"Freedom" thread or something

The T wrote: No Doc I'm sure you don't want to drive nobody to suicide though you're getting closer with some libertarians here MoM, do you think liberty is the one value that has to preserved at all costs in a society? (if we agree that a "society" exists).

I think any system which seeks to preserve a single quality above all will lead to a form of totalitarianism. 

The Doctor wrote: ^Even freedom Pat?

Yes. I think so. The problem is that freedom is a pretty loaded term. We have to ask, freedom from what/whom? And that simple question really distinguishes philosophies as distinct as private property libertarianism and communism. And I just realized that I have a class to teach in six minutes so I'll have to finish this thought in about 58 minutes.

manofmystery wrote: On the last page he ignores economic reality and claims deregulation has led to the increasing pay gap and on this page he ramps up his foaming illogical and insane hatred, making it clear that he'd feel better if he could get those whose business model he doesn't like to consider suicide.  Any chance we, as a group, can just ignore this sicko?

He said something I don't like about corporations, and corporations are people too, man! He's a hateful sicko!

By the way, Doc - if you're boycotting Papa John's for the reason I'm thinking of, you might wanna re-think:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html

[QUOTE=dtguitarfan]By the way, Doc - if you're boycotting Papa John's for the reason I'm thinking of, you might wanna re-think:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html[/QUOTE]

thellama73 wrote: rogerthat wrote: As I try to articulate my thoughts on this subject:  what exactly is the difference between big bad wolves in the govt and big bad wolves in corporations? The difference is that if you don't do as the government says, they can use force to lock you away forever. If you don't do as the corporations say, they can't do a damn thing to you.

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^Even freedom Pat?  Yes. I think so. The problem is that freedom is a pretty loaded term. We have to ask, freedom from what/whom?   Its like....sanity. Whadya know?   No one can answer what freedom is, nor decided how to find the "best" amount to satisfy however many people... There is only real solution to this and its obvious.   IMO total, complete freedom would be the state of nature. Even a law...is technically violating freedom. Isnt it? If I want to murder Doc why can't I? Sure its wrong but if I want to, why should I be subject to someone elses law I never signed to or agree with? And hey if he can fight me off, well he was better and wins. It is pure freedom is it not?   Now obviosuly this is lunacy, and no one advocates such a thing. So laws, IMO are a negation of liberty but absolutely needed ones. Problem is when things go too far. When laws go too far and when "the common good of society" is taken too far/used as justification for vengeful/selfish attitudes.

Again it just comes down to definition. To me freedom means allow action within a particular schema. I do not equate freedom with ability since you may have either one without having the other.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I think any system which seeks to preserve a single quality above all will lead to a form of totalitarianism.

Well said (as with your long explanation above). The one way not to end in absolutism is not to make one value the absolute one. But I have always thought that's one problem with most libertarians and the reason the message doesn't get across: it would seem that liberty for liberty's sake is the only thing some libertarians want while failing to actually explain why this preservation of liberty can enhance life for most people in most ways and somewhat (limitedly) even preserves the other type of freedom, the freedom of want that's the communist objective.

manofmystery wrote: BS, I've read enough of his garbage to know that this is clearly his thought process.

I'm sorry, WHAT? So you're saying that based on the things he's said here, you can deduct his thought process and thereby accuse him of things he hasn't even said? That's preposterous. I'll tell you what you're doing: You twist his words into the most perversely outrageous way possible, then you paint him as an irrational idiot based on your false representation of what he said, and when somebody calls you out on the fact that he hasn't said the things you accuse him of, you say "well, but I know he thinks them!". Not a very credible argument.

His original point shows no sign of irrational hatred towards businesses. He merely stated that companies have more power over the individual than the individual has over the company, which is obviously true. Apparently it seems to be popular among the libertarians here (at least I've seen the argument multiple times) that the only true power is the one you cannot escape. Power is power, coercion is coercion, and the fact that one is stronger or more absolute than the other doesn't make the other invalid. Now, I won't deny that the government has more (and deeper) powers over the individual than any company, and I'm sure The Doctor wouldn't deny that either. But the big advantage is: You're their employer. You can fire the president and the congressmen. All it takes is to vote for somebody else.