3 ms·

There are exceptions put in place by the state against literally every right you listed (except maybe "conscience" since IDK what specifically you're getting at

by moate 7y ago

There are exceptions put in place by the state against literally every right you listed (except maybe "conscience" since IDK what specifically you're getting at there, but it's not really important). Democracy has to, by it's nature as a collective institution, impede the freedom of individuals to do what they themselves want for the social good. If it's a scale, and democracy is "more free" anarchy would be "most free" (not a concept I believe in, again I'm posing that freedom is a binary concept, not a scale itself). My point is that when it comes to the governing of large groups, you cannot have a free society. You cannot have freedom, and also have private ownership and capitalism and all the things we currently have. You can pay service to "liberty" all you want, but I can't "give myself my own laws" that allow me to go against the state. The state will always serve as an impediment against freedom and true self determination. And I don't think that's a bad thing (To be clear, I'm a socialist not an anarchist, which is also why I think societal requirements are more important than individual liberty).

didibus 7y ago
There are fundamental rights, and they have to be black/white, because they protect the minority against the majority. For everything else, it is decided on by elected representatives. If you operate in a political system where democracy can overrule all rights, it is not a liberal democracy. The US is a liberal democracy, and that is why the judge ruled that it was not constitutional, even though the democratically elected representatives put in place the watch-list. So here is a great example of liberty at play, even though the majority ruled to have a watch-list, it was ruled out because it went against the fundamental rights of a minority. > You can pay service to "liberty" all you want, but I can't "give myself my own laws" that allow me to go against the state. You can! You can freely renounce your citizenship and freely move elsewhere. The state is not allowed to hold you back from doing that. Now, when it comes to secession, it gets more complicated. Some people argue it is a fundamental right, as per the constitution, that said, the wording is very vague and unclear about it. So we could say the constitution doesn't really guarantee that you are free to secede. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a guaranteed right though! Some people think it should, and if it isn't there in the constitution, maybe it should be added. > The state will always serve as an impediment against freedom and true self determination That's the thing though. The state are just the powers that be. The idea of liberty and freedom are moral, which is why it requires a culture of it. While democracy is a system, not a moral. People who believe in liberty fight for it. That's fundamental to preserve freedom. The freedom to "give myself my own laws" should exist. Any person should be allowed to take their private property and secede from the US, and make it a new self-ruled region. If California wants out for example, they should be allowed to leave the union. Such would dictate the idea of liberty. But, it would work similar to copy-left open source licenses. In their new found independence, they need to continue to uphold liberty. If they do not, then it is a fundamental right that the newly governed should similarly fight for it until they have it. So you see, it is much more an ideology. People should not be allowed to restrain your freedoms, unless what you are doing is forcing theirs to be restrained. And this can work quite easily within a democracy. Basically, people assemble for all kind of matters, and decisions and rules are put in place in agreement with the majority, with the idea that it will benefit most. Once in a while though, it affects an individual negatively. It is that person's right to come forward and say that their liberty is being restrained from the ruling of the majority. If true, then the ruling should be abolished, even though it was beneficial to most people.
- moate 7y ago
  We disagree fundamentally on basically every point you've made. I do not have the time or energy to debate you on any of this. You have no convinced me of the existence of liberty or freedom actually existing outside of the minds of men, and have continued to show what I believe to be the logistic contortions needed to continue to believe in these concepts actually being implemented in the real world. None of this makes you a bad person, and I wish you well in life.
  - didibus 7y ago
    Hey, no hard feelings whatsoever. By the way, I'm not saying that that's the right or best ideology. I'm just saying that there's a definition issue. You take freedom at face value, as in, I can do whatever I want without anyone trying to stop me. But people who support freedom and liberty aren't saying that. They're saying that liberty trumps all, even the rule of the majority. That there are no good reason to justify taking away someone's freedom except to protect someone else's. And that this rule is above the rule of democracy. Democracy is used only to decide on things that don't affect people's freedoms. If it does, it is overstepping its bounds, and the courts are there to judge on that. And if the system fails to uphold the liberty of its people, that the people should fight to have it back.

by moate 7y ago

didibus 7y ago

There are fundamental rights, and they have to be black/white, because they protect the minority against the majority. For everything else, it is decided on by elected representatives. If you operate in a political system where democracy can overrule all rights, it is not a liberal democracy. The US is a liberal democracy, and that is why the judge ruled that it was not constitutional, even though the democratically elected representatives put in place the watch-list. So here is a great example of liberty at play, even though the majority ruled to have a watch-list, it was ruled out because it went against the fundamental rights of a minority. > You can pay service to "liberty" all you want, but I can't "give myself my own laws" that allow me to go against the state. You can! You can freely renounce your citizenship and freely move elsewhere. The state is not allowed to hold you back from doing that. Now, when it comes to secession, it gets more complicated. Some people argue it is a fundamental right, as per the constitution, that said, the wording is very vague and unclear about it. So we could say the constitution doesn't really guarantee that you are free to secede. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a guaranteed right though! Some people think it should, and if it isn't there in the constitution, maybe it should be added. > The state will always serve as an impediment against freedom and true self determination That's the thing though. The state are just the powers that be. The idea of liberty and freedom are moral, which is why it requires a culture of it. While democracy is a system, not a moral. People who believe in liberty fight for it. That's fundamental to preserve freedom. The freedom to "give myself my own laws" should exist. Any person should be allowed to take their private property and secede from the US, and make it a new self-ruled region. If California wants out for example, they should be allowed to leave the union. Such would dictate the idea of liberty. But, it would work similar to copy-left open source licenses. In their new found independence, they need to continue to uphold liberty. If they do not, then it is a fundamental right that the newly governed should similarly fight for it until they have it. So you see, it is much more an ideology. People should not be allowed to restrain your freedoms, unless what you are doing is forcing theirs to be restrained. And this can work quite easily within a democracy. Basically, people assemble for all kind of matters, and decisions and rules are put in place in agreement with the majority, with the idea that it will benefit most. Once in a while though, it affects an individual negatively. It is that person's right to come forward and say that their liberty is being restrained from the ruling of the majority. If true, then the ruling should be abolished, even though it was beneficial to most people.

moate 7y ago
We disagree fundamentally on basically every point you've made. I do not have the time or energy to debate you on any of this. You have no convinced me of the existence of liberty or freedom actually existing outside of the minds of men, and have continued to show what I believe to be the logistic contortions needed to continue to believe in these concepts actually being implemented in the real world. None of this makes you a bad person, and I wish you well in life.
- didibus 7y ago
  Hey, no hard feelings whatsoever. By the way, I'm not saying that that's the right or best ideology. I'm just saying that there's a definition issue. You take freedom at face value, as in, I can do whatever I want without anyone trying to stop me. But people who support freedom and liberty aren't saying that. They're saying that liberty trumps all, even the rule of the majority. That there are no good reason to justify taking away someone's freedom except to protect someone else's. And that this rule is above the rule of democracy. Democracy is used only to decide on things that don't affect people's freedoms. If it does, it is overstepping its bounds, and the courts are there to judge on that. And if the system fails to uphold the liberty of its people, that the people should fight to have it back.