CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:129
Arguments:148
Total Votes:187
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What does Freedom mean? (106)

Debate Creator

Kitk34(185) pic



What does Freedom mean?

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the word Freedom?

What about the word Anarchy?
Add New Argument
3 points

What does Freedom mean? What about anarchy

Hello K:

Freedom and anarchy are two sides of the same coin.

excon

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

How so? Can you explain?

I ask only for purposes of the debate.

Spanner(29) Clarified
1 point

Anarchy is the only freedom there is. Any type of law which restricts or punishes certain behaviours is an effort to control society in some way, and hence make it less free.

2 points

my take on anarchy is somewhat unconventional. where it is commonly understood as a position that calls for the abolition of the state, i instead regard it is an attitude towards the state (i.e. that the state is not and cannot be legitimate).

Amarel(5470) Clarified
2 points

That seems accurate in a world of governments.

I have a loosely relevant personal question. Do you regard yourself as a pacifist?

Jace(5168) Clarified
1 point

i am decidedly not a pacifist. why?

1 point

Okay, I had some decent answers before it turned into an insult fest. I do not want to ban anyone, but I do ask people to be civil. It got way off topic and is taking away the purpose of this debate. I ask that it stops, now.

Here is my definition of Freedom: "No Masters, No Slaves." That does not mean there are no rules to follow, such as, "first do no harm, then, do as you please"-Mark Passio

Anarchy means: "Without Rulers." Again, it does not mean no rules. The only Law that applies to us is Natural Law. I agree with this definition of a Right is: "An action that does no harm to another sentient being."-Mark Passio

Some here said that no law can restrict behavior and still have a person be free, however, as the saying goes, "your freedom ends where my nose begins". We still have to conduct ourselves appropriately, if we are to live amongst each other.

Passio also, observes this Truth: "As Morality increases, Freedom increases. As Morality decreases, Freedom decreases." And yet, Anarchy is Reality. That is, no one has the right to rule over others. That right does not exist.

I agree that Anarchy and Freedom go hand in hand. But Anarchy still exists, even if totalitarianism has taken over and tyranny is successful. The only reason, they would be is because people support them, either directly or indirectly. This would lead to no Freedom, given that they are immoral and supporting evil acts.

MrClementine(83) Clarified Banned
1 point

Here is my definition of Freedom: "No Masters, No Slaves." That does not mean there are no rules to follow, such as, "first do no harm, then, do as you please"-Mark Passio

It does though. Whoever makes the rules is the master, and whoever has to obey them is the slave.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

It does though. Whoever makes the rules is the master, and whoever has to obey them is the slave.

That's just it, no man is fit to make the rules. Natural Law is not man-made. We discover what the Principles are within it, then, we decide to live with it or go against it, at our own peril. This is what I was pointing out in the argument I posted.

Jody(1742) Disputed Banned
1 point

Okay, I had some decent answers before it turned into an insult fest. I do not want to ban anyone, but I do ask people to be civil. It got way off topic and is taking away the purpose of this debate. I ask that it stops, now.

Well maybe you should take your own advice calling others opinions “bullshit” is not going to get you any respect from me or others , civil debate is a rarity here as people like you detest different opinions .....it’s why I no longer debate here as it’s just constant bickering and trolling

excon(14905) Disputed
1 point

Anarchy means: "Without Rulers." Again, it does not mean no rules.

Hello again, K:

It's a nice to think that people will obey the rules because, well they're nice. History tells us, however, that if left to their own devices, people won't obey the rules. Hence, rulers..

excon

Jody(1742) Banned
1 point

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the word Freedom?

Define “freedom” please ?

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

Define “freedom” please ?

I did this in my argument I posted. I said that Freedom means "No Masters, No Slaves".

But I was asking for your definition, initially. Or anyone else's, for that matter.

Jody(1742) Clarified Banned
1 point

I did this in my argument I posted. I said that Freedom means "No Masters, No Slaves".

That’s way to broad “ master” in what way ? “Slave “ in what way ?

But I was asking for your definition, initially. Or anyone else's, for that matter.

I didn’t offer one because there is no such thing as freedom only ideas about what constitutes such

1 point

Free means absent coercion or constraint. In my post I will refer only to freedom only in the social sense, and not in the metaphysical sense, ie this is a matter of politics and not the inherent nature of human action.

Freedom is the ability to act on one's own judgement concerning one's self and one's property, absent coercion or constraint from other agents. Individuals coerce and constrain others all the time through assault, harassment, swindle, theft, etc. They also coerce and constrain through social pressure and security measures and other commonly accepted means.

People create institutions designed to set the standard for what kind of coercion/constraint is not to be tolerated (crimes). These institutions dictate how people will determine if a crime has been committed (due process) and what the consequences will be (punishment/restitution).

In other words, no one is completely free from other people. Civil and criminal law is the mechanism by which we fight against certain kinds of coercion/constraint in an organized and predictable manner.

Anarchy is the lack of legal institutions. Lacking an organized and predictable mechanism to counter certain kinds of coercion and constraint does not eliminate coercion and constrain. Rather it maximizes the ability to engage in those specific kinds of coercion and constraints that laws are designed to address. If someone takes your brand new car, your recourse is whatever you can do to get it back. That means you need more muscle then the guy who took it. Of course, that's assuming a new car could even be produced without the institutions that protect property rights, enforce contract law, maintain infrastructure, and enforce traffic safety measures along said infrastructure.

Freedom is not an inherent good. That's why we lock our doors. Some people should not have the freedom to enter without constraint. Nor is coercion/constraint an inherent evil. That why we constrain others with our locked doors and coerce others if they bypass such constraints.

Wherever people can overcome differences to sufficiently organize against specific kinds of coercion/constraint, anarchy disappears; and freedom is increased.

Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

Freedom is the ability to act on one's own judgement concerning one's self and one's property, absent coercion or constraint from other agents.

Okay, not all that different then, what I said in my argument about Freedom.

Individuals coerce and constrain others all the time through assault, harassment, swindle, theft, etc. They also coerce and constrain through social pressure and security measures and other commonly accepted means.

I don't think it is all the time. Perhaps it depends on where you are, such as, a bigger city. There really is no right to the use of coercion, or forcing your will upon another. And we have personal constraint that we use.

People create institutions designed to set the standard for what kind of coercion/constraint is not to be tolerated (crimes). These institutions dictate how people will determine if a crime has been committed (due process) and what the consequences will be (punishment/restitution).

Yeah, and those institutions are way out of bounds these days. There are Tens of thousands in prison who did no harm to anyone else. But they are there for a victimless crime of some sort. And there is no restitution in criminal courts, only punishment.

In other words, no one is completely free from other people. Civil and criminal law is the mechanism by which we fight against certain kinds of coercion/constraint in an organized and predictable manner.

The free market can and does a better job as a mechanism to resolve such issues. It is just as organized as the State apparatus, if not better.

Anarchy is the lack of legal institutions.

Actually, it means "without rulers". That just means there is no one to dictate and control others. No one has "special rights" in the name of Government. Or can magically make a wrong action into a right one.

Lacking an organized and predictable mechanism to counter certain kinds of coercion and constraint does not eliminate coercion and constrain.

No, and there are better ways to have such mechanisms, without the State.

Rather it maximizes the ability to engage in those specific kinds of coercion and constraints that laws are designed to address.

Not really. It happens regardless of such "laws". There are so many of man's laws on the books, that it is hard to tell if one is "breaking the law" or not. They are flimsy and change with the whims of politicians.

If someone takes your brand new car, your recourse is whatever you can do to get it back. That means you need more muscle then the guy who took it. Of course, that's assuming a new car could even be produced without the institutions that protect property rights, enforce contract law, maintain infrastructure, and enforce traffic safety measures along said infrastructure.

We don't need a State to do this. As I pointed out, the free market can provide the means to handle these things.

Freedom is not an inherent good. That's why we lock our doors. Some people should not have the freedom to enter without constraint. Nor is coercion/constraint an inherent evil. That why we constrain others with our locked doors and coerce others if they bypass such constraints.

Ah, I say Freedom is an inherent good. Perhaps the ultimate that a person can achieve. If you are talking about self-defense measures, I can agree with that. That is a responsibility that, I say Freedom requires that we do to protect against those who do not see it as wrong to harm others.

Wherever people can overcome differences to sufficiently organize against specific kinds of coercion/constraint, anarchy disappears; and freedom is increased.

No, as I said in my argument, Anarchy is Reality. However, I would agree that Freedom will increase as people do what you say. Or as they increase Morality amongst each other.

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

However, I would agree that Freedom will increase as people do what you say.

Meaning do what you are talking about.

Amarel(5470) Disputed
1 point

I don't think it is all the time. Perhaps it depends on where you are, such as, a bigger city. There really is no right to the use of coercion, or forcing your will upon another. And we have personal constraint that we use.

If you have a gated fence around your property, that constrains the free movement of others. Same thing with locked car doors. If someone bypasses your legitimate constraints on their freedom, then you rightfully coerce them out of your home or car (or have the police come coerce them).

In social interactions we give each other countless verbal and nonverbal cues that tell people where social barriers are (constraints) and sometimes signal a warning (threat of coercion) when barriers are crossed.

Yeah, and those institutions are way out of bounds these days.

What would you consider to be in bounds for legal institutions?

there is no restitution in criminal courts, only punishment.

That depends.

The free market can and does a better job as a mechanism to resolve such issues. It is just as organized as the State apparatus, if not better.

No it can't. Free markets are profit driven. That's fine for people who willingly come together to hire a private mediator. It doesn't work at all for general criminal law enforcement. You cannot have a profit motive to arrest people. In places where profit motivations creep in, we call it corruption and the public suffers for it.

Actually, it means "without rulers".

Functionally, that means without legal institutions.

That just means there is no one to dictate and control others.

Some people want to steal things. Anyone who would stop them or punish them would be dictating that they cannot steal and controlling their attempts to do so.

No, and there are better ways to have such mechanisms, without the State.

No there aren't. Not in a large integrated society. But if you're willing to provide historical examples, I'll consider them.

Not really. It happens regardless of such "laws".

It happens regardless, but to a far lesser degree where strong institutions are present. Take any given country with weak legal institutions and compare it to any given country with strong legal institutions. There is a significant difference in violent crime and property crime.

There are so many of man's laws on the books, that it is hard to tell if one is "breaking the law" or not.

Mostly it is not hard to tell. Laws remain relatively consistent through out the course of a lifetime with changes being made around the margins, mostly dealing with how a given law is prosecuted (mandatory minimum sentences and whatnot). The vast majority of people do not get arrested, and those that do are rarely confused about the legality of what they've done.

We don't need a State to do this. As I pointed out, the free market can provide the means to handle these things.

That's your claim. But there is no example of a functional complex economy that operates without the assurance of government enforced laws. In those countries lacking a functional legal institution, strong men reign and tribal conflict is the order of the day. The nice cars they have came from other countries and are owned only by the men with the strongest gang and only for as long as they stay on top.

Ah, I say Freedom is an inherent good.

Then stop locking your doors. Freedom must be constrained lest certain actions freely taken by one impose on the freedom of another. You constrain others freedom when you lock your doors.

I say Freedom requires that we do to protect against those who do not see it as wrong to harm others.

You seek to rule over those who would harm you by constraining their ability to do so.

Anarchy is Reality.

If anarchy is reality, then anarchy with functional government is far more conducive to freedom than anarchy without it.

There is no such thing as complete freedom. The only way you have complete freedom is to live isolated from humans, and never participate in human economy/society (grizzly Adams). When you interact with society or buy and sell things in the economy, then by default you will have followed some rules!! You get closer to true freedom the LESS you PARTICIPATE!!

Freedom means the only Person that owns me, is Yeshua/Jesus, my Lord, and Daddy Government can kiss my ass, for treating disabled people, like shit.

1 point

Freedom means the only Person that owns me, is Yeshua/Jesus, my Lord, and Daddy Government can kiss my ass

Until it's time to vote for Daddy Government, and then you run down to the polling station with a MAGA hat on, giggling like a five year old.

1 point

Freedom is hugely overrated. If no one told me what to do, I would probably sleep all day. I need a full team of health specialists and day-long therapy to function on a really low level. I hope one day I can get a girlfriend, but It doesn't look good right now. I am mostly restrained to my bed. Many believe I am physically impaired, but I am just really lazy.

Lebensraum(28) Clarified
1 point

Friendly tip: in Scandinavia, cripples and lazy people (as you call yourself) are entitled to a certain number of sexual intercourse pr. week. All you need is a doctor's note attesting to your laziness being caused by a psychological disorder. I don't know all the details but check out nav.no.

1 point

The obvious answer to this question is that freedom is the ability to do as you please.

Of course, complete freedom would not be healthy for our society, and thus we have systems in place that restrain some freedoms that we could possibly have.

When it comes to a proper amount of freedom, that would be the ability to do as you please UNLESS it prevents others from having rights.

0 points

When using words, I'm concerned with communication. Making up a personal definition for a word that already has a general definition is not useful to the goal of communication. Arguing the on semantic grounds for a definition that is personal and contrary to the general definition is a waste of time. Worse then that, it is detrimental not only to communication, but also to persuasion.

Presenting a personal definition as part of a framework can make sense for words with a broad interpretation. If your personal definition works for various uses of the word, all the better. But when there is common language at your disposable that articulates the same meaning you intend to convey with a personal definition, then your personal definition is a hindrance to your goals.

With that, I will (re)post some definitions:

Freedom is the ability to act on one's own judgement concerning one's self and one's property, absent coercion or constraint from other agents.

Now the definition for authority:

Right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

Now government:

The mechanism by which a group of people regulate behavior within a group and determine collective goals or actions.

I have already argued that we limit freedom all the time in social interactions. We give subtle and overt warnings that are both verbal and non-verbal. These warnings are coercive since when those warnings are not heeded, people sometimes fight about it. Such fights happen all the time, though they are rare when compared to the times people heed to warning signals of others. Of you doubt this explanation, consider the interactions of people on the internet, where no coercion is enforceable.

The above is the subtle way in which we limit freedom. Your defense of your property is an example of you limiting the freedom of the trespasser. Did the trespassers "abuse" freedom? Sure. He acted on his own judgement concerning himself, but he acted in a manner that interferes with your property. So you have the right to decide to order him out of your house, and to enforce his obedience. According to the above definitions, that's you exercising authority to limit his freedom. If you accept that you have the right to kick out the trespasser, then you accept that freedom is not an inherent good (it can be abused), and authority is not an inherent evil (you have the authority to remove his freedom to trespass).

There are other examples of someone having the authority to restrict the freedom of another:

-If a person with dementia insists on going for a walk on a cold winters night without proper clothes, pretty much anyone with the means has the right to restrict the dementia patients freedom and keep them in a warm environment.

-If a person has already had too much heroin and they are ready to inject another full syringe, but this one is the good stuff with fentanyl, you have the right to take that syringe, limiting.their freedom in the process.

-If a person is in the midst of an emotional crisis and they are actively attempting suicide, it's right to stop them long enough for them to come through the crisis and get the help they need. It's right, and it restricts their freedom.

The above examples infringe on the rights of people to harm themselves in very different ways. Self-harm due to cognitive deterioration, due to addiction (accidentally seeking death), and due to emotional crisis. Each situation has a time horizon that the individual involved cannot see. They want the freedom to act according to their own judgement now, but later they are likely to seem that judgement differently. You would be right to stop them. Their freedom doesn't have inherent value, their life does.

Human freedom has an incredibly high value, but that's because we need it, as animals of reason, to live and to thrive. The life has primacy.

Just as you have the authority to hinder the freedom of the freedom-abuser, a government has the authority to hinder the freedom of the freedom-abuser. By which I mean that people organizing a mechanism by which to regulate behavior are right to regulate freedom-abusers.

As I argued above, people regulate the behavior of others all the time. It's a natural consequence of interaction. The ways in which people regulate behavior are as numerous as individuals and circumstances. But some limited circumstances involve so called freedom-abusers. People feel victimized when one such interaction occurs. I'll call those true crimes. When a true crime occurs, each of us respond in singularly unique ways. That's actually a problem. True crimes are highly emotional things. Hence, vigilantism is a highly emotional thing. As such it is very often incorrect and imprecise in it's response. People organizing a mechanism by which to regulate the behavior of vigilantes reduces, though does not eliminate, the imprecision and inaccuracy of justice seekers.

I said earlier that due process reduces the injustice of false positives which vigilantes are prone to and you only responded that it's doubtful. That's an irrational doubt. Due process has laws (yes laws) requiring that standards of evidence be met before a suspect can be prosecuted. There are no such standards in your anarchy. Such laws in the US start from a presumption of innocence, putting the onus of proof on the one seeking justice. As a result, guilty parties often walk free. They can later capitalize on books that outline their guilt. That's not quite justice, but it's better than each individual presuming the guilt of the person they are really really sure did the deed and then going and taking their vengeance as they see fit, then failing every time the actually guilty party has the muscle for it.

Due process is necessarily a system of laws. It cannot exist absent government. It cannot exist in your anarchy. Private resolution requires voluntary parties. But true criminals, your abusers of freedom, are not interested in resolution. You had to force the trespasser to leave, of not with threat, then with force. And you had the right to order him to leave and enforce his obedience. That's authority.

Most of the particulars of your last posts I did not respond to. They were repetitive on both our accounts. If there's some question that actually has gone unaddressed ask it in a post responding to this one.

2 points

When using words, I'm concerned with communication.

No you're not. Pretty much everything you ever write contradicts something else you've written. Either that or it just plain doesn't make any sense. When you aren't writing narcissistic 10,000 word essays which nobody (except maybe Jace) ever reads, you are busy purposefully misrepresenting what other people say to you. Your ego and your IQ literally have an inverse square relationship to each other.

Making up a personal definition for a word that already has a general definition is not useful to the goal of communication.

But it is useful for derailing the conversation every time you are wrong. Which is always.

Arguing the on semantic grounds for a definition that is personal and contrary to the general definition is a waste of time.

I literally busted you a matter of hours ago for making up your own definition of the word "affinity". Your hypocrisy and self-obsession are so staggering that they can only be the result of mental illness.

Amarel(5470) Disputed
1 point

I literally busted you a matter of hours ago for making up your own definition of the word "affinity".

I literally copied and pasted that definition from Google to demonstrate once again that calling you a half-wit would be a compliment.

Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

When using words, I'm concerned with communication. Making up a personal definition for a word that already has a general definition is not useful to the goal of communication. Arguing the on semantic grounds for a definition that is personal and contrary to the general definition is a waste of time. Worse then that, it is detrimental not only to communication, but also to persuasion.

Getting down to the root origins of words is useful to be concise on the meaning of those words. Our language fluctuates according to the "authority" of the day making their own definitions and putting it out there as if that is what they mean. When, in fact, obfuscation has been developed to cause confusion on that very communication that you speak of. Especially, the Truth. "Anarchy" and "Government" are both prime examples of what I mean.

I have not made a personal definition of the word force. I made a distinction of the words force and violence based on moral grounds, or right action vs wrong action. It is in the how or use of what those words represent.

I explained this multiple times. Initiating harm, or aggressing upon someone, is the wrong committed. Using whatever force is necessary to repel the attack is a person's right to do, or the right action to take. This applies to coercion, the threat of harm done upon another to get them to do what you want, is wrong. I made the distinction on this, as well.

With that, I will (re)post some definitions:

Freedom is the ability to act on one's own judgement concerning one's self and one's property, absent coercion or constraint from other agents.

Now the definition for authority:

Right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

Now government:

The mechanism by which a group of people regulate behavior within a group and determine collective goals or actions.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authority?s=t

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/government?s=t

I posted the above links to keep things accurate. The definition you provided for "authority" sounds close. What I said concerning authority can be boiled down to this, you rule you and I rule me. As long as we respect that we are fine. Once that is disrespected by either one of us, we have a problem or conflict. We have a right to rule our own lives and our property. We do not have a right to control others, or rule over them. That is slavery.

When someone is a guest in your home they have a respect for what I said above. They recognize that it is your house, your rules. When they disrespect that, you are within your rights to ask them to stop, or leave. That would be an exercise of your authority concerning your home.

But once they leave, it no longer applies to them. This would also, apply to any individuals who get together and decide how they are going to operate, say a business or an association. They cannot come up with rules and then, force others to abide by such rules who have nothing to do with their business or association, etc.

I broke down the etymology of the word "government". It stems from gubernare, as one variation I have seen. There is also, guberno, or gubernor, meaning to control, steer, direct, or guide, etc. And mens, mentis, meaning the mind, along with a short list of similar words.

https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=gubernare

https://www.online-latin-dictionary.com/latin-english-dictionary.php?parola=mens

If you put those words together, it really does translate to "to control the mind" or mind control. And the only place that exists is within each individual on this planet. To attempt to do that to others is the same as enslaving them.

I have already argued that we limit freedom all the time in social interactions. We give subtle and overt warnings that are both verbal and non-verbal. These warnings are coercive since when those warnings are not heeded, people sometimes fight about it.

It depends on how those warnings are used. If a person gives a warning to back off of them because someone is in their face, attempting to push them around, they are right to do this. If the person that is in their face threatens them with physical assault if the other person does not obey them, that is wrong. That is coercion.

Such fights happen all the time, though they are rare when compared to the times people heed to warning signals of others. Of you doubt this explanation, consider the interactions of people on the internet, where no coercion is enforceable.

Again, "your money or your life" is not the same as "back off of me, now, you are in my personal space". The internet is different in the sense that the interaction is not face to face or in person. There are still options given, like on this forum where the moderator can ban someone and keep them from interacting on the debate that was created.

The above is the subtle way in which we limit freedom. Your defense of your property is an example of you limiting the freedom of the trespasser. Did the trespassers "abuse" freedom? Sure. He acted on his own judgement concerning himself, but he acted in a manner that interferes with your property. So you have the right to decide to order him out of your house, and to enforce his obedience. According to the above definitions, that's you exercising authority to limit his freedom. If you accept that you have the right to kick out the trespasser, then you accept that freedom is not an inherent good (it can be abused), and authority is not an inherent evil (you have the authority to remove his freedom to trespass).

Freedom is desirable. It has an inherent value. It is inherently good. I covered "authority" already. See above. If someone is trying to persuade another, that is not wrong. If someone is trying to use their own "authority" and force another, against their will, through aggression, coercion, initiation of violence or fraud, that is wrong. Meaning that person who is doing that is acting immorally, to get another to do their bidding.

-If a person with dementia insists on going for a walk on a cold winters night without proper clothes, pretty much anyone with the means has the right to restrict the dementia patients freedom and keep them in a warm environment.

No, they do not have that right. They can attempt to persuade them to do otherwise. They can appeal to reason and give them other options. But no one has the right to restrict that persons free-will choice to do that action. If a person does try it, they might have a fight on their hands, depending on the other person who is said to have dementia. And I wouldn't blame the latter.

-If a person has already had too much heroin and they are ready to inject another full syringe, but this one is the good stuff with fentanyl, you have the right to take that syringe, limiting.their freedom in the process.

How much is "too much"? Isn't heroin bad to take? Isn't smoking bad for you? Isn't a whole host of habits, or vices, not a very good idea? Where is the line drawn here? Even in the above case, you would not be right. Though it might be forgivable by the one doing the heroin. You do not have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, or to make them obey what you think they should or should not do.

-If a person is in the midst of an emotional crisis and they are actively attempting suicide, it's right to stop them long enough for them to come through the crisis and get the help they need. It's right, and it restricts their freedom.

Again, you can persuade them not to do it, if they are in fact trying that, and talk them out of it. But anyone who is determined to end their life, will do so. It is out of your hands. However, if you are attempting to stop them, using the above methods, yeah you are in the right.

Convincing someone that they do have a good reason to continue on is the correct way to go. But you have to listen to them, effectively. What happens when you recognize that they are dealing with something internally, but are not actively seeking to end it? You do not have the right to take away their Freedom, simply because you cannot understand what is going on.

The best way, and right way, to handle that is to let them be. Maybe, they will ask your input. Maybe, they will share what they are going through. But it is something that you cannot possibly understand, unless you were them or went through a similar experience.

Having them locked up (restricting their Freedom) does no good for them. That is not help. And if they want help they will ask for it. You can even offer it, but you are not right to force it upon them.

The above examples infringe on the rights of people to harm themselves in very different ways. Self-harm due to cognitive deterioration, due to addiction (accidentally seeking death), and due to emotional crisis. Each situation has a time horizon that the individual involved cannot see. They want the freedom to act according to their own judgement now, but later they are likely to seem that judgement differently. You would be right to stop them. Their freedom doesn't have inherent value, their life does.

No, you wouldn't. You have a right to offer help, but ultimately, it is not your call. And it is not your life. It is theirs. Their Freedom absolutely, does have an inherent value. Their life may be meaningless to them if they are locked up, but did nothing wrong. Then, are released and made to take poison (that does nothing but, covers up their issues, in the least, and kills their spirit and emotions.) And if that medication effects them that way, it may also, effect them in their mind and body, killing them physically. Ultimately, you did them no favors. Acting in fearful ways does no good in such situations.

Human freedom has an incredibly high value, but that's because we need it, as animals of reason, to live and to thrive. The life has primacy.

Uh, we are more than just animals of reason. There is more to us than only our physical bodies. An individual human being has a right to life, and they have a right to decide what to do with their life, if it is not causing harm to other individual human beings. No others are right to interfere with such an individual. That is a healthy respect for life and Freedom because one without the other, falls flat. If a person does not have True Freedom, they are not truly living, but existing under the control of someone else, i.e. they are a slave. Death is a part of life and we cannot escape it.

Just as you have the authority to hinder the freedom of the freedom-abuser, a government has the authority to hinder the freedom of the freedom-abuser. By which I mean that people organizing a mechanism by which to regulate behavior are right to regulate freedom-abusers.

I am right to stop the abuse, but that is as far as it goes. I would be right to defend another from abuse, as well. Your "government", as it is today, is a criminal class. They act as if they have "special" rights, above everyone else. They are serious Freedom abusers.

"Voting" them out is not doing any good, but just lends support to what they are doing. And people are letting them get away with it. It is an attempt to steal our Freedoms and inalienable Rights, from us. It has been done incrementally, but now, they are speeding it up. And their enforcers (cops) are helping it happen.

As I argued above, people regulate the behavior of others all the time. It's a natural consequence of interaction. The ways in which people regulate behavior are as numerous as individuals and circumstances. But some limited circumstances involve so called freedom-abusers. People feel victimized when one such interaction occurs. I'll call those true crimes. When a true crime occurs, each of us respond in singularly unique ways. That's actually a problem.

How is that a problem. We are individuals. We might be connected, but we are not the same. I am not you or vice versa. I might handle a "Freedom-abuser" differently, then, you. Maybe, after a fight, we have a beer and discuss things. It could be he comes away from that interaction with a lesson learned and he becomes a changed man. Acting on an individual basis, with each other, is really all we have. Regulating conduct in that way is right, or correct.

True crimes are highly emotional things. Hence, vigilantism is a highly emotional thing. As such it is very often incorrect and imprecise in it's response. People organizing a mechanism by which to regulate the behavior of vigilantes reduces, though does not eliminate, the imprecision and inaccuracy of justice seekers.

The only case that I know of, historically, of "vigilantism", is called the "Oxbow Incident". But those involved, if I remember correctly, were a law man and men who had been deputized, and organized into a posse. That was how they did it then. Justice was swift and harsh. There was, also, an unwritten code of conduct that people tended to operate by on the frontier. But, life there was often dull and boring to some. Hollywood did a lot to obfuscate the Truth of what really took place during those times.

I said earlier that due process reduces the injustice of false positives which vigilantes are prone to and you only responded that it's doubtful.

Really? What did I follow with on that? Show me.

That's an irrational doubt. Due process has laws (yes laws) requiring that standards of evidence be met before a suspect can be prosecuted. There are no such standards in your anarchy.

And evidence is manufactured very often, to get a conviction. That's if it even goes to trial. Typically, people are COERCED into confessing to something they did not do and taking a deal.

Such laws in the US start from a presumption of innocence, putting the onus of proof on the one seeking justice. As a result, guilty parties often walk free. They can later capitalize on books that outline their guilt.

And very often innocent people (who did no harm to anyone else) end up in prison. What you describe sounds good in theory, but it is not working very well at all.

That's not quite justice, but it's better than each individual presuming the guilt of the person they are really really sure did the deed and then going and taking their vengeance as they see fit, then failing every time the actually guilty party has the muscle for it.

Let me ask you. How did due process work for Randy Weaver and his family at Ruby Ridge? He lost his wife and son. And those who pulled the trigger did not get locked up for it. How about those who burned at Waco? Same scenario. The Enforcers got away scot free. Not to mention the "government" ruler at the time, was not held to account for his orders.

Due process is necessarily a system of laws. It cannot exist absent government. It cannot exist in your anarchy.

And it hardly exists now, under your "government". With the self-defense principle, anyone has a right to account for their actions. And there are options that people can come up with and use to put that principle into effect. It would be, largely, better than what we have now.

Private resolution requires voluntary parties. But true criminals, your abusers of freedom, are not interested in resolution. You had to force the trespasser to leave, of not with threat, then with force. And you had the right to order him to leave and enforce his obedience. That's authority.

Yeah, and I covered "authority" already. I am talking about attempting to rule/control others, outside of the right to do it for yourself. I am speaking about those who have not aggressed or initiated harm on anyone else. No one has the right to do that. That is enslavement.

And because that right does not exist, no matter how many people get together to try and make it right, it renders your "government" non-existent. Which means that they are a gigantic criminal organization, imagined to have the right to exist. It is a false belief system and a religion. A very dangerous one. This applies to the world over, as well. Not just here.

This is my perspective on what the Truth is.

Amarel(5470) Disputed
0 points

I broke down the etymology of the word "government". It stems from gubernare, as one variation I have seen. There is also, guberno, or gubernor, meaning to control, steer, direct, or guide, etc. And mens, mentis, meaning the mind, along with a short list of similar words...And mens, mentis, meaning the mind, along with a short list of similar words...

For the etymology of government, the suffix "ment" does not derive from "mens", it derives from "mentum" which is means, medium, or instrument.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/-mentum#Latin

The suffix "ment" is used "to make nouns indicating the result or product of the action of the verb or the means or instrument of the action."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/-ment#etymonline v32036

The etymology does not indicate government means "mind control", it indicates that government means "guiding/steering/controlling mechanism".

My definition of government is exactly in line with the etymology. I thought I had already explained this, but I didn't want to sift through to find it. So this may be redundant. Responding to the rest would definitely be redundant.

It has to be a sufficient closer to say that I'm glad not to live in a world where we all feel it's good to let the geriatric dementia patient wander off and freeze; Where we look on with a sense of virtue for letting the addict overdose before our eyes; Where we neglect to pull the jumper from the edge to help him address his problems.

You want to say that deep down, your detractors know you're Right and they know your outlook is the Truth. It's simply not the case. People who who believe that the inherent value of life has primacy, have no such doubt about your beliefs. I harbor no doubts, deep down or outwardly, that you're conclusions are factually and morally wrong.

-2 points
Jody(1742) Disputed Banned
0 points

Passio the ex Satanist? Are you for fucking real he’s on a par with fellow nut David Icke for lunacy

Bet you wear tin foil on your pin head

Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

Passio the ex Satanist? Are you for fucking real he’s on a par with fellow nut David Icke for lunacy

Bet you wear tin foil on your pin head

And you know SO much about these two Individuals? Do tell.

Both of them are Truth seekers and have come to an understanding of things. That's more than you are showing me.