Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Rights and freedom

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 9:12:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is going to be a little out there, but there's this new line of thought Ive been thinking about for weeks now, and I seem to be coming up in circles.

Okay, If something that you would never want to do is illegal, would that be an infringement of your freedom?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 9:38:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:12:37 AM, Cermank wrote:
This is going to be a little out there, but there's this new line of thought Ive been thinking about for weeks now, and I seem to be coming up in circles.

Okay, If something that you would never want to do is illegal, would that be an infringement of your freedom?

A hypothesis perhaps. Say murder. I would never want to murder anyone and apparently, under most circumstances, murder is illegal. Then it appears that prohibition of murder is not an infringement of my freedom. But the answer would, of course, depend on the particular situation that one could conjure up.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 9:43:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This was actually in relation to the development path followed by China in their economic development. Their were some premises, that concluded that the development path they took was better than free market.

I'll just put down the propositions, and then the conclusion. ASSUMING that the propositions are TRUE, does the conclusion follow? The truthfulness of P1 Id like to discuss, but after 2, the argument is basically a watered down version of the conclusion.

P1. Assuming that a person would never want to do something, making the right to do that illegal is not an infringement of freedom.

P2. Assuming that people do not revolt in retaliation to a new rule, it is fair to assume that the intended benefit of the new rule is greater than the cost of retaliating.

P3. If the development parameters of a country continue to improve, it implies that the social benefit improves.

Considering that labour in China is one of the most compliant labour in the world, (and P3 implies a causation), it follows that the freedom cost in China is not as high as the benefit of a fast and robust governance system ( a system that has to wait for approval of so many authorities, leading to delays, and diluting effectiveness).

Note that the argument isn't for a universal adoption of their system, this is specifically a look at Chinese policy.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 10:56:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:43:41 AM, Cermank wrote:
This was actually in relation to the development path followed by China in their economic development. Their were some premises, that concluded that the development path they took was better than free market.

I'll just put down the propositions, and then the conclusion. ASSUMING that the propositions are TRUE, does the conclusion follow? The truthfulness of P1 Id like to discuss, but after 2, the argument is basically a watered down version of the conclusion.

P1. Assuming that a person would never want to do something, making the right to do that illegal is not an infringement of freedom.

P2. Assuming that people do not revolt in retaliation to a new rule, it is fair to assume that the intended benefit of the new rule is greater than the cost of retaliating.

P3. If the development parameters of a country continue to improve, it implies that the social benefit improves.

Considering that labour in China is one of the most compliant labour in the world, (and P3 implies a causation), it follows that the freedom cost in China is not as high as the benefit of a fast and robust governance system ( a system that has to wait for approval of so many authorities, leading to delays, and diluting effectiveness).

Note that the argument isn't for a universal adoption of their system, this is specifically a look at Chinese policy.

So let"s exam your arguments in perspective.
P1. Assuming that a person (a citizen) would never want to revolt in retaliation to a new rule, making the right to revolt illegal is not an infringement of personal freedom.
P2. Assuming that people do not revolt in retaliation to a new rule, it is fair to assume that the intended benefit of the new rule is greater than the cost of retaliating.
P3. If the development parameters of china continue to improve, it implies that the social benefit improves.

I don"t believe your conclusion would follow since in P2, you use a word "intended." To make your argument valid, we must assume that the intended benefit would necessarily transfer into actual benefit, which of course is not always true.

Moreover, if we assume that "making the right to revolt illegal is not an infringement of personal freedom," then where is "freedom cost" anyway (since it is not an infringement)? So perhaps another layer of assumption must be added?

Besides, I don"t believe P2 is a valid assumption either.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:22:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a manner of speaking, yes--as an existential condition, freedom is characterized as a generic potentiality to do/be stuff or not. You couldn't know, except by hypothesis, either what people will do or what they might want to do--one can only account for what is possible, what someone can do. Legal proscriptions tend, by definition, to articulate spheres of action against which retaliatory force may be exercised, and law often even devolves into a question of identity or standing (one is not free, for instance, to immigrate to (and reside in) the United States without submitting either to naturalization or repatriation, robbing one of the freedom to exist without submitting to systems of formal homogenization and representation. So, there's a sense in which we're still free under law insofar as we retain our potentiality, but both the existence and exercise of that freedom is often regarded by authorities as an existential threat, usually a threat to internal purity, as in the case of the illegal immigrant or the drug user.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:54:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 10:56:28 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:43:41 AM, Cermank wrote:
This was actually in relation to the development path followed by China in their economic development. Their were some premises, that concluded that the development path they took was better than free market.

I'll just put down the propositions, and then the conclusion. ASSUMING that the propositions are TRUE, does the conclusion follow? The truthfulness of P1 Id like to discuss, but after 2, the argument is basically a watered down version of the conclusion.

P1. Assuming that a person would never want to do something, making the right to do that illegal is not an infringement of freedom.

P2. Assuming that people do not revolt in retaliation to a new rule, it is fair to assume that the intended benefit of the new rule is greater than the cost of retaliating.

P3. If the development parameters of a country continue to improve, it implies that the social benefit improves.

Considering that labour in China is one of the most compliant labour in the world, (and P3 implies a causation), it follows that the freedom cost in China is not as high as the benefit of a fast and robust governance system ( a system that has to wait for approval of so many authorities, leading to delays, and diluting effectiveness).

Note that the argument isn't for a universal adoption of their system, this is specifically a look at Chinese policy.

So let"s exam your arguments in perspective.
P1. Assuming that a person (a citizen) would never want to revolt in retaliation to a new rule, making the right to revolt illegal is not an infringement of personal freedom.
P2. Assuming that people do not revolt in retaliation to a new rule, it is fair to assume that the intended benefit of the new rule is greater than the cost of retaliating.
P3. If the development parameters of china continue to improve, it implies that the social benefit improves.

I don"t believe your conclusion would follow since in P2, you use a word "intended." To make your argument valid, we must assume that the intended benefit would necessarily transfer into actual benefit, which of course is not always true.

True. But that is just because we are talking in future tense, isn't it? We can never be sure that our intentions would bring about the desired result. However, considering P3, we can say that since the government has had success in past, it is rational to assume that it would have so, in the future too? And if it fails to, the rational expectations would assure that the expectations match the reality, and the revolts do happen.

Or, to make it a little more plainer, how about we remove the future tense in P2? People won't revolt if the present benefit of the government policy is greater than the cost of revolt. This one would be better, I think.

Moreover, if we assume that "making the right to revolt illegal is not an infringement of personal freedom," then where is "freedom cost" anyway (since it is not an infringement)? So perhaps another layer of assumption must be added?

Could you please rephrase this?

Besides, I don"t believe P2 is a valid assumption either.

Why?

I can foresee some of the reasons, but lets move this slow.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 12:04:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:22:50 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
In a manner of speaking, yes--as an existential condition, freedom is characterized as a generic potentiality to do/be stuff or not. You couldn't know, except by hypothesis, either what people will do or what they might want to do--one can only account for what is possible, what someone can do.

Would you say that historical data is a good indicator to go by, if we do want to presuppose the potentialities of a population? By potentialities, I mean the potential actions a population MIGHT resort to, if a same action was implemented in two different points of time?

Legal proscriptions tend, by definition, to articulate spheres of action against which retaliatory force may be exercised, and law often even devolves into a question of identity or standing (one is not free, for instance, to immigrate to (and reside in) the United States without submitting either to naturalization or repatriation, robbing one of the freedom to exist without submitting to systems of formal homogenization and representation. So, there's a sense in which we're still free under law insofar as we retain our potentiality, but both the existence and exercise of that freedom is often regarded by authorities as an existential threat, usually a threat to internal purity, as in the case of the illegal immigrant or the drug user.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 12:28:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 12:04:39 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/16/2013 11:22:50 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
In a manner of speaking, yes--as an existential condition, freedom is characterized as a generic potentiality to do/be stuff or not. You couldn't know, except by hypothesis, either what people will do or what they might want to do--one can only account for what is possible, what someone can do.

Would you say that historical data is a good indicator to go by, if we do want to presuppose the potentialities of a population?

No. I think this amounts to trying to overdetermine the history of an entire group of people, which is not only doomed to fail, but probably a methodological error insofar as the group you're dealing with is a big mess of singularities, not a unitary thing. To the extent you try to represent them in the second way, you're forced to select, arbitrarily, which characteristics or historical tendencies are important, which carries the unintended consequence of excluding certain events or expressions from history, or at least suppressing them, for the sake of a convenient abstraction.

Second, what's peculiar about potentiality is that it's unanticipatable--you have no more reason to believe that history will bear out a similar future than that something entirely novel will transpire. Consider the case of predicting the outcome of an election--while poll results tend to include "expected error" in their presentation of data, it is characteristic of error--or, appropriately, of potentiality--to be unexpected. This measurement certainly doesn't include, for example, the possibility of discovering, a month before the election, that one candidate had an affair, or that the other owes massive amounts in back-taxes. Similarly, while I'm sure you could use history to predict the future, and perhaps find much correspondence between the two, the specific condition of something new is a complete break from historical precedent.

By potentialities, I mean the potential actions a population MIGHT resort to, if a same action was implemented in two different points of time?

Anybody might, at any time, resort to anything.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 12:32:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:54:18 AM, Cermank wrote:
Why?

I can foresee some of the reasons, but lets move this slow.
All right. So let"s remove the word "intended" from the premise, and P2 essentially becomes: Assuming that people do not revolt in retaliation to a new rule, then it is fair to assume that the benefit of the new rule is greater than the cost of retaliating.

Well, I would say it is not fair to assume that "the benefit of the new rule is greater than the cost of retaliating." People who choose not to revolt in retaliation to a new rule may have no idea what the rules about at all. Even if they do understand what the rules are, there is no reason to believe that they would analyze the rules in the way that the rules are intended to be interpreted. Now, even if they do analyze the rules in a rational way, there is no reason to believe that the new rules will benefit people. One may equally claim that people do not revolt in retaliation to a new rule because they will lose more if they do, not because they would gain more if they don"t.

As for P1, you conclude that "the freedom cost in China is not as high as the benefit of fast and robust governance system." But If "the right to revolt" is not "an infringement of freedom," then where is the cost of freedom? The cost would be "zero" since it is not an infringement upon one"s freedom at all. To make your conclusion valid (there is a cost), you may have to assume that it would be an infringement upon one"s freedom in at least some cases, essentially undermining your own arguments.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 12:52:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 11:54:18 AM, Cermank wrote:
People won't revolt if the present benefit of the government policy is greater than the cost of revolt. This one would be better, I think.

If we follow your new P2, we may still not reach the conclusion since in P1, you address "a person" while in P2 and P3, you address "people." What is true for one person is not always true for a collection of individuals. Therefore you will need another assumption to make your arguments work.
Now, assuming we do have the assumption, then we have:

P1. Assuming that people would never want to revolt in retaliation to a new rule, making the right to revolt illegal is not an infringement of personal freedom.
P2. People won't revolt if the present benefit of the government policy is greater than the cost of revolt. This one would be better, I think.
P3. If the development parameters of china continue to improve, it implies that the social benefit improves.

Then we have (P1+P2),
If the present benefit of government policy is grater than the cost of revolt, then people won't revolt (or never revolt), and it implies that making the right to revolt illegal is not an infringement of personal freedom.

To make a connection with P3, we need another assumption:
Since "Making the right to revolt illegal is not an infringement of personal freedom", then "the development parameters of china will continue to improve."

But isn't this what you are trying to prove? It seems that you may have to assume what you would want to prove in order to prove your case.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 1:58:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:12:37 AM, Cermank wrote:
This is going to be a little out there, but there's this new line of thought Ive been thinking about for weeks now, and I seem to be coming up in circles.

Okay, If something that you would never want to do is illegal, would that be an infringement of your freedom?

Apply to real life situations:

1. If I am a straight man in a state with sodomy laws and don't want to have gay sex, is it an infringement of my freedom to have a law against me having sex with a man?

2. If I am a woman in Saudi Arabia who does not want to drive, is it an infringement of my freedom to have a law against me driving?

3. If I practice Judaism in the US and I don't want to practice Christianity. If a law were passed making it criminal to practice Christianity, would it be an infringement of my rights?

4. If I was single and did not want to have kids and there was a law all kids must be aborted for the next 10 years due to overpopulation concerns, is it an infringement of my rights?

Just because someone chooses to not exercise her right, does not mean that right should not exist. Ultimately individual rights are not technically "freedom" unless they are applicable to all individuals.
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 7:34:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:12:37 AM, Cermank wrote:
This is going to be a little out there, but there's this new line of thought Ive been thinking about for weeks now, and I seem to be coming up in circles.

Okay, If something that you would never want to do is illegal, would that be an infringement of your freedom?

To a degree.

When I look at rights, I see the right to life as the most important one. No right to life, no other rights to be had.

That being said, although I'd never want to commit murder, illegalizing murder doesn't impede on my freedom, because murdering someone impedes on their right to life, which is the most important and sacred right, for reasons I just mentioned. Killing someone is, effectively, impeding their freedom and rights (except for self defense, which is protecting your own rights and freedoms).

I think that if something that has no immediate affect on other people (ie, smoking marijuana) is illegal, even if you don't want to do it, it does, in a sense, impedes on your freedom. Even if you don't want to smoke it, the freedom to choose should still be there. If the freedom to choose isn't there, your freedom is, in a sense, being infringed upon.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 8:08:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 9:12:37 AM, Cermank wrote:
This is going to be a little out there, but there's this new line of thought Ive been thinking about for weeks now, and I seem to be coming up in circles.

Okay, If something that you would never want to do is illegal, would that be an infringement of your freedom?

Maybe it's not appropriate to say "your freedom" in the question, I'm straight and certainly would never want a same sex marriage, but I still feel strongly that the government is infringing on our rights by making same sex marriage illegal.

Freedom and equality are principles we should hold sacred, whether or not they specifically apply to us personally.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 8:19:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It depends on your view of "rights" but Cody already hit this. Under the common definition of rights, and especially negative rights, by not wanting to do something is not forfeiting the right to do it.

For example, most NAP followers would say that you have the right to ingest whatever you want (this usually comes up when arguing about drugs, but also now in regards to sugar). Just because you may choose to not partake in marijuana does not mean you forfeit the right to it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 8:56:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/16/2013 1:58:41 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/16/2013 9:12:37 AM, Cermank wrote:
This is going to be a little out there, but there's this new line of thought Ive been thinking about for weeks now, and I seem to be coming up in circles.

Okay, If something that you would never want to do is illegal, would that be an infringement of your freedom?

Apply to real life situations:

1. If I am a straight man in a state with sodomy laws and don't want to have gay sex, is it an infringement of my freedom to have a law against me having sex with a man?

2. If I am a woman in Saudi Arabia who does not want to drive, is it an infringement of my freedom to have a law against me driving?

3. If I practice Judaism in the US and I don't want to practice Christianity. If a law were passed making it criminal to practice Christianity, would it be an infringement of my rights?

4. If I was single and did not want to have kids and there was a law all kids must be aborted for the next 10 years due to overpopulation concerns, is it an infringement of my rights?

Just because someone chooses to not exercise her right, does not mean that right should not exist. Ultimately individual rights are not technically "freedom" unless they are applicable to all individuals.

Yes, but some people do want to do those things.

On the other hand, a meaningless law, like 'You may not use elemental powers to shoot lightning out of your nose' would arguably not restrict freedom, since while many might want to do it, no one can.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2013 11:00:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a balancing act. It's not just you that's being prevented from doing the illegal thing, but others. If others do it, and it infringes on your freedom more than preventing people to do it does, then you can be said to be more free.

Having "total freedom" means others can infringe on your "freedom" far more than they can probably currently do, even though you have "limits" to your freedom.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!