cannot tax to raise an army, and cannot conscript.

Nice try, though.

quote: *I* want a retraction of your argument that we are inconsistent re: reparations

prove me wrong.

	07-11-2003 02:36									#98
	Tired of ads?

quote: not 'can', 'MUST'. Saying that all views are of the same value, while at the same time sticking to your own, is illogical.

Not at all, same context. I can say that all is allowed his own view, but certain views that would breach that cannot be implimented. Its easy to say that this applies to another society, whereas I do not as a cultural relativist. As the latter, I have to add extra logic to make that work.

quote: nah. that means that you'd have to organize an army of volounteers to liberate Iraq, remember? you cannot tax to raise an army, and cannot conscript.

If you read my previous posts, you'd see that my version of libertarianism would allow for taxation. I am not a chaoticist.

	07-11-2003 02:58									#99
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Not at all, same context. I can say that all is allowed his own view, but certain views that would breach that cannot be implimented. Its easy to say that this applies to another society, whereas I do not as a cultural relativist. As the latter, I have to add extra logic to make that work.

all is allowed his own view, but blah blah blah that CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED. that means that you believe that YOUR view is BETTER than the views of other people. a moral relativist believes that all views on morals are of the same value, and you cannot chose one over the other. Why do you think that THOSE values have to be implemented?

quote: If you read my previous posts, you'd see that my version of libertarianism would allow for taxation. I am not a chaoticist

taxation? you mean "stealing". how else would you call someone taking money from someone else, when he doesn't want to, and threatens to imprison him, if he won't give the money. Hell it's worse than just stealing. it's robbery!

	07-11-2003 03:48									#100
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Just a small question on "reparations," it seems to me that the target of reparations is misplaced. For most of history, the instigator and profiteer from black slavery in the New World were Europeans, and in particular, European governments and aristocracy, not the people who fled to the United States from Europe.

After the American Revolution, the instigator and profiteer from American slavery was confined to the Confederacy. This clearly did not involve people from the North or any Europeans that immigrated to the US since 1865.

Given this, the target of reparations should be European governments and the government of the Confederacy. Not so? It should hardly involve peope who had nothing to do with it or their descendants.

Since the government of the Confederacy no longer exists, the sole target of reparations should be Europe.

	07-11-2003 04:15									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

hardline libertarians are like hardline communists. both dream of a system doomed to self destruct.

	07-11-2003 04:55									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: You mean the world won't go to hell if I help moderates steal from others?

It hasn't so far . I wonder if you realize that putting your government in power would lead to a socialist revolutioin within 5 years, which is really anthetical to your believe system. I'd rather have something which has some aspects of what I support rather than having something that has hardly anything I'd support.

quote: Then the Holocaust was moral if German "society" says so? "Society" can't agree on much of anything, so the best you can usually get is a majority of the people. And that means all sorts of evils from genocide to slavery are "moral" if the majority says so...

In a word, yes, at least to them. As you are probably aware slavery was moral for many years. It even says in the Bible that slaves should obey their masters.

quote: Freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint

In one of its definitions yes. You seem to be forgetting all the other definitions of freedom. One being exemption from onerous conditions (freedom from want), and capacity to exercise choice (free will). Btw, those are both in the American Heritage Dictionary, which doesn't have a defintion for freedom being the absense of coercion. It does have a one saying 'free of restraints', which is similar.

quote: murder (your first example) and theft are constraints, therefore when these acts are committed, constraints exist, and that means freedom no longer exists

This is where I get my 'total freedom' phrase from. You define a freedom from restraints to be for everyone. Why can't one person in a society have freedom while others do not? When slavery existed, didn't the white men have any freedom?

Of course they did. They were free to murder their slaves. The slaves had the constraint on them and were not free, doesn't mean the whites were not free either.

Secondly, under your defintion, even libertarian society isn't free. People still have constraints on them, only it is done by other private individuals. For example you have to pay a toll to use the road. That's a constraint.

quote: If these people want equality to supercede freedom

Again with the black/white terminology . What if these people want freedom to supercede equality, but find the need to have some forms of equality. Not total liberty, but more than enough to supercede equality.

	07-11-2003 07:22									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Libertarians are loud, opinionated, perhaps consistent, but most importantly of all, by their very ideology utterly irrelavant to political reality and the formation of society: we might as well argue about the politics of bingo, and in fact, old bingo playng ladies have more of an impact on society than liberterians.

So to our libertarian friends: keep on trucking, safe in the knowledge you guys will NEVER really make a difference

	07-11-2003 07:25									#104
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"freedom" is a state, not a moral value. A trully free man is free to oppress as well, as long as they are capable of doing it and have the will to. So why don't you guys stop using the incorrect words and stick to Liberty?

	07-11-2003 07:34									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Freedom can definitely be a moral value. As long as you have a well-ordering of various forms of constraints (i.e. the inability to rape is a lesser constraint than being raped), it's use as part of a moral basis is perfectly consistent.

	07-11-2003 07:37									#106
	Get a bigger avatar today!

And that is what Liberty is.

If you keep suing the word freedom as some absolute, as DF does, then you get right smack into the point I made: in absolute freedom there are NO constraints, and thus, I can kill, maine, rape and terrorize anyone I damn well please as long as I am strong enough and willfull enough to get away with it.

	07-11-2003 07:39									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by NeOmega Libertarians have never been for the redistribution of property.

That's an interesting point. After all, this nanny state concept of "property" does coerce me into having to defile myself before you pathetically by asking permission before being able to use a thing that you allege only you can use for some imaginary metaphysical reason.

Property contradicts the libertarian interpretation of freedom.

	07-11-2003 07:41									#108
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: And that is what Liberty is. If you keep suing the word freedom as some absolute, as DF does, then you get right smack into the point I made: in absolute freedom there are NO constraints, and thus, I can kill, maine, rape and terrorize anyone I damn well please as long as I am strong enough and willfull enough to get away with it.

Absolute freedom isn't well-defined. Everyone is always constrained, if not by man, by nature.

	07-11-2003 07:46									#109
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

IMHO, the only rational measure of freedom is the number of acceptable choices you are given.

Libertarianism only gives you one choice -- the pursuit of money. Therefore, it is tyranny.

Likewise, Communism only gives you one choice -- work. Therefore, it also is tyranny.

	07-11-2003 07:49									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

now you are stretching things..yes, absolute freedom is like absolute zero, if one wants to get so technical, but at no point was anyone thinking about libertarianism meaning the ability to ignore gravity and such.

BUt more importantly, libertarianism means nothing if there was only one human in the world. For libertarianism to mean anything, you need a society, and at that very moment, you have made libertarianism irrelevant.

	07-11-2003 07:50									#111
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by St Leo IMHO, the only rational measure of freedom is the number of acceptable choices you are given. Libertarianism only gives you one choice -- the pursuit of money. Therefore, it is tyranny. Likewise, Communism only gives you one choice -- work. Therefore, it also is tyranny.

I would disgaree with this. BUt more importantly, liberterians base their beliefs on moral absolutism....which inherently limits choices-the inherent contradiction of liberterianism.

	07-11-2003 07:55									#112
	Tired of ads?

quote: now you are stretching things..yes, absolute freedom is like absolute zero, if one wants to get so technical, but at no point was anyone thinking about libertarianism meaning the ability to ignore gravity and such. BUt more importantly, libertarianism means nothing if there was only one human in the world. For libertarianism to mean anything, you need a society, and at that very moment, you have made libertarianism irrelevant.

Absolute freedom does mean the freedom to ignore gravity. More importantly (i.e. in my well-ordering), absolute freedom means the freedom to not have nasty micro-parasites in your body or not to be starving.

This might not be part of libertarian-capitalist thought, but a lot of us socialists do think this sort of thing is important.

	07-11-2003 07:57									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: BUt more importantly, liberterians base their beliefs on moral absolutism....which inherently limits choices-the inherent contradiction of liberterianism.

Only objectivists do that. Which most libertarian-capitalists are (at least, in my experience), but not all.

	07-11-2003 08:44									#114
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Oh geez, here we go again with people who can't or won't figure out that the absence of constraints - freedom - means constraints must be absent for freedom to exist. You cannot commit murder and call it freedom because murder is a constraint. Therefore a law that prohibits murder does not constrain anyone's freedom.

azazel -

quote: prove me wrong.

You've been proven wrong several times already - reparations are about forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty - that is inconsistent with morality and libertarianism. Claiming that libertarianism is hypocritical or inconsistent based on it's opposition to reparations is illogical.

quote: taxation? you mean "stealing". how else would you call someone taking money from someone else, when he doesn't want to, and threatens to imprison him, if he won't give the money. Hell it's worse than just stealing. it's robbery!

Not all systems of taxation constitute theft. User fees, lotteries, voluntary donations (yes, redundant, just for those people think volunteerism can be forced), etc., are not theft...

Gepap -

quote: "freedom" is a state, not a moral value.

It's both.

quote: A trully free man is free to oppress as well, as long as they are capable of doing it and have the will to. So why don't you guys stop using the incorrect words and stick to Liberty?

How does one "oppress" without using coercion or constraints? If these are needed to oppress, the oppression is no longer an act of freedom.

quote: If you keep suing the word freedom as some absolute, as DF does, then you get right smack into the point I made: in absolute freedom there are NO constraints, and thus, I can kill, maine, rape and terrorize anyone I damn well please as long as I am strong enough and willfull enough to get away with it.

One more time...freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action (use the various other definitions if you like). Rape and murder ARE constraints! Therefore they do not qualify as acts of freedom and laws prohibiting murder and rape do not constrain anyone's freedom.

whaleboy -

quote: Ah, so the moral absolute, in other words, the subjective view of libertarianism, is that "liberty is good", or "m.relativism is good". Within those viewpoints is the features of lib. that are relativist.

Why is moral relativism a good thing? And where do libertarians claim it is good? And wrt "subjective" vs "objective", if everyone agrees on an issue is that subjective or objective? Subjective and objective wrt morality simply means one (the former) lacks consistency and logic and the other requires them. For example, it's moral for me to murder you but it's immoral for you to murder me. That's a subjective morality. An objective morality is - it's immoral for anyone to commit murder because all things being equal, no one wants to be murdered.

quote: Of course the thing is there you have the classic thing of "which view is better". I will say libertarianism, someone else who disagrees will say something else. As a relativist I will say that objectively, no one view is better than another, but again, like any debate, we fall back to "to each his own".

Why is your assertion that "no one view is better than another" an objective assessment while your assertion that "libertarianism is better" is subjective.

Imran -

quote: It hasn't so far . I wonder if you realize that putting your government in power would lead to a socialist revolutioin within 5 years, which is really anthetical to your believe system. I'd rather have something which has some aspects of what I support rather than having something that has hardly anything I'd support.

Were the Founders overthrown by socialists within 5 years of the Revolution's success?

quote: In a word, yes, at least to them. As you are probably aware slavery was moral for many years. It even says in the Bible that slaves should obey their masters.

Imran, was the holocaust and slavery moral or not? Telling me it was to the perps tells me nothing other than how ridiculous you can get.

quote: In one of its definitions yes. You seem to be forgetting all the other definitions of freedom. One being exemption from onerous conditions (freedom from want), and capacity to exercise choice (free will). Btw, those are both in the American Heritage Dictionary, which doesn't have a defintion for freedom being the absense of coercion. It does have a one saying 'free of restraints', which is similar.

Excuse me, but you're introducing your interpretations into those definitions. Freedom from want is not the same as freedom from onerous conditions. Did you find among those definitions one that says freedom IS the existence of coercion or constraint on choice or action?

quote: This is where I get my 'total freedom' phrase from. You define a freedom from restraints to be for everyone. Why can't one person in a society have freedom while others do not? When slavery existed, didn't the white men have any freedom?

Because freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. It does not say, "the absence of coercion or constraint on Joe the slaveholder to enslave others".

quote: Of course they did. They were free to murder their slaves. The slaves had the constraint on them and were not free, doesn't mean the whites were not free either.

Nor does the definition say, "the absence of coercion or constraints on white people only". C'mon Imran, you're being absurd. The definition of freedom doesn't mention freedom for me, but not for thee. It describes a state of existence - the absence of coercion or constraint.

quote: Secondly, under your defintion, even libertarian society isn't free. People still have constraints on them, only it is done by other private individuals. For example you have to pay a toll to use the road. That's a constraint.

You aren't free to use other people's property, that is a constraint on them. Again *sigh* freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. If I build a house with my sweat and toil and you move in without my permission, you're placing a constraint on my labor and property. Doing so violates the definition of freedom, therefore a law prohibiting you from living in my house without my permission does not place a constraint on your freedom.

quote: Again with the black/white terminology . What if these people want freedom to supercede equality, but find the need to have some forms of equality. Not total liberty, but more than enough to supercede equality.

Once "equality" is achieved by violating freedom, it has superceded freedom.

ramo -

quote: Absolute freedom isn't well-defined. Everyone is always constrained, if not by man, by nature.

Freedom is absolute freedom, you cannot have the existence of coercion or constraints and still have freedom. The definition is itself "absolute" and the word freedom involves human interaction, not the physical laws/nature.

	07-11-2003 08:49									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Oh geez, here we go again with people who can't or won't figure out that the absence of constraints - freedom - means constraints must be absent for freedom to exist. You cannot commit murder and call it freedom because murder is a constraint. Therefore a law that prohibits murder does not constrain anyone's freedom.

It constrains murders' freedom.

quote: Freedom is absolute freedom, you cannot have the existence of coercion or constraints and still have freedom.

There are constraints in every system.

quote: The definition is itself "absolute" and the word freedom involves human interaction, not the physical laws/nature.

1. The word freedom involves lack of constraint. It doesn't matter what kind of constraint there is.
2. Even if you consider only human interactions, in any social system everyone has constraints opposed upon them by other humans. Even in your libertarian utopia.

	07-11-2003 08:50									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Gepap -

quote: liberterians base their beliefs on moral absolutism....which inherently limits choices-the inherent contradiction of liberterianism.

Unless you believe murder is a choice consistent with the meaning of freedom, how does the moral absolute - murder is immoral - create an inherent contradiction by prohibiting murder?

	07-11-2003 08:56									#117
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ramo -

quote: It constrains murders' freedom.

Murder is an act of freedom?

quote: There are constraints in every system.

Nope.

quote: 1. The word freedom involves lack of constraint. It doesn't matter what kind of constraint there is.

But it does matter which constraint comes first. If I try to murder you, my constraint is first and your attempt at self-defense comes second. Now why do most people outside of this thread understand that murder is not freedom but self-defense is? Removing a constraint to gain or retain freedom is not a constraint, it is the removal of a constraint.

quote: 2. Even if you consider only human interactions, in a reasonbly complex social system everyone has constraints opposed upon them by other humans. Even in your libertarian utopia.

Again, this equates self-defense with attempted murder. That's illogical...

	07-11-2003 09:03									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Murder is an act of freedom?

No. I didn't mean that.
In case you misunderstood, I meant
"It constrains murderers' freedom."

quote: Nope.

Sure there are. Point to me a system without constraints.

quote: But it does matter which constraint comes first.

Matter to what? If you say freedom is good, constraint is wrong. Regardless of who started it.

quote: If I try to murder you, my constraint is first and your attempt at self-defense comes second. Now why do most people outside of this thread understand that murder is not freedom but self-defense is? Removing a constraint to gain or retain freedom is not a constraint, it is the removal of a constraint.

If I kill someone in self-defense, I'm imposing a major constraint on the attacker.

quote: Again, this equates self-defense with attempted murder. That's illogical...

How does it equate self-defense with murder?

And why is that necessarily illogical (if someone punches me in the arm and I kill him, that is certainly an immoral killing)?

	07-11-2003 09:34									#119
	Tired of ads?

Ramo -

quote: No. I didn't mean that. In case you misunderstood, I meant "It constrains murderers' freedom."

How? If freedom does not allow for the act of murder, then a law prohibiting murder does not constrain anyone's freedom. Remember, for a constraint to violate the definition of freedom, it must be a constraint on choice or action. Murder, by definiition, is a constraint, therefore constraining murder is not a constraint on choice or action within the context of freedom.

quote: Sure there are. Point to me a system without constraints.

Anarchism and libertarianism.

quote: Matter to what? If you say freedom is good, constraint is wrong. Regardless of who started it.

But it does matter who initiated a constraint, that initiation violates the definition of freedom, removing that constraint restores freedom.

quote: If I kill someone in self-defense, I'm imposing a major constraint on the attacker.

You're removing a constraint, the fact the would-be constrainer dies is a result of their attempt to constrain in the first place. Again, their attempt to murder you has already negated the existence of freedom, your actions merely restore freedom. The two are not the same...

quote: How does it equate self-defense with murder?

By equating the constraint of murder with the removal of said constraint.

quote: And why is that necessarily illogical (if someone punches me in the arm and I kill him, that is certainly an immoral killing)?

You're changing the issue from murder to assault and what form of reaction is or is not moral. It is illogical to equate murder with self-defense...

	07-11-2003 09:41									#120
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Putting it another way, if my desire is to enslave you and I place a chain around your ankle. Are you constraining me if you remove the chain? No. What if I return and put the chain back on your ankle and you remove it again? No. But if I put a gun to your head and threaten to pull the trigger if you remove the chain, are you constraining me if you pull a knife and stab me? No... The removal of a constraint is not the same as the imposition of a constraint.