Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Politic Ideologies: ClaimsOfFreedom

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 3:52:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I find it hilarious that all the Liberals, Conservatives, and even some Libertarians, and other popular ideologies all claim to stand for freedom and peace.

"We stand for freedom." "No you don't, WE stand for freedom." "Neither of you stand for freedom, we stand for freedom."

LMAO!

Only the lesser known political philosophies actually stand for freedom. (I.e. Panarchism, Anarcho-Pacifism, Libertarianism, Holarchism, maybe even Minarchism.)

Most of the popular political ideologies still support monetary enslavement, a police state, a prison system, an elected dictator, death troops, big brother survellience, tyranical majority rule, greedy rationing of resources, mind control, and many other things contrary to freedom.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 3:59:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lets kill everyone and then there will be peace :)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:00:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 3:54:19 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
You can rarely stand for freedom and peace without compromising one of the two.

False. Violence is a form of force and initiatory coercion, and thus freedom must be inherently peaceful.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Freedom" is an extremely relative term, Geo, especially in the political sense.

Some people, like myself, believe "freedom" means that you're free to make your of your life what you will, within the bounds of rights, and that the state can help further such freedom by providing equal opportunity and fair forums for grievances to be addressed.

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

Yet others still believe that freedom is essentially doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with little consequence, enforcement, stability and cohesion, except for what you yourself as an individual can do.

You're claiming freedom is what you say it is - I will claim the same thing. "Freedom" is not an objective idea. You have to sell it, not say everyone else is wrong.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:02:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:00:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/23/2010 3:54:19 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
You can rarely stand for freedom and peace without compromising one of the two.

False. Violence is a form of force and initiatory coercion, and thus freedom must be inherently peaceful.

False. The Freedom to commit violence is itself not peaceful.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:03:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM, Volkov wrote:

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

This.

*inb4 accusations of fascism*
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:04:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
"Freedom" is an extremely relative term, Geo, especially in the political sense.

Some people, like myself, believe "freedom" means that you're free to make your of your life what you will, within the bounds of rights, and that the state can help further such freedom by providing equal opportunity and fair forums for grievances to be addressed.

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

Yet others still believe that freedom is essentially doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with little consequence, enforcement, stability and cohesion, except for what you yourself as an individual can do.

You're claiming freedom is what you say it is - I will claim the same thing. "Freedom" is not an objective idea. You have to sell it, not say everyone else is wrong.

If you're really going to argue relativism here, completely discounting an objective conceptualization of freedom, then you're basically playing a game of intellectual default by pulling that "to each his own" bit; and, when that happens, the only entity left to define "freedom" is the state. That tends to become problematic, if you weren't aware.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:05:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:03:52 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM, Volkov wrote:

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

This.

*inb4 accusations of fascism*

You fascist. So, it's in the best interest of who owns 51% of a nations land to take the remaining of 49% land, no?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:05:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:00:29 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 3:59:19 PM, lovelife wrote:
Lets kill everyone and then there will be peace :)

Bad idea.

nah. I agree with geo tho
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:06:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:03:52 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM, Volkov wrote:

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

This.

*inb4 accusations of fascism*

That doesn't make any sense, though. Collective bodies aren't entities, and can't exercise political freedom. If everyone shares those individual freedoms, stripping them away for the sake of "collective rights" is counterproductive to the establishment of a just society.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:07:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:04:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you're really going to argue relativism here, completely discounting an objective conceptualization of freedom, then you're basically playing a game of intellectual default by pulling that "to each his own" bit; and, when that happens, the only entity left to define "freedom" is the state. That tends to become problematic, if you weren't aware.

I said in the political sense of the term - and as you know, politics is a completely different world than our own. ;)

The reality is that everyone has different ideas of what constitutes "freedom," as with any other sort of political idea. I'm not saying they're right, and if I knew about the objective claims of freedom that you espouse, I'd probably expand on it. But I don't. That's for you bring forward.

Then again, as an individual human expressing his opinion over the concept of "freedom" in the face of all the other opinions out there, it may end up being redundant.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:08:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:06:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:03:52 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM, Volkov wrote:

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

This.

*inb4 accusations of fascism*

That doesn't make any sense, though. Collective bodies aren't entities, and can't exercise political freedom. If everyone shares those individual freedoms, stripping them away for the sake of "collective rights" is counterproductive to the establishment of a just society.

Humans are savage, violent, nasty creatures so we need limitations on what we can and cannot do.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:08:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:02:39 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:00:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/23/2010 3:54:19 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
You can rarely stand for freedom and peace without compromising one of the two.

False. Violence is a form of force and initiatory coercion, and thus freedom must be inherently peaceful.

False. The Freedom to commit violence is itself not peaceful.

Contradiction. That's like saying "the freedom to destroy freedom." Anything that supresses freedom violates the concept of freedom, so violence is incompatible with freedom.

Asserting that people are free to be violent is a rigged statement because of its wording.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:09:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:08:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:02:39 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:00:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/23/2010 3:54:19 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
You can rarely stand for freedom and peace without compromising one of the two.

False. Violence is a form of force and initiatory coercion, and thus freedom must be inherently peaceful.

False. The Freedom to commit violence is itself not peaceful.

Contradiction. That's like saying "the freedom to destroy freedom." Anything that supresses freedom violates the concept of freedom, so violence is incompatible with freedom.

The freedom to destroy freedom is a freedom. It may violate the concept of freedom but it doesn't mean it isn't a freedom.


Asserting that people are free to be violent is a rigged statement because of its wording.

Playing semantics are we?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:10:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 3:52:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I find it hilarious that all the Liberals, Conservatives, and even some Libertarians, and other popular ideologies all claim to stand for freedom and peace.

"We stand for freedom." "No you don't, WE stand for freedom." "Neither of you stand for freedom, we stand for freedom."

LMAO!

Only the lesser known political philosophies actually stand for freedom. (I.e. Panarchism, Anarcho-Pacifism, Libertarianism, Holarchism, maybe even Minarchism.)

Most of the popular political ideologies still support monetary enslavement, a police state, a prison system, an elected dictator, death troops, big brother survellience, tyranical majority rule, greedy rationing of resources, mind control, and many other things contrary to freedom.

This is full of fail.

Anarchism is to freedom what drowning is to having a glass of water.

You can not be free unless you are able to defend your freedom, you can only defend your freedom on a consistent day to day basis if you live in an ordered society, an ordered society is only possible with some form of authority. Laws, courts, police etc.

(Incidentally I am not sure there is always much difference between libertarians and minarchy).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:10:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:08:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:06:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:03:52 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM, Volkov wrote:

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

This.

*inb4 accusations of fascism*

That doesn't make any sense, though. Collective bodies aren't entities, and can't exercise political freedom. If everyone shares those individual freedoms, stripping them away for the sake of "collective rights" is counterproductive to the establishment of a just society.

Humans are savage, violent, nasty creatures so we need limitations on what we can and cannot do.

Yeah, anything that doesn't harm another person is a just limitation.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:10:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:08:42 PM, wjmelements wrote:
People have different conceptions of what freedom is.

That's what I said, summed up in easier terms. xD
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:12:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:08:42 PM, wjmelements wrote:
People have different conceptions of what freedom is.

As Bill Hicks said "You are free to do as I tell you" which unfortunately many Americans accept as real freedom.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:12:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:10:27 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:08:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:06:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:03:52 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM, Volkov wrote:

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

This.

*inb4 accusations of fascism*

That doesn't make any sense, though. Collective bodies aren't entities, and can't exercise political freedom. If everyone shares those individual freedoms, stripping them away for the sake of "collective rights" is counterproductive to the establishment of a just society.

Humans are savage, violent, nasty creatures so we need limitations on what we can and cannot do.

Yeah, anything that doesn't harm another person is a just limitation.

The only one I would enforce if I was god or whatever.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:13:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:12:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:08:42 PM, wjmelements wrote:
People have different conceptions of what freedom is.

As Bill Hicks said "You are free to do as I tell you" which unfortunately many Americans accept as real freedom.

Yepppp
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:13:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:13:03 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:12:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:08:42 PM, wjmelements wrote:
People have different conceptions of what freedom is.

As Bill Hicks said "You are free to do as I tell you" which unfortunately many Americans accept as real freedom.

Yepppp

Was that even necessary?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:15:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:13:45 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:13:03 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:12:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:08:42 PM, wjmelements wrote:
People have different conceptions of what freedom is.

As Bill Hicks said "You are free to do as I tell you" which unfortunately many Americans accept as real freedom.

Yepppp

Was that even necessary?

Oh stop with the playground flirting.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:16:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:15:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:13:45 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:13:03 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:12:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:08:42 PM, wjmelements wrote:
People have different conceptions of what freedom is.

As Bill Hicks said "You are free to do as I tell you" which unfortunately many Americans accept as real freedom.

Yepppp

Was that even necessary?

Oh stop with the playground flirting.

Nice doubles.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:17:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:15:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Oh stop with the playground flirting.

Could say the same to you about Insert.

xD

I'm sorry, I had to. It was set up so well.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:20:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:17:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:15:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Oh stop with the playground flirting.

Could say the same to you about Insert.

xD

I'm sorry, I had to. It was set up so well.

At least I'm justified being in the playground to start with :P. Also, Cerebrals doubles http://www.debate.org...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:21:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:08:17 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:06:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:03:52 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:01:25 PM, Volkov wrote:

Others believe that "freedom" is whatever is best for the health of society, that individuals and collective people as a whole are better off losing individual freedoms in favour of collective freedoms designed to better everyone's lives.

This.

*inb4 accusations of fascism*

That doesn't make any sense, though. Collective bodies aren't entities, and can't exercise political freedom. If everyone shares those individual freedoms, stripping them away for the sake of "collective rights" is counterproductive to the establishment of a just society.

Humans are savage, violent, nasty creatures so we need limitations on what we can and cannot do.

You are human, so according to you, you are a "savage, violent, nasty creature."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 4:22:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/23/2010 4:17:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/23/2010 4:15:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Oh stop with the playground flirting.

Could say the same to you about Insert.

xD

I'm sorry, I had to. It was set up so well.

When did I bully insert?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.