3 ms·

As you've expressed. And I feel you're being logically disingenuous by failing to gradate levels of punishment. It's a straw man to say I'm suggesting there sh

by ethbro 9y ago

As you've expressed. And I feel you're being logically disingenuous by failing to gradate levels of punishment. It's a straw man to say I'm suggesting there shouldn't be a high burden of proof for a severe punishment. And whether a viewpoint terrified you or not is largely irrelevant. Personally, I modulate my desire for individual liberty with what I consider a reasonable responsibility to nurture an environment where individuals are afforded opportunities to exercise that liberty.

mulmen 9y ago
I don't see how punishing (regardless of severity) someone who can't be proven to have broken a law "affords individuals opportunities to exercise liberty". What you're advocating is mob rule and that's why it is scary. Obviously there are different standards of proof but the presumption is always innocence and there is always a standard beyond how it "looks". This is preferable because it maximizes liberty.
- ethbro 9y ago
  Do you accept there are situations in which maximizing individual liberty lowers average liberty?
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Mathematically I'm not sure how such a thing could occur. If you are implying that liberty is zero sum then I disagree. I'm also uninterested in average liberty. Individual liberty is of utmost importance. Individual rights extend as far as infringing on the rights of others. This is important only in the context of preserving further individual liberty.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Example: (Case 1) A world in which individuals are completely free to do with their wealth as they will (so, no taxes, regulations, etc). (Case 2) A world in which individuals are absolutely prohibited from wealth transfer. At the time of their death, all individual assets / privileges are seized, then redistributed evenly to the next generation. Select a random individual from a new generation in each case. Would you disagree that they have different effective individual liberty? That is, the options available to them to pursue in life? Essentially, I see effective liberty as the product of rights and means to exercise those rights. And I believe the greatest individual liberty cannot be created without balancing both requirements.

by ethbro 9y ago

mulmen 9y ago

I don't see how punishing (regardless of severity) someone who can't be proven to have broken a law "affords individuals opportunities to exercise liberty". What you're advocating is mob rule and that's why it is scary. Obviously there are different standards of proof but the presumption is always innocence and there is always a standard beyond how it "looks". This is preferable because it maximizes liberty.

ethbro 9y ago
Do you accept there are situations in which maximizing individual liberty lowers average liberty?
- mulmen 9y ago
  Mathematically I'm not sure how such a thing could occur. If you are implying that liberty is zero sum then I disagree. I'm also uninterested in average liberty. Individual liberty is of utmost importance. Individual rights extend as far as infringing on the rights of others. This is important only in the context of preserving further individual liberty.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Example: (Case 1) A world in which individuals are completely free to do with their wealth as they will (so, no taxes, regulations, etc). (Case 2) A world in which individuals are absolutely prohibited from wealth transfer. At the time of their death, all individual assets / privileges are seized, then redistributed evenly to the next generation. Select a random individual from a new generation in each case. Would you disagree that they have different effective individual liberty? That is, the options available to them to pursue in life? Essentially, I see effective liberty as the product of rights and means to exercise those rights. And I believe the greatest individual liberty cannot be created without balancing both requirements.