CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Value of freedom (read description)?
A bit of a vague question yes, but I will try to explain.
Inspiration for this debate came from Bronto's debate titled: *"Should a Muslim have to bake a cake for a gay wedding."* I think this raises a question about the value of freedom. Should freedom (e.g. freedom not to serve somebody) in some cases be sacrificed to create something else that many would deem to be good, such as forced fair treatment (forcing the Muslim to serve the gays)? Do we overate freedom? This could also apply to things like limitations on government surveillance upon the public.
The specific dialogue during Bronto's debate that inspired me to create this debate was between Amarel and myself, which went like this:
Me: "Nobody should have to provide a service unwillingly if freedom is to be considered valuable"
Amarel: "Does that include denial of service based on race. ?"
Me: "If you value freedom enough, yes. The value of freedom is the real debate though."
Amarel: "Sounds like it might be. Why don't you post a debate. ?"
In my opinion, "freedom" is taken for granted, and is massively "overrated" (for lack of a better word).
There are a lot of things in life which simply do not work without moderation. Think of Aristotle's virtue ethics; too much or too little of something is a vice, and is extremely detrimental to your character and to society.
Take bravery. Too much bravery and you're brash - quick to act without thinking things through, which leads to easy mistakes. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you're a coward who won't take any risks no matter how small they are, and you'll never get anywhere in life.
Freedom can be measured with similar concepts. Not enough freedom and you're a slave. Too much freedom and there's anarchy. Both, I believe, are immoral, which is why we need to find that sweet spot between too much and too little.
Looking more specifically at the topic, and going back to this idea about "should we be free to discriminate", let me ask you something: if you were a black man in the United States in the early 1900s, would you value the freedom to discriminate?
I had a hard time deciding whether to dispute or clarify because what you say is cogent.
In my opinion, "freedom" is taken for granted, and is massively "overrated" (for lack of a better word).
I agree that too many people take freedom for granted. That is why such people say freedom is massively "overrated" (for lack of a better word).
It is easy to say freedom (like air or sex) is overrated until you are not getting any.
One needs freedom in order to have the ability protect freedom. Significantly, the less freedom one person has, the easier it is for others to take the freedom that person has left.
-
Not enough freedom and you're a slave. Too much freedom and there's anarchy. Both, I believe, are immoral, which is why we need to find that sweet spot between too much and too little.
I think that sweet spot is the limitation of freedom to act, insofar as it does not physically impede on the persons or property of anyone else.
This means people still have conflict, and nobody gets all of what they want. People still have to encounter things they dislike or that cause them emotional pain. However, they also have the freedom to try to work out the conflicts or make the world more like what they want.
-
if you were a black man in the United States in the early 1900s, would you value the freedom to discriminate?
I am glad you phrased it the way you did. Discriminate means "1.recognize a distinction; differentiate".
I know you meant the unwritten "...based on race", but not everyone chooses to discriminate based on logically corrupt reasons (like racism). The ability to choose based on one's own values was equally valuable to a Black man in the early 1900s as it was to anyone else. Do you really think that Black man wanted anyone else telling him how he had to evaluate people, or what criteria he had to use when making decisions?
I know you meant the unwritten "...based on race", but not everyone chooses to discriminate based on logically corrupt reasons (like racism). The ability to choose based on one's own values was equally valuable to a Black man in the early 1900s as it was to anyone else. Do you really think that Black man wanted anyone else telling him how he had to evaluate people, or what criteria he had to use when making decisions?
It's not what I meant, as you mentioned, but that's something I hadn't thought of before so thank you for bringing it up. I think differentiation in the context you're talking about is important, and certainly comes under the sort of freedom which is moral and should be valued. I believe people should have the freedom to form their own opinions of others, no matter how negative they may be, as long as they do not act violently on them.
I should be more careful using the word "discrimination" in future, it's often solely attributed to negative/corrupt intentions (perhaps prejudice, bigotry or simply racism would be some preferable phrases to use).
Well put. You have put what I wanted to say into words better than I did.
As for your question at the end, of course I wouldn't. That is an example of freedom gone too far, especially because it would have been very common for a black to be refused service. I'm still unsure about the gay wedding cake thing, because I think there are plenty of other places to get a wedding cake, and it's probably not too often that incidents like that occur where a gay is refused service. I think if it became more widespread then it would be a problem, but the fact it's not that widespread means that the freedom hasn't gone too far yet. I could easily be persuaded otherwise though, I'm on the fence a bit.
I think there are plenty of other places to get a wedding cake, and it's probably not too often that incidents like that occur where a gay is refused service. I think if it became more widespread then it would be a problem
I agree that there are plenty of other places one can purchase a service from - however, I think it's risky to use that as an excuse to allow other shops to discriminate. Things do not become widespread instantly, and even if it's something as small as a few shops denying service, there's still that chance that it will spread and become more common.
If a bigot sees that their beliefs are shared and being supported, even in a very small portion, they'll believe they're justified in spreading those beliefs further. It's a vicious, multiplying cycle.
I agree that there are plenty of other places one can purchase a service from - however, I think it's risky to use that as an excuse to allow other shops to discriminate.
This thread has focused on bigotry and whether people should have the freedom to be bigots. I think that is because that issue is the edge of consensus.
Most of us probably agree about individuals not having the freedom to commit violence or theft, about individuals having the right to believe what we want even when it is illogical, and about individuals not being forced to work for a particular company against our will (i.e. we are all anti-slavery.) On the very edge of the consensus is the assumption that individuals rightfully have the freedom to be bigots in whom they choose to marry, date, and be friends with. While almost all Americans seem to think that bigotry in these areas is shameful, nobody ever proposes that there should be laws that can force Muslims to date transsexuals (for example) or Clansmen to marry Jews or Blacks.
Corporations, by contrast do not have beliefs, but rather polices. Moreover they do not have personhood, but rather are made up of individuals who implement company policies. As a result, we do not look at corporations or their employees, insofar as they are implementing company policies , as having rights to the same degree of freedom as individuals. There seems to be consensus about this, and as a result there is no controversy regarding anti-discrimination laws for corporations, or infringement on corporations' freedom.
However, small business owner-operators occupy a hybrid position between individual and corporation. People obviously disagree about whether they should have the level of freedom acknowledged for individuals or the lack of personal rights appropriate to a corporation. This puts owner-operators just outside the zone of consensus.
My principle is to err on the side of personal freedom, and put the owner-operator in the same position as individuals. As such they can choose to associate with and work for (or not) whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose, just like a Black engineer has the right to choose not to work for an Asian company for no better reason than it is Asian.
Marcus you state ......My principle is to err on the side of personal freedom, and put the owner-operator in the same position as individuals. As such they can choose to associate with and work for (or not) whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose, just like a Black engineer has the right to choose not to work for an Asian company for no better reason than it is Asian........
Most people work for companies out of economic necessity , being picky and choosy about the company one works for is a luxury denied to most , I wonder how many Jews worldwide work for German companies that were ' hand in glove ' with the Nazis ?
The difference is small business owners are publically touting for business , if their policies are racist or discriminatory they are breaking the law in most countries i'm aware of . Can you tell me of a so called civilised country that thinks it's acceptable to allow small businesses to be racist and discriminatory?
You ask the rhetorical question (at least I think it was rhetorical), Can you tell me of a so called civilised country that thinks it's acceptable to allow small businesses to be racist and discriminatory?
A bandwagon fallacy? Really?
You even use it to push that, regardless of whether or not an idea or institution is beneficial, societies should not change past what has already been widely implemented. By that logic, Wilberforce would have been shut down in 1807 by the argument that slavery has been basic to every great civilization, and that there was no "civilized" country that banned its citizenry from engaging in the slave trade.
-
You wrote, The difference is small business owners are publically touting for business , if their policies are racist or discriminatory they are breaking the law in most countries i'm aware of .
Breaking the law does not address whether the law is just or beneficial to the society as a whole, nor what the value of freedom is. For most of human history, people who helped to free slaves were "breaking the law in most countries I'm aware of."
Also, touting for business is irrelevant. Advertising that you want to engage in a particular voluntary social transaction does not necessarily imply that you must engage in it with every person who answers the advert, or comes into the shop. If a person touts that he wants a job as an engineer by posting his resume on Monster.com or GlassDoor.com is in the exact same situation as a baker advertising that he sells wedding cakes. That engineer rightly has the freedom to choose whether to accept a particular offer of employment and engage in a contract, whereas you are saying that the baker should not have the freedom to accept a particular offer of employment and engage in a particular contract.
Also, I fail to see why buyers should have freedom to choose whether to voluntarily enter into a transaction, but sellers should not? It is still a trade. We say that a person is using money to buy a cake, but it would make just as much sense to say a person is using a cake to buy money. By the same token, we could say that employees of companies are exploiting the companies need for labor in order to force the company to give them money.
-
Absolutely, many people squander what freedoms our governments allow us. Near as I can tell, it is worst in Western nations where the oppressions are small and touted as being for "fairness", "health," or "kindness," all advertised as being "for your own good."
This is where we really get to the value of freedom. We all have at least slightly different ideas as to what constitutes "goodness" (whether it be justice, efficiency, health, wealth, wisdom, etc.). Why would any of us trust that someone else is more capable of determining "good" and how to achieve it than we ourselves are . All these rules are instituted by people who are sure that they know better than everyone else, but I see no evidence that any of them actually do know better. Certainly, someone must be right, but I cannot tell who that might be.
The free market, however, will find whatever the majority feel/think is better.
If we allow people to make their own decisions to the extent that they do not physically interfere with anyone else' physical person or physical property natural democracy is thereby instituted, with all the variety possible. It prevents those who think they know better from chaining everyone to their values and their visions of what the world ought to be. It also allows EVERYBODY's values and visions to be represented.
This way, the free market of ideas and the economic free market to work unencumbered. Those whose values act as barriers to having happy and productive lives, or prevent their businesses from having a wide customer base will prosper (not just economically) less than those who voluntarily trade with everyone.
What ultimately happens is that people cluster toward the middle of the bell curve of values and behavior, but people will still have the freedom to be out as far as they like in the 1st or 100th percentile. As values and visions prove themselves in the free market, the distribution will drift toward those proven values and visions naturally and without coercion.
All limiting freedom does is limit individual choice, and prevents the society at large from finding better ways to be.
I think it's plain what I asked as in can you tell me of a country that finds what you want acceptable as in being racist and discrimatory ?
You can call it a bandwagon fallacy fine but you cannot answer what i ask as what I'm saying is indeed policy in civilised countries
Your counter is rather strange as you use the false analogy fallacy to try and force your point .
You say ... breaking the law does not address whether the law is just or beneficial......
Ok , tell me where's the ' justice ' and ' fairness ' in denying a person a product or service a business is selling because of your race , colour or creed ?
You seem to think it's unjust to allow people to refuse a service for these reasons .
You say ......touting for business is irrelevant ...... it's not , if you wish to supply your service to only certain people why not state this in your terms and conditions ?
Maybe you also think that's 'unfair ' ?
Your baker and engineer example is another false analogy as an engineer applying for a job has an expectation that he may or may not get the job and in most cases will accept otherwise why is he /she applying ?
A purchaser of a wedding cake goes to securecsuch a cake in the reasonable assumption that a baker sells cakes to all disregarding race , politics or creed , is this an unreasonable assumption?
If so , why is it so ?
You say ...... I fail to see why buyers should have freedom to choose whether to voluntarily enter into a transaction but sellers don't ......
Buyers take many things into account before a purchase as in , price , quality , taste etc , etc and are fully entitled to do so as the product might be poorly made and of bad quality , taste etc ,etc .
If sellers do not wish to sell maybe opening a shop is not an ideal career path for them ?
You claim the freedoms western governments are worse in those nations ?
Really maybe a month is Saudi Arabia might change your mind on this view .
You seem to find it acceptable that allowing discrimination and racism is fine , and if societies are left alone will somehow stop discriminatory and racist behaviour regarding what we are talking about ?
I disagree , that why strong laws have to remain so as to insure such behaviour if carried out will have severe penalities
Thanks for the response. I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.
I do want to verify we are having the same conversation with each other. My points are really about the value of freedom. I am not discussing bakers, Muslims and discrimination--that is just an example for discussing the value of freedom (and by corollary) the optimal degree of government limitation of freedom.
I have another response (posted separately) that addresses several of your points.
You wrote, A purchaser of a wedding cake goes to secure a cake in the reasonable assumption that a baker sells cakes to all disregarding race , politics or creed , is this an unreasonable assumption?
It is not an unreasonable assumption. HOWEVER, discrimination on the basis of race or any other innate characteristic is not reasonable. Belief in ANY religion is not reasonable. So, it is apparent that expecting everybody to be reasonable is, in itself not reasonable.
This brings us back to my main point about the value of freedom: That you and I and most people agree that some way of behaving is reasonable (or good, or in some way beneficial) does not make it necessary to legislate it for the minority (in our societies) who disagree.
I would love for all people to be reasonable (and therefore kind and tolerant) but I do not think that removing the right of participants to be unreasonable in their choices of voluntary interactions (like dating, friendship, or commerce) has enough potential benefits to outweigh the dangers of government overreach into interpersonal relationships.
Just imagine the oppression that would be required to enforce the law if unreasonable behavior were to be illegalized.
I agree with Thoreau's statement, "Government is best which governs least."
I do not know if you read it, but I responded to Mack with the following:
Ben Shapiro brings up a good point about the nature of laws. Ultimately, every law is enforced either by violence or by the threat of violence. Even laws that result in civil lawsuits are ultimately enforced this way.
For example, if a baker loses a lawsuit for not baking a wedding cake, and then refuses to pay damages, and then refuses to leave the bakery when the lien is enforced, the marshals will ultimately remove the baker by force (i.e, with violence) in order to enforce the gay wedding cake anti-discrimination law.
That means that unless you think a person's peaceful discrimination against (pick a category of person) is so bad that it is worth shooting someone to enforce it, there should not be a law against it.
That is why I don't think laws should deal with anything other than protecting people's physical selves or their property. At such time as we are legislating that people get access to someone else's property or mandating that they can demand control over what they do (like bake a cake) against someone's will, we are radically multiplying the instances when violence may be used to enforce the law.
It's a good debate and I'm enjoying the exchange and I thank you for it .
We both value freedom , what defines freedom and how we see it makes the talk most interesting .
Yes not everybody is reasonable I agree , but I think most cake makers sell cakes daily without once refusing people ; I think I can safely say that most cake makers are reasonable when it comes to selling their wares .
Yes ,the points made to Mack are fine and well made ; what I asked before several times and to different people is this ...... If I as a baker do not want to serve certain members of the public should I not at least state so in a sign on my shop front ? .......
I think this is a perfectly reasonable request as imagine you walk into the shop and the owner says " I cannot serve you as I've heard you're homosexual "
Here is the set of responses to the wedding cake portion of our discussion.
You wrote, ...can you tell me of a country that finds what you want acceptable as in being racist and discriminatory ?
- 1 - I do not want people to be racist, discriminatory, intolerant or unkind to each other. That does not mean I think it is my place (or yours, or anyone else's) place to choose their values, or to decide whether they can choose freely what social interactions they engage in. That is none of the my business. People are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to deal with each other and in what situations.
- 2 - If it is not a rhetorical question, the answer includes Japan, China, India, any of the Middle Eastern nations, and multiple African nations. Near as I can tell, the idea that racism and discrimination based on religion (or class, or sexual orientation, etc.) is bad is pretty exclusive to Western culture. There are lots of non-Western Civilized places. In fact, many of these havens of intolerance have been civilized for at least 3000 years longer than Europe.
In regard to You claim the freedoms western governments are worse in those nations ?
Not at all!
What I meant to express was that the tendency to squander our freedoms is worse in Western nations. It is the result of taking it for granted. I apologize for being unclear.
Regarding the bandwagon fallacy and the Wilberforce example, my point was that there is no great obviousness to what values, standards, laws, or changes are good. If what is good were so plain, then the basic laws of all societies of good people would look the same, both around the world and across time. They don't.
Even if many societies have a particular thing in common, that does not necessarily indicate that the commonality is a beneficial thing, nor does it indicate that the beneficial commonality should be mandated. Saying that all civilized societies have automobile is hardly a relevant argument in favor of mandating (or prohibiting) car ownership.
You wrote, Your baker and engineer example is another false analogy as an engineer applying for a job has an expectation that he may or may not get the job and in most cases will accept otherwise why is he /she applying ?
I assume that you mean the resume comparison. I disagree about it being a false analogy.
-Both the baker and engineer are advertising services for sale.
-In both cases there are multiple prospective entities who may or may not want to purchase the services.
-In both cases it is unclear who will respond to the advert, until they respond.
-In both cases there is competition (other bakers and other engineers).
-In both cases the respondent to the advert may freely choose not to hire (the baker or the engineer)
-Both may be offered a contract or not by a prospective client.
-In both cases, as you state, the buyer expects whoever he/she chooses from amongst prospective sellers to accept the job, whether of baking the cake or being employed as an engineer for the firm.
-In both cases, there must be an agreement as to the particulars of both the service and compensation. This agreement is a contract. If the obligation is automatic in the case of the baker, then why is there a need for a contract?
The only major difference I see is which of the two has a storefront/physical workplace. The seller (baker) has control of the workplace in one case, and the buyer (firm hiring the engineer) has control of the workplace in the other case.
If your contention is that having control of the workplace constitutes an advantage, and that ceding right of refusal is the cost of having that advantage, then that I would agree that is a meaningful difference between the situations. (I do not, however see that it justifies government involvement.)
Do you think that having a storefront automatically cedes all the choice to the buyer?
I know you don't want people to be racist or discriminatory but you accept that it's their right to be that way , they may do so privately if they wish but when their actions affect and hurt fellow citizens they deserve the inevitable consequences.
Regarding values and standards in this particular case we are talking about what I think the general concensus would be , most people who want a cake should receive the cake without fear of discrimination or racism
1: The baker is advertising cakes for all , the employer is advertising a position for one undecided
2: A person who does not want a cake does not purchase a cake , a person who does not want a position does not apply for it
3: Yes I agree
4: Yes I agree
5: The baker may refuse to serve the customer and will have to explain why he's discriminating ; the company hiring the engineer do so in nearly all cases based on his ability to do the job .
6: one expects to get a cake based on one fact he wants a cake and was never told he may be refused the product , also unlike the engineer he is not in a competition based on his resume as to whether he receives a cake ; the engineer knows he is only one of several candidates for a position and may or may not get it and he realises this
We seem to be going around in circles at this stage and regards my position , most cake sellers sell daily to all and sundry without any bother at all , there will always be extreme counter examples to demonstrate the opposite view and they are not proctected by law as extreme examples mostly make poor law
You wrote, We seem to be going around in circles at this stage.
Yep.
I think the point where we actually part company is that you keep saying that the "customer has an expectation", and then use that to imply that the customer's reasonable expectation creates an obligation on the seller's part.
By contrast, I do not think anybody has any obligation until there is a contract (verbal or written) that specifies the scope of the wedding cake and the consideration to be paid.
I MIGHT concede that the wares in the case are different as they are already made and for sale for a posted price, which conceivably implies an offer specific enough to imply a contract to all potential buyers who enter the store. Again, until there is consideration paid, all parties have the option of changing their minds.
I probably became a hard-ass about this sort of thing as a result of raising a teenager, and teaching thousands of teenagers.
I am disgusted by the selfishness and weakness of my generation, and I am dismayed by and ashamed of the weakness of the generation we raised. (When I watch TV & interviews from Europe, or listen to Katie Hopkins, I get the impression that you Europeans have a similar proportion of weak and whining leaches as the US.) All those entitled and immature little bastards have all sorts of expectations about the world, including the unsupported idea that by virtue of wanting something they deserve to get it. My experience shows that this is not the case.
Teenagers also tend to think that once someone announces an intention, that intention becomes an inviolable obligation. Nope. Not even sort of. The reality of people is that we change our minds about all sorts of things.
Sometimes people refuse to give us things we want or need for no other reason than they don't like us. They don't even need a good reason to dislike us. Racism is not some special reason to dislike someone. (It is no more ridiculous or nefarious than disliking how someone smells or what their voice sounds like.)
Maybe that is the crux of what I personally tend to value about other people's freedom. It forces me to accept my inability to control the universe, by showing me I cannot control even a teenage human or a baker. As circumstances change (big or small) we all have the freedom to change our minds. Sometimes that is the result of personal development, and sometimes it is the result of whimsy.
I truly think that is a good and healthy thing for us as individuals and as a society. We need to be reminded constantly that we cannot control people's whims, and that a human being is another force of nature, like wind or waves. We need to be accustomed to being self-reliant, and we need to be inoculated against disappointment, because the reality is that people are beyond our control, regardless of our laws and the airs we put on of being civilized and enlightened.
Hi Marcus , regarding the first point if we say that what you're saying is fair enough would you not agree that the shop owner should at least have the courtesy to state this in his terms before I or you enter his premises thus saving embarrassment to all parties ?
I know I asked this several times but you or others will not answer for some reason .
Yes the whiners here are plentiful and European law is gone P C mad , one can say nothing without some person or group being outraged and offended . A recent example .... every year we have a gay pride day in the capital recently a tourist in the city asked what was going on I replied " it's gay pride day " two other people overheard me and said " please don't say gay pride day as it's deeply offensive we now call it just ' pride ' day " I told them what to do , how ridiculous the word pride they want now to hi -jack to mean something else .
We live in the now generation as in I want it now , as I cannot wait being the mantra of the young .
It's been an excellent exchange and inthank you for it
Sure, I will throw you the bone: Absolutely, it is courteous to say that not everyone will get what they want for (whatever reason) prior to coming in. The problem is that if you post your specific reasons, it makes you a target for lawsuits, protests, etc..
That is why it would be nice to have a resurgence in the signs I discussed earlier . ("We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.")
They were not used primarily for enforcement of bigotry on the West Coast when I was growing up. (I do not know about elsewhere.) Mostly they were used for dress code and manners violators. (people in ratty clothes, screaming kids, drunks, rude people, etc.)
Frankly, the thing that amazes me most about racism, etc. is that there are so many things people do to make themselves unpleasant and unwelcome for valid cause that the bigotry is usually superfluous.
How is that for an argument against bigotry? Don't be a racist because assholes come in all colors.
1-I am not comparing the employer to the baker. I am saying the APPLICANT/ENGINEER and the baker are in the same situation, but are extended different freedoms.
I agree with most of what you stated. Freedom, while good, has to be monitored and adjusted as times and views change. We can not allow unlimited freedoms without causing clashes between individuals and cultures so it must be in moderation, like everything else in life. And you gave some great examples.
I do think we may get to a point where we can have one man's freedom without another man's shackles however it would be like walking a tightrope with wind and weights working against you. Tricky, possible but tricky.
As long as the clashes between individuals and cultures are non-violent, and do not involve theft or vandalism, I fail to see why they are such a problem.
I do think we may get to a point where we can have one man's freedom without another man's shackles
All we need is less government meddling in people's lives. So long as both parties are prohibited from physically interfering with each other's persons or property, there is freedom with no shackles. It is government that brings the shackles. And usually they are invited in by some Nimrod who wants to build the whole civilization according to his/her "enlightened" sensibilities.
As long as the clashes between individuals and cultures are non-violent, and do not involve theft or vandalism, I fail to see why they are such a problem.
Yes, I agree, but the key is non-violent. If one were given complete freedom there would be no need to monitor the level of violence or the clashes themselves because they would be free to kill at will.
I do believe we need less government meddling but the unfortunate side effect is that people will have to take personal responsibility for their actions. IF people were to start exercising self-control and start taking blame for the actions they take where there was obviously going to be a danger or harm to them, then we could get away with big brother not being in our lives to much.
I do believe we need less government meddling but the unfortunate side effect is that people will have to take personal responsibility for their actions. IF people were to start exercising self-control and start taking blame for the actions they take where there was obviously going to be a danger or harm to them, then we could get away with big brother not being in our lives to much
Having raised a teenager, I recognize the chicken-and-egg problem.
you don't want to grant too much freedom to people who hold themselves accountable and exercise personal responsibility, but until they have to figure things out independently, they won't develop personal responsibility.
A finely composed argument and very well true. Everything is best in moderation, and I thoroughly appreciate your draw back to Aristotle, not many people study those classical texts any longer.
To me it begs to ask, if the baker is a Jew can they refuse to make a Nazi cake. Not that they can reject making any cake for the Nazi, but that they can reject making certain kinds of cakes that they don't offer in normal discourse. If they choose to make a cake not in their displays, advertisements, etc, it would be up to their own discretion.
If a gay baker had a man with a man cakes on display, they would not be able to deny a gay cake to a Nazi, but could deny a Nazi a swastika cake because it's not advertised or on display.
For example, in a typical situation, their display case most likely does not have a man with a man, the ISIS flag, or a Nazi swastika, thus they could refuse to make the cake. They have the right to not make certain sized cakes for the same reason.
With my logic you can't force a black baker to make a confederate cake, a Christian make an ISIS cake, or an atheist to make a christian cake.
Being a Nazi or a member of ISIS is not equivilant to be homosexual. Asking a baker to make a swastika cake is in no way comparable to asking a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding, and the very suggestion shows how much you're grasping at straws.
ISIS and Nazism are terrorist ideologies. Homosexuality is not.
Nor did I claim that the OP said homosexuality is a terrorist ideology. He did, however, use terrorist and extremist ideologies as a direct comparison, or analogy, in order to dispute my argument.
It is a faulty argument because it implies that disagreeing to make a cake with an ISIS flag and a cake with a pride flag are equivalent. One flag is directly attributed to a terrorist group who have murdered innocent people, the other is a flag which represents a general community of peaceful people.
Perhaps a terrorist could say pushing the LGBT agenda was their motive, however that's not what the gay pride flag itself represents. It's not the same as rejecting an objectively violent organisation.
ISIS and Nazism are terrorist ideologies. Homosexuality is not.
While many of us have ideological objections to ISIS, Nazis, and other terrorists, there are Christians and Muslims who have ideological objections to homosexual weddings.
I am very sure that the last organization I want to be deciding which ideologies are acceptable is the government.
While many of us have ideological objections to ISIS, Nazis, and other terrorists, there are Christians and Muslims who have ideological objections to homosexual weddings.
Yes, out of an irrational fear of them. It's not irrational to fear ISIS and Nazis, though, who literally want the elimination of people who are different to them.
Members of ISIS would not describe themselves as terrorists but true Muslims , what they practice is entirely consistent with quranic teachings and the word of Allah as dictated to Muhammad
Thank you for that ; many comments on C D are made which have no direct bearing on the debate in question and mine was merely an observation on something you stated ; it required no comment as it was not pertinent to the topic being discussed so why make it into an issue ?
- 1 - Being told that someone thinks a fear is irrational does nothing to relieve people's fears.
- 2 - There is no useful standard accepted by consensus as to what constitutes irrationality, and whether the ideas of ISIS, Nazis, and those in favor of homosexual weddings are what are feared, or if it is particular practices associated with them, or if it is the encouragement of the spread of the ideas and practices that are feared.
Consider some examples.
- A - There are a lot of people who are afraid of people even speaking in favor of nationalism or socialism. Is this rational? Some say yes and some say no.
- B - There are a lot of people who are afraid of people even speaking in favor of Sharia and of imposition of a conservative interpretation of the Quran on Western societies. Is this rational? Some say yes and some say no.
- C - There are a lot of people who are afraid of people even speaking in favor of gay weddings and homosexuality, and the attendant teaching that some essential Christian and Muslim concepts of sin are not just incorrect, but evil (which then implies a lack of moral validity to the foundations of these two religions.) Millions of people think that this can lead to eternal damnation. Is this rational? Some say yes and some say no.
How do you propose we work out people's disagreement regarding what is and is not rational, especially when it comes to fear?
- 3 - Personally, I think there is no success to be had there, and we are far more likely to have a peaceful society if we let people.
- A - Say what they want to.
- B - Associate or not with whomever they want for whatever reasons they want.
- C - Engage or not in commerce with whomever they want for whatever reasons they want.
Can you show any of us a Muslim baker that was put out of business for not making a cake for a Peter Puffer or a Carpet Muncher ? The challenge has been made !
I like your argument. There's no definite line to be drawn if it is illegal to refuse service to somebody. Perhaps the fact that Nazism is a belief rather than an unpreventable trait represents some line that can be drawn. It's another one of those questions where there'll probably never be a consensus.
It's a great debate topic . Freedom not to serve someone based on their sexuality is discrimination , whether some deem it good or not is immaterial, those discrimiting will indeed claim there actions are just and thus good , that does not make them so .
So Mack you think denial of service based on race is fine if we value freedom ?
That's actually a denial of freedom , when blacks were refused service in white restaurants was that whites expressing their value of freedom ?
How do you define freedom from your personal viewpoint ?
Going on the principle of universalizability would require that, for an action to be permissible, it must be possible to apply it to all people without a contradiction occurring.
"Freedom not to serve someone based on their sexuality is discrimination"
Yes, and I acknowledge this, it allows me to rephrase part of the question better: 'Should we have the freedom to discriminate against people to a certain extent?'
"That's actually a denial of freedom , when blacks were refused service in white restaurants was that whites expressing their value of freedom ?"
Well, whites had the freedom to do that, so the answer to your question is yes - freedom to discriminate. I don't quite see how that infringed on black people's 'freedom' - freedom to do what exactly? It is a greater infringement of freedom to make somebody serve someone then it is to prevent people from being served, not that's makes it worse. Blacks weren't really being stopped from doing something so much as whites were choosing not to do something for them. It was just unequal/unfair treatment. Note that I'm not saying it was okay, in that situation I think that whites should have had their freedom not to serve taken away from them (as it was).
"How do you define freedom from your personal viewpoint ?"
I personally define legal freedom of action as being allowed to do (or not to do) whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm others or infringe upon their rights in some way. In that way, you wouldn't be harming anybody or infringing upon their rights by denying them service, you'd just be not helping them. This quite nicely links into your debate about helping people who are drowning.
True legal freedom would of course require the removal of all laws, which is why I'm always skeptical of people spouting about freedom. Too much freedom is dangerous.
I want to clarify that I don't value freedom too much, although I'm unsure about the Muslim baker question. Maybe because it's not too hard to just go somewhere else. If it became the case that no gays could find somebody to make a wedding cake then the freedom not to serve will have gone too far, but I don't think that's the case yet.
This answer might have been all over the place so sorry if it's confusing.
So a freedom to discriminate does not infringe on a blacks freedom ?
But it's denying him /her a choice to purchase what's not denied to anyone else making it totally unfair , why not just put a sign up saying .... No blacks served here ....?
If shops wish to have the freedom to discriminate they should say so before agreeing to serve the public in the terms of their license agreements , what they are doing is deciding once they get their license .
In the case we are speaking off it does indeed infringe upon their rights to be treated like any other citizen regards , colour , race , creed or sexuality .
Why can the Muslim baker not put up signage to state who he will and will not serve so as not to publically embarrass people ?
I have no problem with making them put a sign up. I don't see how that affects whether freedom is being infringed upon. I see your point about it being an infringement on black's freedom. I guess full freedom for all is impossible because that would require freedom to infringe on other's freedom, which renders full freedom for all impossible.
If they put a sign up they are alerting specific members of the public that they will not serve them , their freedom to shop in this establishment is being denied them and them alone no one else , making it unfair .
When you agree to trade with the public you are entering a contract to do what the contract says , as in serve the public ; the law does not include clauses in the contract to discriminate against others
"That's actually a denial of freedom , when blacks were refused service in white restaurants was that whites expressing their value of freedom ?"
Well, whites had the freedom to do that, so the answer to your question is yes - freedom to discriminate. I don't quite see how that infringed on black people's 'freedom' - freedom to do what exactly? It is a greater infringement of freedom to make somebody serve someone then it is to prevent people from being served, not that's makes it worse.
Actually, the Jim Crow laws were imposed on businesses against their will. Business owners were put at a serious disadvantage by the Jim Crow laws. These laws (regarding restaurants, for example) mandated separate sections and minimum degrees of separation. If the facility was too small to accommodate the requirements, it was required to be either White only or Black only. This either decreased the owners' customer base or increased the operating costs.
Had business owners (White and Black) been left to make their own decisions, free of government interference the free market would likely have encouraged integration and discouraged racial discrimination decades before the civil rights era.
Nothing encourages tolerance like needing to do business with someone who has something you want.
I agree with the tack you take, and I was right there with you up to the end.
If it became the case that no gays could find somebody to make a wedding cake then the freedom not to serve will have gone too far.
Do you really mean that a wedding cake is more valuable than freedom?
Please justify that people have the right to force others to provide any unnecessary thing, or the right to compel others to cooperate in helping to procure it.
Fair point about the value of the wedding cake, it seems petty now that I think about it. However, valuing the freedom not to provide the cake may be equally petty. I don't know, maybe it's a matter of principle.
I do not see any reason people should have the right to force others to provide an unnecessary thing, but I do see how people might value 'unnecessary things' more than they perhaps should, making valuing the right to them seem less petty, in the same way that people might think it's a really big problem to make a wedding cake that conflicts with what they believe is right, even though it sounds petty to me. Who am I to say which persons values are more important?
It's a hard choice for lawmakers too, as whatever they decide there will be parties who feel their rights have been infringed. In the US, doing it on a state by state basis makes sense. People can choose which set of laws they want to live under. It's harder in some other countries.
It's a hard choice for lawmakers too, as whatever they decide there will be parties who feel their rights have been infringed.
As a general rule, I think we all value our own freedom more than the desires, needs, or freedoms of others. By the end of kindergarten we should all understand this. In fact, the main lessons of kindergarten are that we cannot all have what we want at the same time, and we cannot make people do what we want.
This is why I am always amazed by the lack of empathy and understanding evidenced by many people's insistence that there must be a law for everything. Just being a good idea, or being kind, or being fair does not imply that a law is required to make everybody go along with the good/kind/fair idea.
Ben Shapiro brings up a good point about the nature of laws. Ultimately, every law is enforced either by violence or by the threat of violence. Even laws that result in civil lawsuits are ultimately enforced this way.
For example, if a baker loses a lawsuit for not baking a wedding cake, and then refuses to pay damages, and then refuses to leave the bakery when the lien is enforced, the marshals will ultimately remove the baker by force (i.e, with violence) in order to enforce the gay wedding cake anti-discrimination law.
That means that unless you think a person's peaceful discrimination against (pick a category of person) is so bad that it is worth shooting someone to enforce it, there should not be a law against it.
That is why I don't think laws should deal with anything other than protecting people's physical selves or their property. At such time as we are legislating that people get access to someone else's property or mandating that they can demand control over what they do (like bake a cake) against someone's will, we are radically multiplying the instances when violence may be used to enforce the law.
A wedding cake is not more valuable than freedom ; to deny one a cake on account of their , sexuality , race or religion is discrimination.
A baker is in the business of baking and selling cakes to the public if he wants to exclude certain members of the public he should have the balls to state so in his signage .
I'm genuinely astonished that so many Americans on C D believe discrimination should be allowed , as too disallow it is a denial of a freedom .
Going on the same logic is it fair for an employer to advertise a job and state ' no niggers need apply ' as otherwise you're ' forcing him to employ a race he dislikes ?
Freedoms are stated in the American first amendment and seem perfectly fair and reasonable to me , freedom to discriminate is not part and parcel of the freedoms listed ......
Freedom of the press prohibits the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions. It can be limited by libel and copyright laws, and it doesn’t include the act of news gathering.
Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty. This freedom can be limited by laws that protect public safety.
Freedom of expression includes freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition. This freedom doesn’t extend to expression that defames, causes panic, creates fighting words, incites people to crime, creates sedition, or is obscene.
Freedom of speech is the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference. The right doesn’t extend to hate speech, advertising, child pornography, and a few other instances.
Freedom of religion is the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. This right extends to any religious belief, but not in the practice of all religious activities (for example, ones that involve breaking other laws).
That's actually a denial of freedom , when blacks were refused service in white restaurants was that whites expressing their value of freedom ?
When blacks were refused service by whites, those whites were not infringing on black peoples freedom. This is because people don't have the right to make demands of other people's property. If you tell me to get off your land, that's your decision to make.
But those whites didn't stop there. They also threw bricks threw the windows of businesses that served black people. They would burn down a business that tried to serve both. A black person would not be able to start an exclusively black business back then because it would be destroyed. The local government would not enforce the laws protecting everyone's freedom and property rights, so the federal government put a stop to it in the easiest, most effective way they could; by requiring that all are served.
Blacks were denied a freedom of choice which was not universally applied but used to specifically deny them the choice to do what others were allowed to do
They were denied the choice of some other peoples' products and services. In tern, those people denied themselves the potential revenue gained from an entire market group.
The denial of freedom came when black people were barred by force from doing what they wanted with their own property, i.e. Opening a business or barring white patrons.
I should note that a business in the US can still bar any patron they want so long as it is not because the patron belongs to a protected class (race, religion etc).
Yes they were denied the choice of people's products and services and they had no choice in the matter , the people that are denied revenue do so out of choice not granted to the people they deny .
Why would a business in the U S deny someone if it wasn't for race , religion or etc ?
Why would a business in the U S deny someone if it wasn't for race , religion or etc ?
What do you think dress codes at restaurants are for? They deny business to unwanted social-economic classes.
If I have a garage sale, and I tell you to get off my property, you have no say in the matter. I do. Because it's my property. That's what freedom looks like. If the mayor says I have to let you into my garage sale, where are my property rights? What freedom do I have?
Certain restaurants have dress codes, most people from the classes you cite do not use these restaurants for economic reasons and if they do so ' dress up ' for the occasion , they would be well aware of the dress codes as it's applied universally .
Mc Donald's not being a fine dining ' restaurant ' accept all classes and indeed all classes use it because they know it applies it's inclusivity universally .
If you have a garage sale that's fine , I take that to mean you wish to sell what goods you have ; if you tell me to get off your property why would you do that ?
You have the freedom to sell your goods , if you only want to sell to certain people because you don't like their particular race , religion or politics why not state this publically and in signage ?
You have your freedom but why not express it as in .... No niggers , Catholics or communists ( example ) served here
I'm baffled constantly by Americans on C D seeing discrimination as a positive as in its their right to refuse certain people based on religion , race or politics
Often people can afford a special occasion meal but not a special occasion suit.
It's not that it's a good thing to descriminate based on arbitrary or unsubstantiated criteria such as race. But some criteria are protected classes and others are not. Do You know some people hate redheads the way others hate a race? If I refused your business because you're a red head, there is no legal recourse. Nor is there recourse for discrimination based on looks, income, fashion sense, alma-matre, military service status, or criminal history.
Maybe I told you to get off my property because I know you to be on the public sex offender registry. It doesn't matter. What matters is that I cannot kick you off my property for certain reasons, but I can for all other reasons, even though they are equally unfair.
Is it fair to protect some arbitrary classes but not others?
Since your most fundamental property is your body, do you think it's appropriate to have race or gender preferences on dating websites? Is it ok for you to discriminate for certain types of social interaction, such as sex? Whatever your thoughts on this aspect, would your thoughts apply equally to legal prostitutes?
People know the requirements required for entry to such fine dining establishments prior to visiting .
As always scenarios like this in debate boil down to examples such as red heads , fashion sense , military service etc , etc ,which are extreme examples .
If you or I go into business with let's say a bakery on a busy street one would assume that the baker encourages trade with passers by , a customer would never suspect that he may be asked a barrage of questions regarding his / her sexuality , religion , political affiliations before purchasing a birthday cake for his kid .
Discrimination and racism are what they are , if individuals wish to trade with the public they should at least have the balls to post up signage as to what clientele they refuse to serve , but they cannot do that as it's against the law isn't it ?
My city has an interest in seeing that every one of its citizens is treated equally.. Can the city DEMAND that you put aside your prejudices in exchange for a license to serve the public? I think it CAN, and rightfully so.
Yes, it curtails your freedom.. But, that's what contracts DO.. You're certainly free to get a job or find another city more attuned to your likes and dislikes.. But, if you wanna engage IN business EVERY city in this country is gonna make demands upon you in exchange for the privilege of doing business in their city.. And, every one of those demands curtails your freedoms in one way or another..
If you are happy with the requirement to ask the local lord for permission before selling your wares, then you don't seem to care much about freedom.
Liberals have long been known for wanting to reduce our economic freedom for what they deem to be a higher moral good. Conservatives have long been known for wanting to reduce our social freedom for what they deem to be a higher moral good. Neither have been known for wanting to defend freedom.
If the local lord did decide you could sell your wares to an exclusive groups, would you be ok with it then? If not, that ok because the King wouldn't let the lords permit it.
Can the city DEMAND that you put aside your prejudices in exchange for a license to serve the public? I think it CAN, and rightfully so.
Here you are sidestepping the question.
You seem to be indicating that people do not already have the freedom to engage (or not) in voluntary social interactions (trade) with other free people.
I understand you are talking about the role of law and legal rights, (and lack thereof) but you do not address the value of freedom in and of itself.
Your statement indicates on its face that you think freedom is less valuable than access to particular goods and services from particular parties.
Frankly, the proposition that things are more valuable than freedom does not sound like something you would ever propose.
So, to clarify,
- - What do you think freedom is good for?
- - How valuable (or not) is freedom compared to other things like dignity, security, prosperity, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome?
- - What place does freedom play (or not) in the creation or support of things like dignity, security, prosperity, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome? (i.e., to what extent is freedom valuable because of its contribution to these things.)
I understand you are talking about the role of law and legal rights, (and lack thereof) but you do not address the value of freedom in and of itself.
Hello again, marcus:
If I had my druthers, I'd do away with ALL regulations.. I don't think we need anything more than our founding documents. They essentially TELL us how to behave. If we emulated them, we wouldn't NEED regulations..
Being the Accomplished Restaurateur that you are CON does " No Shoes , No Shirt , No Service " ring a bell ? Are you saying being the Accomplished Restaurateur you are you would allow anyone in without shoes and a shirt ?
I think I've answered that several times.. But, I'll indulge you further... Restaurants that posted signs like that were ANTI - hippie.. I wasn't ANTI - hippie.. I WAS a hippie.. Still am.
"Restaurants that posted signs like that were ANTI - hippie.. I wasn't ANTI - hippie.. I WAS a hippie.. Still am."
So restaurants that post signs like "No Shoes , No Shirt , No Service are ANTI -hippie but the great Restaurateur that you are you view those restaurant owners as haters now is that correct ?
Time for another story you're not gonna like.. When I got to Steamboat Springs, Colorado it was cowboy town, and they didn't like hippies.. But, after a few years, the cowboys grew their hair long, and the hippies were roping steers.. And, EVERYBODY was smoking GOOD weed.
All excon has got is a very active imagination and i cannot see anything it says as being factual at all. But i have one thing to say ask it what fleet it served under in the Navy during the Vietnam War it supposedly was in and just watch the spin on that.
Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint in choice or action. Political freedom is the most common use of the term and refers to an absence of government coercion.
Freedom does more harm than good because people are not rational actors, as psychology, sociology, and behavioral economics are discovering more and more. Individuals systematically act in predictably irrational ways.
This means that freedom to choose for ones self is freedom to be systematically wrong. Freedom of choice is freedom to be stupid.
Through careful analysis and study, removing irrational bias, we can discover the right course of action on a broad level.
Removing freedom would allow the proper course of action to be forced.
The fact that forced virtues are not true virtues is irrelevant. The important thing is that the virtue is expressed, whether by force or by choice. It is unlikely to be expressed by choice.
I am fairly sure that you mean well, but I have noticed the trend in history that those who mean well seem to cause the most havoc, pain, and suffering.
The fact that forced virtues are not true virtues is irrelevant. The important thing is that the virtue is expressed, whether by force or by choice. It is unlikely to be expressed by choice.
What you are suggesting is that people not have the choice to be "virtuous," but rather should be coerced to be "virtuous."
I doubt you noticed the hidden implication in this: Any law that mandates some particular "virtuous" action, must first define FOR EVERYONE in the society what constitutes virtue. This brings up four questions.
- 1 - What happens when there is a lack of consensus about what is virtuous behavior?
- 2 - Who gets to make the final decision about what constitutes virtue?
- 3 - Who decides why their standards of virtue are better than the standards of others?
- 4 - What happens if an entire society is enslaved by the standards of the so called "virtuous" and acting on those standards have destructive consequences?
- 5 - Can you name a single despot or oppressive government that thought it was anything but in the right?
Twentieth Century examples of people whose standards of "virtue" were imposed on entire nations include:
- - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (ISIS)
- - Adolf Hitler (Nazi)
- - Benito Mussolini (Fascisti)
- - Josef Stalin (Communist-Russia)
- - Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (Taliban)
- - Mao Tse Tung (Communist-China)
- - Nicolae Ceausescu (Communist-Romania)
Three of these were elected to their positions. All of these paragons of "virtue" either had large followings who approved their standards of virtue, or championed standards of "virtue" already popular with one or another segment of their societies prior to rising to governmental power. Subsequently each ultimately oppressed those societies into acting "virtuously".
It is much easier and much safer for everyone to have the freedom to decide for themselves what virtue is, and to have the freedom to act on that freedom insofar as it does not physically impede on the persons or property of anyone else.
That way people's freedom to determine and aspire to their own standards of virtue temper each other.
insofar as it does not physically impede on the persons or property of anyone else
This is your own top-down imposition of virtue. We have greater and greater means to understand well-being in increasingly objective terms. The advances of science are providing more and more answers concerning mental, physical, and societal health. To maintain the value of freedom is to ignore the importance of progress. It doesn't matter if not everyone agrees. Obviously not everyone thinks they should be jailed for stealing. We who care about justice, don't care what those people think.
We ask people to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and if they don't there are severe penalties. Those who care about honesty don't need the consent of liars.
The point is that we already force virtue. We force the ones that are obvious. But we are at a point in time when more and more virtues will become more and more apparent. To refrain from forcing them for the sake of freedom is to uphold tradition over the good of civilization.
You may notice that I am taking a very different position than usual. This is called devils advocate Q. I'm doing it because I always find myself arguing for freedom against micro tyrants like you. I noticed that your lot is never good at it. So I am arguing as hard as I can against freedom because I am better at it than people like you, who actually believe it.
Though it's beside the point, I've always noticed that volks like you have a very specific definition of civilian, and that is anyone struck, in any way, by anyone you don't like.
Also, "brother" is the greatest insult you have thus far hurled. Good job.
I'm doing it because I always find myself arguing for freedom against micro tyrants like you.
Right brother. You're promoting tyranny because you always find yourself arguing against tyrants. Makes perfect sense. What better way to argue for freedom than by insisting everybody should have the same opinion as you? Excellent logic.
Amarel, you are so crooked and dishonest that I challenge you could even lie straight in bed.
Right. The people arguing against me are arguing for freedom. If they can win the argument against me, they will have no problem with people like you. They will be better off and so will my position.
Right. The people arguing against me are arguing for freedom
When you insist that people should think what you tell them to think and they argue with you, then yes, they are the ones arguing for freedom.
If they can win the argument against me
Nobody can win an argument against you because you do not accept or acknowledge when the law of reason disproves what you are saying. Winning an argument with a liar is impossible.
When you insist that people should think what you tell them
When have I insisted this?
I want people to think true and correct things. Obviously I believe that will align with what I think. But I have never just insisted that people think what I tell them. Most of what you claim about me is this kind of hollow fluff.
Nobody can win an argument against you
Haha sure they can. You can't manage it tough guy, but others can.
I notice you ignored my questions about who gets to decide what virtue is, and that you ignored the examples of despots who took it upon themselves to do so. I appreciate your response, but I am interested in your thoughts about the heart of my argument.
I wrote, "...insofar as it does not physically impede on the persons or property of anyone else," and you responded with:
This is your own top-down imposition of virtue.
To clarify, that is actuallynot a definition of virtue, or even of absence of vice. Not physically impeding the person or property of others is just a basic boundary between one's own freedom and the freedom of others.
I could have written, "respect the freedom of others," but that would have been too vague.
One of the advantages of freedom is nobody has to deal with any top-down definition of virtue.
To maintain the value of freedom is to ignore the importance of progress.
I assume you have a specific concept of "progress" that does not require free people to develop it. I cannot imagine what that is.
Certainly progress implies beneficial change. Who decides what is beneficial?
Again, the advantage of freedom is that nobody is subjugated and forced to serve the advancement of any single person's definition of progress.
I notice you ignored my questions about who gets to decide
Who decided that honesty was a virtue worth enforcing in a courtroom? Who decided to throw people in jail if they lack respect for the property rights of others? We know that some things need to be enforced because of a long history of experience. Law makers decide whether and in what way to enforce laws, just as they always have and would in my scenario. As I said in my other post, the discoveries of science would inform their decisions.
You said Not physically impeding the person or property of others is just a basic boundary between one's own freedom and the freedom of others. and that it is actually not a definition of virtue, or even of absence of vice.
Not a definition, but an example. Restraint is certainly a virtue. One that you would enforce by law. Even if you worded it differently to say respect the freedom of others, you are still smuggling in the virtue of respect.
I assume you have a specific concept of "progress" that does not require free people to develop it
It does not require free people to learn that smoking is almost completely harmful and almost no benefit. We have begun the long slow process of removing this chemical scourge from our society. Before we are done, millions more will have died from smoking and from smokers. If we were less free, the scourge would be removed right now, and millions of lives saved.
Who decides what is beneficial?
You don't honestly believe that a people can exist beyond the level of a caveman without a common understanding of what is beneficial do you? Who decided murder wasn't beneficial? Who are we to say John can't steal from Tom? What right does the state have to enforce perjury laws? Who decided?
As for your examples of despots, they knew exactly what they were doing. Kim Jung Un is not under the mistaken impression that he wants progress. They turned the mechanisms of totalitarianism to their own personal gain. But the function of government, having checks and balances to keep power roles controlled, does not require a free people to function, to insure a malevolent leader can't rise. Indeed as your own examples show, free people often usher in their own malevolent leader. If they weren't free to choose, they couldn't have done that.
Amarel,It does not require free people to learn that smoking is almost completely harmful and almost no benefit. We have begun the long slow process of removing this chemical scourge from our society.
Actually, it did require free people to do the studies on smoking. Don't you think the tobacco companies would have liked to prevent the conducting and publishing of the studies. It does require people to be free to speak their minds about the physical costs of smoking in order to make stop smoking advertisements, etc..
The Age of Reason and the scientific revolution could not happen in Europe until the Reformation broke the Roman Catholic Church's stranglehold on thought and the development of scientific knowledge. Before that, even saying that the earth revolves around the sun was heretical and could get you sent to the Inquisitor for torture, imprisonment, and execution.
The enforced orthodoxy and repression of free thought in the Islamic world has kept most Muslim societies stuck in the 8th Century.
People who are free to think new ideas, and free to test them, and free to implement them are required for progress.
So, do you have ANY concept of progress that does not require people to have the freedom to move past the status quo to progress?
No, it really didn't require free people. Not only did the Nazis understand the hazards of smoking, and enforce laws accordingly, but our own research was completely Government funded. Do you know what private entities was interested in taking down a whole market? No one. Tobacco companies would have most certainly liked to stop such research, as you said, but the government is hard to stop. To act as though understanding the hazards of tobacco requires freedom is to avoid the clear facts at hand. That discovery does not need a free people.
Science does not need the ability to elect leaders in order that it continues to function. Scientists only need their method and their access to appropriate tools. They have their method, and government can give them the rest.
Referring to a dictatorship of faith to denounce a dictatorship of reason is comparing apples to oranges. I might counter with comparing either to our current dictatorship of the elected. Freedom comes in degrees, and we could use a lot less of it.
Freedom comes in degrees, and we could use a lot less of it.
Wow, I figured you were a bit on the left side, but in order to hate or freedom as much as you do, you must be a pretty hardcore leftist.
-
Science does not need the ability to elect leaders in order that it continues to function. Scientists only need their method and their access to appropriate tools.
I guess I am confused by the insertion of elected leaders into the conversation.
How one gets leaders has less to do with freedom than to what degree the leaders believe they know better than everyone else how people should live their lives.
The basic premise behind illegalizing drugs, including tobacco, and illegalizing abortion, and similar laws is exactly the same as the premise behind slavery: that no individual should actually own his or her meat.
Sure, you think you would not enslave people and make them work for you against their own wills. You are a kind person and you only want the best for people. Moreover, you think that you know better than all the people whose freedom you favor limiting in order to make the world better.
How do you know who knows better?
What makes you so sure you actually know better and are qualified to make such pronouncements ?
The basic reason you side with people who would enslave a baker by forcing him to bake a cake against his will is that you think you know better than the baker what the world should be. It does not even have to be a particular baker, yet your pronouncements assume, without knowing them all, that you must know better than all of them how the world should be.
The uncertainty about what is best, or who knows what that that might be is the primary reason for extending the greatest possible freedom to all people, starting with ownership of their own meat, and the legal right to do with it what they want provided they do not interfere physically with the persons or property of others.
Wow, I figured you were a bit on the left side, but in order to hate or freedom as much as you do, you must be a pretty hardcore leftist.
Your mischaracterization of my position seems to serve no other purpose but as a prelude to continued avoidance of the points I have made.
I guess I am confused by the insertion of elected leaders into the conversation
Political freedom is another example of freedom of which we could use less. We started with minimal democracy in the US and the expansion of it, which has been baselessly held as an ideal, has gotten us Trump and a Legislature with ridiculously poor approval ratings from the same uninformed masses entrusted to elect them.
How one gets leaders has less to do with freedom than to what degree the leaders believe they know better than everyone elsehow people should live their lives
You believe that people should live their lives in a way that is not harmful to others. This is your hypocrisy. Our leaders believe we should be honest, respect property rights, and not harm others. These virtues of honesty respect and restraint are enforced by law with guns and cages. Yet you would call it justice and still claim freedom as an ideal.
My point is that as obvious as are the benefits derived from the above virtues (currently enforced without your objection), more virtues, habits, and modes of behavior are equally beneficial and increasingly obvious.
The basic premise behind illegalizing drugs, including tobacco, and illegalizing abortion, and similar laws is exactly the same as the premise behind slavery: that no individual should actually own his or her meat
Your pretending you don't understand the perspective of people who are pro-life. Even so, it's beside the point, as is most of what you posted.
Your argument for freedom is basically that one person can't truly know what is a better way to live than another person. How can anyone possibly know better than the increasingly uneducated obese population what makes for better health choices? How can anyone know better than the gutter thief that life is better with property rights? Who could possibly know that neither Trump nor Clinton were good choices for President?
Often, the "so-called experts" are actually experts. While there are a good many things that we cannot say for sure about how to live life well, there are also a good many things that we can say about how people live life poorly. But we hold freedom as an ideal to be maintained for no reason other than it sounds good. You haven't provided much of a reason anyway. So the Right to live wrong is maintained in the name of freedom. Yeah, we need less of it.
The basic reason you side with people who would enslave a baker by forcing him to bake a cake against his will is that you think you know better than the baker what the world should be
An effective argument would be against my actual position rather than one you made up for me. I'll wait.
Your mischaracterization of my position seems to serve no other purpose but as a prelude to continued avoidance of the points I have made.
I did not mean to mischaracterize your position. I apologize. I have repeatedly tried to address what I perceive to be your main points (in the context of the question of what is the value of freedom).
Early on you wrote:
Freedom does more harm than good because people are not rational actors, as psychology, sociology, and behavioral economics are discovering more and more. Individuals systematically act in predictably irrational ways.
And
The important thing is that the virtue is expressed, whether by force or by choice. It is unlikely to be expressed by choice.
And later
Freedom comes in degrees, and we could use a lot less of it.
You clearly favor some people coercing (your word) other people to live in particular ways with restrictions on our freedom in addition to the restrictions we already have. In trying to address this, I asked you some questions which you somehow missed.
Please answer the following critical practical questions I asked about how to implement your vision. That would be helpful in me having something to work with in knowing what your vision boils down to.
- 1 - What happens when there is a lack of consensus about what is virtuous behavior?
- 2 - Who gets to make the final decision about what constitutes virtue? Here virtue encompasses other things you brought up like health decisions (prioritized, I assume over pleasures like smoking or overeating).
- 3 - Who decides why their standards of virtue are better than the standards of others?
- 4 - What happens if an entire society is enslaved to the standards of the so called "virtuous" and acting on those standards has destructive consequences?
Please answer the following critical practical questions
I will answer your questions and ask a few of my own.
What happens when there is a lack of consensus about what is virtuous behavior?
What does the science community do when there is a lack of consensus about knowledge? They keep looking. As I said in a previous post, there are a lot of things that we cannot be sure are good for you. Fine. But there are also a lot of things that we are certain are bad for you, but we let them go. There is not a consensus about theft, if there was, we wouldn't have the thieves we have.
-Questions: Can we know healthy dietary choices better than a morbidly obese person with no thyroid problem?
If the morbidly obese person is raising a child and giving them the same food that caused the obese persons condition, is that child freely choosing their unhealthy consumption?
Who gets to make the final decision about what constitutes virtue? Here virtue encompasses other things you brought up like health decisions (prioritized, I assume over pleasures like smoking or overeating).
Well, who decided that excessive consumption of saturated fat should be avoided? Who decided cigarettes should be avoided or that aerobic exercise should be pursued? The scientific community discovers these things. The Legislature composes laws concerning these things. The Executive and Judicial enact these things.
I am not presenting anything very functionally different from what already is. I am challenging your adherence to freedom to the detriment of society.
-Question: Why is freedom a good to be upheld above well-being?
Who decides why their standards of virtue are better than the standards of others?
Health is a good analogy here. How do we know someone has good dietary habits vs bad dietary habits? Who decided that some diets are better than others? It is not a matter of the subjective opinion of some Furher. It is observed reality.
We know that property rights have better outcomes than community ownership (free for the taking). We know that honesty is imperative to good social order and business. We know that refraining from doing violence is necessary for the well-being of all. We have laws based on these virtues.
Questions: Who decided that the virtue of restraint from harming others (your non-aggression) is better than the virtue of strength, wherein might makes right? Have you ever asked who got to make the laws we currently have based on the virtues Restraint? Are you against these laws because someone else had to codify and enforce them?
What happens if an entire society is enslaved to the standards of the so called "virtuous" and acting on those standards has destructive consequences?
When a singular force is directing a culture, then the faults of that direction can be easily pinned to its source. When cultural direction is centralized, it can be far more easily directed and redirected as necessary as opposed to the random, often irrational cultural direction chosen by the whims of the diffuse free people. If circumstances arise wherein the wrong cultural direction is left uncorrected, and negative results follow, one of two things will happen; either the country will weaken and fall to a heartier people (as can happen with free societies), or the mass of people will overthrow the ruling class as predicted by social contract theorists (a proletariat uprising is the free capitalist equivalent).
Question: What happens if an entire society is sunk to the standards of the lowest vices in the name of freedom, and acting on those standards has destructive consequences?
-Questions: Can we know healthy dietary choices better than a morbidly obese person with no thyroid problem?
Yes, we can know healthy dietary choices better, but I see no reason to believe we can know better (than the obese person ) whether the pleasure of a deep fried Twinkie holds less weight (pardon the pun) than the pleasure of seeing his toes.
The problem with legislating personal behavior, is that it becomes de facto legislation of VALUES. We all live differently than each other because our values are different. Do you want to be forced to live by my values? I seriously doubt it.
If the morbidly obese person is raising a child and giving them the same food that caused the obese persons condition, is that child freely choosing their unhealthy consumption?
I am glad you phrased it this way because what you are recommending is essentially that everyone in the society be treated like a child, without freedom to choose their own values or live by them. Just as children are slaves to their parents' preferences, you would enslave us all to the preferences of lawmakers.
Obviously some of that cannot (and should not) be avoided, but we passed that line long ago.
Only 16% of Americans polled approve of how well Congress is doing (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/13/congress-approval-rating-remains-low-september/) That does not sound like most Americans will approve of them being the bodies to select the values by which we must all live our private lives.
You seem to disagree. Okay. Go ahead. Name 51 US Senators you would allow to choose any two of the following:
your diet
your friends
your profession
the person for whom you have to work
your way of raising children
how to spend your free time
-Question: Why is freedom a good to be upheld above well-being?
Short Answer 1: Well-being is an end (which differs for everybody) whereas freedom is a means that allows all people simultaneously to move toward their different states of well-being.
Short Answer 2: Without freedom, you can never achieve anything but physical well-being because freedom is required to move past the second level of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
Long Answer: Consider that the physical well-being of most plantation slaves in the Antebellum South was much better than that of the average Irish immigrant in the North at the same time.
This was because the slave was a valuable investment that had to be maintained with sufficient amounts of nourishing food, sufficient shelter and medical care to ensure that the slave could work and deliver returns on the investment.
By contrast the Irish immigrants had no such entity with an investment in their well-being. They starved, lived in tenements with worse sanitation and health conditions than slave cabins. They did, however have the tradeoff of freedom.
The very fact of slavery being illegal is predicated on the value of freedom over well-being.
With freedom comes dignity, self-esteem and self-respect, the ability to develop relationships with those we choose, and to know they freely chose us, and freedom is necessary to achieve our dreams and grow to our full potential.
I am not presenting anything very functionally different from what already is. I am challenging your adherence to freedom to the detriment of society.
What you are proposing is not only a continuance, but an extension of the declaration that government owns people's bodies, that none of us actually owns our own meat to freely do with it as we will. The word for that, Amarel, is SLAVERY
We know that property rights have better outcomes than community ownership. Yes, we do, yet you have insisted that the baker should not have property rights over his/her labor and choice of to whom to sell that labor.
Questions: Who decided that the virtue of restraint from harming others (your non-aggression) is better than the virtue of strength, wherein might makes right?
Actually the comparative values of restraint vice strength are not in opposition.
The rule of not interfering physically with someone's person or property is not even a value. It is a means to balance all values to the maximum possible extent by enabling those who hold different values to coexist with the maximum possible freedom.
Think of it as a game rule whose sole purpose is to preserve the game's playability.
Question: What happens if an entire society is sunk to the standards of the lowest vices in the name of freedom, and acting on those standards has destructive consequences?
- 1 - Freedom enables individuals to choose not to sink "to the standards of the lowest vices'' which makes it less likely that the entire society will sink
Freedom is a way to mitigate such a risk by encouraging diversification of the moral portfolio.
- 2 - Sharia is a set of laws to prevent society from sinking to the standards of the lowest vices. It is rather odd, and quite amazing. It turns out that slavery, oppression of women, killing people who decide to stop being Muslim, and throwing homosexuals from the tops of buildings are not actually among the lowest vices. I would have thought they were, but apparently I was wrong. It turns out people actually need to be protected from the destructive consequences of eating bacon, drinking wine, being raped without enough witnesses, and deciding to stop being Muslim.
It is a good thing we did not have enough of that inconvenient freedom to prevent the imposition of Sharia in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, all those cities and territories run by ISIS.
No, I think we can end the exercise here (Short answers 1 and 2 "Why is freedom a good to be upheld above well-being?" were decent enough), and I will tell you the areas with which I am disappointed.
First, you didn't answer all my questions. When I asked if children were free to choose their bad habits, the fact that they are not would lead me to ask why government should not have the ability to interject on the child's behalf, as we already do if the detriment is considered great enough. Instead, you didn't answer the question. You used it as a spring board for a different aspect of the debate. Your avoidance of the answer was apparent.
When I asked about a society sinking with freedom as an excuse, you said it doesn't. Society does, in fact degrade if people are protected against the outcomes of their freely chosen actions. A free society with minimal bailouts encourages both societal and individual growth. A free society of protected outcomes degrades into sloth and greed.
When I argue for a reason-based tyranny, it is false comparison for you to argue against a faith-based tyranny. You would be better off comparing my position to the USSR, which attempted what they thought was a reason-based tyranny.
The question of which politicians should make my decisions for me was already countered when I pointed out that political freedom is what got us our lousy politicians.
Despite my critique of your response, short answers 1 and 2 "Why is freedom a good to be upheld above well-being?" were, as I said, decent enough.
I recommend you take a look at the very short thread between Quantumhead and I on this debate.
First, you didn't answer all my questions. When I asked if children were free to choose their bad habits...
I am sorry I buried my answer. I thought it was clear enough in the statement, "Just as children are slaves to their parents' preferences, you would enslave us all to the preferences of lawmakers." I did not understand the question to be more than that, but here is the answer to the question you now seem to be asking:
There is a reality that I learned (had pounded into me) as a parent that your experience may not have borne out--we only have moderate to minimal control over who our kids turn out to be. For example, it is a crap shoot as to whether fat parents will raise kids who are fat, anorexic, or fitness nuts. It is amazing to see how many kids end up with different religious beliefs than their folks. I, my twin brother, and my sister have different enough beliefs, and have lived different enough lives that one would be doubtful that we were raised in the same family.
Regarding ..would lead me to ask why government should not have the ability to interject on the child's behalf, as we already do if the detriment is considered great enough, we find ourselves back at the game rule of not interfering in the physical person of another. Granted, he special case of parent-child relationship blurs this a bit, but the abuse and neglect laws in most states actually address this pretty effectively. During my time as a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigator, I came across remarkably little actual neglect or abuse.
Society does, in fact degrade if people are protected against the outcomes of their freely chosen actions.
WE AGREE! :)
Absolutely I believe in personal accountability as a necessary aspect of freedom. If the government stays out of our lives enough, it is ultimately intrinsic to our freely chosen actions. People are much less likely to use our freedom wisely, or exercise reasonable restraint when we do not have to deal with the natural consequences of our actions. This is one of the main problems with socialism and the (corporate and individual) welfare state.
-- Welfare and related programs, for example, protect people from the natural consequences of having babies before being married and having a job; of having more kids than they can reliably support; of doing drugs; and of choosing to have poor attendance in school, to do other things than homework, or to drop out.
-- State funded rehab programs protect people from the natural consequences of making the decision to do addictive drugs.
-- Government bailout of corporations prevents companies' management teams from the consequences of poor management decisions.
A free society of protected outcomes degrades into sloth and greed.
AMEN! Preach to this choir, and I will sing for you!
--It is possible that where we really disagree is how well natural selection and operant conditioning principles (and the free market) naturally work to promote a peaceful and prosperous society, PROVIDED there is NO MECHANISM to protect people from the natural consequences of our actions. (e.g. a bigoted baker who refuses business for illogical reasons will be naturally less prosperous, and more accepting business owners will be rewarded with larger customer bases. I believe that free market forces and competition will weed out bigoted behavior, and encourage acceptance.) Ultimately peace is based in mutual need and interdependence of interests.
--Alternately, it is possible you think that government will absolutely and inevitably continue to bail folks out and protect us from our individual follies. I do not actually buy this, but maybe you do. In the face of inevitable government protection, I don't think your point would be totally unfounded, just incredibly sad.
I think that it is sad primarily because given a welfare state, AT BEST, government limitations of personal freedom can only slow the degradation into sloth and greed.
I think we can end the exercise here.
Yep. I enjoyed it. Thank you. I look forward to the next one.
the definition of freedom changes as per the feelings of the person. why did you not help them when you could? ans- my wish, i am free to do as i please.... why did you not inform them of the impending tragedy? my wish... etc etc. freedom is only an escape route that we adopt when we don't want to do something. now a days its all about my life my rules, my question is, what's wrong in thinking about others a little, after all no matter where we run to, we co exist. what's wrong in making it peaceful for us as well as for them?
Constitutional freedom is a list of specific freedoms you are entitled to for being a member of that society. The nature and scope of those freedoms gets further defined by the wording of the Constitution as well as through laws as well as through judicial review of constitutionality of laws.
What that second paragraph means is in the context of constitutional freedoms one right ends when it starts to impede on one of the other constitutional rights. The laws, and the courts' reviews of those laws, have already long established that you cannot discriminate.
Those who are arguing that isn't truly freedom ultimately have their beef with living in a constitutional society. Personally, I'll take a Constitution over a do whatever the F you want world. And that's not failing to value freedom. It's instead understanding that the framework of law and order and fairness set forth in a Constitution is key to the maximum number of people enjoying real freedoms.
YOU ARE VERY WRONG, capitalism allows people to opperate FREELY, without government interference. capitalism is better for the whole because people have to better their products to succeed.
One should be permitted to do as one pleases, as long as nobody's rights are violated. At the same time though, one has a responsibility to pay taxes if they use the services, infrastructure etc. that taxes pay for. As for abridgement of freedom to serve a moral good, I don't believe that this makes sense except where necessary for the protection of people's rights.
I think it's important to separate certain rights into several subcategories: the rights of the individual, the rights of a business, the rights of a church or other religious establishment, and the rights of the government. For the purposes of this argument we will stick to the hypothetical gay marriage in question.
Of course, gay couples should be allowed to be married. This should be recognized by the government like any other marriage. This does NOT mean that a church should be forced to perform that wedding. As much as we may disagree with some clergy on the morality of same sex marriage, they should not be forced to perform a marriage they do not see as valid. Of course, other churches that perform gay weddings are available for the couple, as are court marriages.
As far as businesses baking cakes: No, a business should not be forced to serve anyone, they should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. And really, the business owner is just shooting themselves in the foot. They're not only turning down the business that's directly in front of them, but they're alienating customers who don't want to give their money to an establishment that won't bake a freaking cake over such a benign difference.
In short: let the gays get married. The people who don't like it, are assholes. But it's silly and stupid and wrong to force them to like it.