We hold these truths to be self evident (1 Viewer)

[KFunk]

1) There is no god
2) Freedom is the right of all sentient beings
3) The government should have as little impact on us as reasonably possible
4) All men and women are equal in the eyes of the law
5) What is done by consenting adults on private property is not the governments concern

(1) The non-existence of god can only be self-evident if it is simply a matter of armchair metaphysics. However, I would be inclined to treat it, at least partially, as an empirical issue, in which case the non-existence of god cannot be self-evident.

(2) What do you mean by freedom - e.g. simple, negative non-interference? What is a right (a moral entitlement?) and what do rights amount to in the absence of an institutional framework (positive law, rights tribunals, social contract)?

(3) This is poorly formulated, and I am unconvinced about the underlying sentiment (but you know this already).

(4) Sure. Do note natural differences though, e.g. reproductive rights.

(5) While I agree to some extent, I still think that 'consent' is a very blurry concept. Coercion comes in degrees and so I do not think there is a clear cut off where consent is ensured.

 

[Cookie182]

I agree with all but 2 & 5.

- Motherfuckers who threaten other's freedom need to be caged.

- 80% of the population is too stupid to be fully let of the government leash.

 

[Cookie182]

On a less humourous note, I'm interested in how you reconcile the situation where (5) and (2) contradict. Which one wins out?

A hypothetical-

Two consenting suicide bombers fully plan their attack on the greater community from the safety of their "private home". Let us say that they own an inner city apartment and need only to step out the street and detonate before killing thousands at a major attraction. This clearly violates (2): the ultimate loss of sentinent beings freedom is death. The government is informed of their plotting; do they have a right though to interfere while it is occuring on their "private property"? This violates (5) and the only argument that could be made is that the potential to violate (2) supersedes (5) and justifies intervention at this point.

A similar argument can be made for mass-drug production on private land.

 

[sam04u]

Freedom does not exist.

You are nothing more than a consequence of your environment and as such you will be predisposed to act and think a certain way, which even within a narrow realm of possibility, creates the illusion of free will.

Our environment is the sole cause of our actions and choices.

Furthermore due to our ignorance of the various factors of the machinations of our minds we create an illusion to facilate the former illusion and that is the concept of "radomisation". Another concept which does not truly exist, nothing is random and every event is the result of a cause. Regardless of whether or not it is calculable with the tools available to us.


Your fifth point is contrary to your third point as government and other structures are used as a tool of rationing the limited amount of resources available to us based on different groups ie; socioeconomic (capitalist), status or rank (monarchies, communist states, socialist states), etc.

With limited intervention nobody has an inherent right to any limited resource and as such everybody is subject to the whims of those who command the largest militaries or the capacity to forcibly impose their will on others.

An example is the Israel/Palestine conflict. If the Palestinians could forcibly remove the Israelis from the occupied territories they would. In this situation the Palestinians have no rights.



Basically, everything you said there is wrong Riet.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Freedom does not exist.

You are nothing more than a consequence of your environment and as such you will be predisposed to act and think a certain way, which even within a narrow realm of possibility, creates the illusion of free will.

Our environment is the sole cause of our actions and choices.

Furthermore due to our ignorance of the various factors of the machinations of our minds we create an illusion to facilate the former illusion and that is the concept of "radomisation". Another concept which does not truly exist, nothing is random and every event is the result of a cause. Regardless of whether or not it is calculable with the tools available to us.

There is a huge difference between being predisposed to think a certain way and being forced to act a certain way.

Sure, people are a product of their environments. But they still have wants and desires that they perceive as being their own, which are unique to them.

Using violence or threats of violence to prevent people from being able to act in the way they feel is right for them is what we are opposing when we talk about freedom.