Some people moving to shut down conservative websites.

Tnu1138

I hold that liberty is the absence of force. Positive liberty seems like it advocates a paradoxical statement of "giving" rights.

glennmagusharvey

Rights don't exist in nature anyway.  Rights are concepts that we humans have created; it is not very meaningful to argue whether rights are inherently had or are given by an authority-source.

Also, by your definition ("the absence of force") that means that liberty does not exist for anyone.

Tnu1138

I think this notion that they are bestowed by an authority
is counter to the concept of liberty. We are naturally free and it is merely
through the actions of others that we can not be so. You take a
collectivist stance that rights come from a collective or something like
government or religion I hold that liberty is inherent in the individual and the idea that we are only free because we are given freedom is a truly unsettling notion.

glennmagusharvey

So, we are naturally free, but we are also naturally prone to being eaten by lions.

So if I put a fence around the lions, and said, you're not allowed to go there, does this mean that I am destroying your liberty?

Gelzo

In what way are we free by nature? If you define a liberty as the opportunity to do something, that's something that can certainly be provided by a third party.

Tnu1138

That's dependent do you own the land, thge lions, and the building materials that the fence is made of? As in did you obtain them thyrough your own work or mutual exchange or consent?

Tnu1138

How? How can it be provided by a third party? How can a third party tell you "you are free" when there was nothing stopping me before?

Gelzo

^^You're missing the point.

^But there is something that's stopping you before. There are services that are provided by others that you can't make use of without them allowing you to, and others can have the opportunity to prevent or discourage certain actions. Sometimes its the protection of the law that prevents others from discouraging you from doing certain things, and this is how the government can provide a liberty that didn't exist before.

Tnu1138

The point of what?

Tnu1138

Where exactly do you think liberty comes from?

glennmagusharvey

Let's say there are only two people on Earth, you and me.

Now, we can can start talking property rights, but there are lions nearby that want to eat us.

Well, actually, y'know, let's say I don't build the fence.

There are lions over there.  You can't go over there.

Well, you can, but they'll eat you.

...come to think of it, this means that this concept of "liberty" doesn't exist in nature either.  I mean, I can't walk on water or fall down cliffs unharmed or, well, not get eaten by lions if I get too close to them and they're hungry.

Tnu1138

What you're advocating is horrific that liberty does not exist. That we are either slaves by default or no matter what.

Gelzo

There's really no such thing as a default, so the question is moot.

Tnu1138

The mistake being made is conflating liberty with security for example conservatives favor personal security and liberals favor economic security. You're also conflating rights/liberty (negative) with privileges/security (positive)

glennmagusharvey

We aren't slaves by default.

We don't have ANY role by default.

Tnu1138

but that is what you are saying if we are not free by default and that liberty must be a positive value and come froma collective then we are slaves by default and only gain liberty from the will of the collective.

Gelzo

Ugh.

Okay, a liberty as I understand it is the opportunity to do something without significant negative consequences. Going from there, a government can create liberties by creating an environment where certain actions are less risky.

Tnu1138

examples?

Chagen

We are free from life, but we need things like government to focus all that freedom into useful things.

It's like a gun barrel. Sure, you can shoot it without rifling, but the bullet it much more precise with rifling, while still keeping its power and speed anyway.

glennmagusharvey

@Tnu: You're treating things as black and white too much.

Liberty has no intrinsic value.  You can define it as an value inherent in people that societies limit, or you can define it as an extrinsic value that people gain within a society.  Both views could be correct.

Also, what Chagen said.  And I'd say it's not necessarily "government", it's just some sort of structure in a society.

Tnu1138

however the analogy doesn't quite work government runs the risk of abuse. whether it be the economic left or social right tryingf to promote some form of "security" or "positive liberty".  inherently collectivist notions populism, authoritarianism, communism, theocracy, fascism. Alll collectivist ideas and antithetical to liberty.

Gelzo

Okay. Let's say you wanted to open up a store, but without law enforcement or insurance, your goods aren't protected from theft, making the whole pursuit too risky to bother with. This is effectively no different from the government making it illegal for you to open up that same shop. Sure, in both cases you could try it anyway, but it'd be impractical. You don't really have the opportunity to open the store, so you don't really have the liberty.

glennmagusharvey

Well, as you put it, it runs the risk of abuse.  This is NOT the same as abuses.

Tnu1138

i'm not willing to take that risk myself. One of my all time heroes once said this.

• I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.
  
  • Letter to Archibald Stuart [1] [2], Philadelphia (23 December 1791)

as well as a personal one. Liberty is the ability to make mistakes. You still ahve the liberty to open the shop but you also have the responsibility to defend it. Liberty is easy to obtain but keepign it is another matter. I can't for the life of me remember who said that.

glennmagusharvey

So, basically, you would prefer a "state of nature"-style anarchy where it's every man for himself.

Well, the biggest problem with that is that people who get lucky would totally dominate everyone else.  And you'd get dictatorships--benevolent if you're lucky, malevolent otherwise.

Tnu1138

and that's any better then people dominating everyone else by some sortof bestowed authority? Like I said liberty is easy to obtain but keeping it another matter.

Tnu1138

This notion also makes me think of the futility of existence. Existance without liberty is irrelevant..

glennmagusharvey

How is it irrelevant?

Tnu1138

Because if you can not be free I don't see how you can behappy. if you have an omnipotent state guiding your every action then why bother?

glennmagusharvey

Why is the choice between complete and utter (and possibly dangerous) freedom and "an omnipotent state"?

Why can't there be a non-omnipotent state?