Freedom (1 Viewer)

[Ennaybur]

Re: legalisation of drugs, prostitution, tax, internet, religion, speech, education, fines etc etc, what are your opinions on individual freedom in relation to the wider community?

At what point do we give up certain freedoms? How much is the govt allowed to dictate? why?

Is freedom an innate good? why?

What do you think about certain types of paternalism? (soft/hard, weak/strong, govt/individual, consentual/noncon)

How free are you when you are starving, uneducated, and forced to work several jobs to survive?

 

[jb_nc]

Bong r.i.p.s.

 

[Snaykew]

It's not a government's job to make sure you have every freedom unless the freedom is guaranteed in the constitution. Their job is to maintain social order (which may include restrictions on "freedoms"), maintain sustainable economic growth and defend the country IMHO.

 

[mr_brightside]

Bong r.i.p.s.

FUCK THE GOVERNMENT SMOKE MOAR CONES

CRUISE CTRL

 

[Iron]

I dont think that the alternative to 'freedom' is 'government'. Absolute freedom, at least of the kind we're talking about here, is anarchy: a poor outcome for the species. Absolute monarchy/gubbament in the modern era also leads to terrific human suffering because our reason is imperfect. The middle ground is a society of clear and overarching traditions and customs passed down from generation to generation. This weaves together individuals into the fabric of society and consists of a dialogue with the past, present and future. Within this structure freedom is guided and driven by purpose.

 

[jb_nc]

i believe freedom is the ability to walk down to the shop and buy an incandescent light bulb. from this point of view, Liberals are the fascists.

 

[Rafy]

I would be inclined to select "individual freedom at all costs" but the 'at all costs' tends towards a state of anarchy i think. I'm for limited government, not no government. I value a high degree of both social and economic freedom, but do acknowledge government has a role to play.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

I find it very funny how we're waging a war on terror, and we are giving away freedoms in the name of freedom. America is doing it even more so than us, with the PATRIOT Act and related crap, but we're doing the same thing. Ten years ago, the idea of tapping anyone's phones to combat terrorism would be absurd. Now, it's seriously being considered.

Tell me, has the world changed that much in ten years? Or rather, is the threat that much more now?

I would say no. We're getting further away from certain ideals we're meant to be holding dear and getting closer to paternalistic autocracy. I'm not saying we're going to get there, but we're not going towards more freedoms, that's for sure.

 

[Enteebee]

I think we should have whatever government intervention is needed to ensure maximum freedom (i.e. I do not think a society is being most free where some members of society have much poorer access to health care/education etc). In the end I think we should be pragmatists and look at each situation in a fairly utilitarian way... as well as accepting that we are creatures which believe in more than mere utility (i.e. we do value our personal freedom).

 

[Slidey]

I find it very funny how we're waging a war on terror, and we are giving away freedoms in the name of freedom. America is doing it even more so than us, with the PATRIOT Act and related crap, but we're doing the same thing. Ten years ago, the idea of tapping anyone's phones to combat terrorism would be absurd. Now, it's seriously being considered.

Tell me, has the world changed that much in ten years? Or rather, is the threat that much more now?

I would say no. We're getting further away from certain ideals we're meant to be holding dear and getting closer to paternalistic autocracy. I'm not saying we're going to get there, but we're not going towards more freedoms, that's for sure.

Dude, Australia is NOWHERE near as bad at it or corrupt as America, which in turn is no where near as bad at it or corrupt as, say, Russia.

Moreover, we just inverted our government*, politically, so continuing to comapain about "freedom being curbed in the name of the war on terror" seems kind of moot.

* Actually, not really, because the Labour party now occupies the political position that the Liberal party used to (i.e. Labour is now slightly right-wing both economically and socially), and the Liberal party has just become far right-wing both economically and socially.

I think we should have whatever government intervention is needed to ensure maximum freedom (i.e. I do not think a society is being most free where some members of society have much poorer access to health care/education etc).

Well said.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

Government intervention to promote freedom?

Call me ignorant, but these two things seem diametrically opposed to one another. That being said, I'm a fan of the benevolent dictatorship.

edit:

Dude, Australia is NOWHERE near as bad at it or corrupt as America, which in turn is no where near as bad at it or corrupt as, say, Russia.

Moreover, we just inverted our government*, politically, so continuing to comapain about "freedom being curbed in the name of the war on terror" seems kind of moot.

Oh we're not as bad as the Americans, for sure, or the Brits for that matter, but we're no where near the levels of freedom of the Western European democracies in many areas. And I never mentioned corruption, as we're one of the least corrupt nations on earth.

And I'm not complaining. Just merely stating the somewhat contradictory facts of the matter. And though Rudd definitely isn't passing the same bills that Howard was, he's not removing some of the more contentious ones in regards to freedom, either. Plus, he's hardly been in for long enough to see where he will go in this regard.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

your average strayan is too worried about "being ripped off at the check-out" or "rising petrol prices" to care about abstractions like freedom

 

[Ennaybur]

Government intervention to promote freedom?

Call me ignorant, but these two things seem diametrically opposed to one another. That being said, I'm a fan of the benevolent dictatorship.

In forfeiting some rights, such as taxes and obeying laws, we can hope for freedom from poverty, starvation, freedom that comes from education.

A government might intervene and put a drug addict into rehab in the hope that through taking away this 'freedom' (and here I think Mill might argue that the addict is not rational or capable of making their own decisions at this stage), they will enjoy the freedom of not being a slave to a drug.

A government might intervene in some business practices to ensure that all workers are getting paid a minimum wage and thus have the freedom to spend time with their children and choose what food to eat, what clothes to wear, what to do with their spare time.



Can you explain the benevolent dictator part?

 

[Slidey]

Government intervention to promote freedom?

Call me ignorant, but these two things seem diametrically opposed to one another. That being said, I'm a fan of the benevolent dictatorship.

*facepalm*

So you think everybody is unanimously more free in an anarchy, do you?

 

[Enteebee]

TBQH I fear a society where we have individual freedom gone rampant and the sort of indirect harms which aren't as easily calculable (i.e. corporations carbon emitions ^___^) get to go unhindered.

Call me ignorant, but these two things seem diametrically opposed to one another. That being said, I'm a fan of the benevolent dictatorship.

In your peaceful anarchy who is going to save us from a totalitarian?

 

[Admiral Nelson]

In forfeiting some rights, such as taxes and obeying laws, we can hope for freedom from poverty, starvation, freedom that comes from education.

A government might intervene and put a drug addict into rehab in the hope that through taking away this 'freedom' (and here I think Mill might argue that the addict is not rational or capable of making their own decisions at this stage), they will enjoy the freedom of not being a slave to a drug.

A government might intervene in some business practices to ensure that all workers are getting paid a minimum wage and thus have the freedom to spend time with their children and choose what food to eat, what clothes to wear, what to do with their spare time.



Can you explain the benevolent dictator part?

Oh, in that case I agree with you. I didn't quite realise what you meant. The benevolent dictatorship for me is where the government uses it's absolute power to do the things you've basically mentioned. Unfortunately, they usually end in corruption and warfare due to the inherently fallible nature of man.

So you think everybody is unanimously more free in an anarchy, do you?

I think anarchism is probably the single most silly system of governance, or rather, anti-governance, in existence. I'm also far from a stickler for personal freedoms. Though everyone might be more "free" in an Anarchistic society, it won't work.

 

[Ennaybur]

Does anyone believe that political freedom is inherently good?

Here I'm hoping that the libertarians will jump in. Is it right that you guys even go so far as to say it's the one innate good?

 

[Slidey]

Oh, in that case I agree with you. I didn't quite realise what you meant. The benevolent dictatorship for me is where the government uses it's absolute power to do the things you've basically mentioned. Unfortunately, they usually end in corruption and warfare due to the inherently fallible nature of man.

Social democracy is the next best thing, and infinitely more stable.

Does anyone believe that political freedom is inherently good?

Here I'm hoping that the libertarians will jump in. Is it right that you guys even go so far as to say it's the one innate good?

Can you elaborate?

 

[Admiral Nelson]

Social democracy is the next best thing, and infinitely more stable.

Indeed it is.

In your peaceful anarchy who is going to save us from a totalitarian?

No one, unfortunately. I can't think of an originally benevolent dictatorship that didn't lead back to the bad side of the dictatorship. And anarchy? I don't see where I mentioned that.

 

[withoutaface]

Didn't vote because options are retarded. I believe that a large degree of both forms of freedom will lead to the optimum outcome, but "Freedom at all costs" would imply that the reason I pursue such a line is because freedom in and of itself is the end goal, rather than pragmatic solutions for society's problems.