4 ms·

I define liberty differently than you do. I don’t accept the popular, modern definition of negative rights vs positive rights as the bedrock or liberty. It lea

I define liberty differently than you do. I don’t accept the popular, modern definition of negative rights vs positive rights as the bedrock or liberty. It leads to nonsensical conclusions. There is no such thing under my definition as a “free dictatorship”. A system where rulers aren’t bound by legitimate laws is by definition un-free. I don’t think my definition is super far off from yours though: liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another.

thegrimmest 5y ago
A free dictatorship would be one where the dictator's powers are very limited, but he is not democratically elected. > liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another. Yes exactly. I just see things like "interfering in private negotiations/transactions between free, equal people" as fundamentally authoritarian/dominating.
- imtringued 5y ago
  If that is your reasoning then consider barter vs money exchange. With money one party has to borrow it first and pay interest. With barter nobody is paying interest. The money lender is clearly abusing his "authority" over money by excluding it from the economy. He uses that power to charge interest and thereby render economic activity that can only cover its own costs unprofitable. Here is an example. I sell you an apple for $1 and you sell me a banana for $1. We are both better off because I like bananas you like apples. However, if I had to borrow the money first from a bank with interest, then the trade would not be profitable. This is the real source of unemployment. Artificial minimum profitability.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Well, none of this has anything to do with liberty until some force is used. What happens if you just fail to pay the money lender? If he can imprison or enslave you then you're absolutely right. If all he can do is spread the word that you're not likely to repay your loans then it's not a matter of liberty. Money is just cut paper, a convenient medium of exchange. If you have bad credit, your liberty is not in danger. The only thing in jeopardy is the willingness of others to cooperate/transact with you. Since they don't owe you anything to begin with, the point is moot.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  If interference with private transactions is fundamentally authoritarian, I still don’t understand how you see any sort of state as compatible with liberty. Yes yes, “keeping the peace” but how is such an authority deemed to be legitimate? Who gets to define due process? How are they funded if not by taxation? At the end of the day I don’t understand how you aren’t just an anarchist.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    The state is compatible with liberty in so far as it acts to secure the liberty of its citizens. Again, liberty here meaning, basically, freedom from violence by other people. A state which acts to protect its citizens liberty is legitimate (in my view) regardless of how its members come to authority. Democracy (in one form or another) seems to be the least-worst option for administering this state (defining the process, etc.), but to me, is it not the source of its legitimacy.
    - wbsss4412 5y ago
      You just said that interference with private transactions was by definition a violation of liberty, so any outside action of the state would be at best a violation of liberty to secure liberty, somehow. Which, is somewhat nonsensical. There is no well defined liberty math.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        > a violation of liberty to secure liberty You've pretty much got it. These are the only legitimate violations of liberty. Doesn't seem nonsensical to me.

thegrimmest 5y ago

A free dictatorship would be one where the dictator's powers are very limited, but he is not democratically elected. > liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another. Yes exactly. I just see things like "interfering in private negotiations/transactions between free, equal people" as fundamentally authoritarian/dominating.

imtringued 5y ago
If that is your reasoning then consider barter vs money exchange. With money one party has to borrow it first and pay interest. With barter nobody is paying interest. The money lender is clearly abusing his "authority" over money by excluding it from the economy. He uses that power to charge interest and thereby render economic activity that can only cover its own costs unprofitable. Here is an example. I sell you an apple for $1 and you sell me a banana for $1. We are both better off because I like bananas you like apples. However, if I had to borrow the money first from a bank with interest, then the trade would not be profitable. This is the real source of unemployment. Artificial minimum profitability.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Well, none of this has anything to do with liberty until some force is used. What happens if you just fail to pay the money lender? If he can imprison or enslave you then you're absolutely right. If all he can do is spread the word that you're not likely to repay your loans then it's not a matter of liberty. Money is just cut paper, a convenient medium of exchange. If you have bad credit, your liberty is not in danger. The only thing in jeopardy is the willingness of others to cooperate/transact with you. Since they don't owe you anything to begin with, the point is moot.
wbsss4412 5y ago
If interference with private transactions is fundamentally authoritarian, I still don’t understand how you see any sort of state as compatible with liberty. Yes yes, “keeping the peace” but how is such an authority deemed to be legitimate? Who gets to define due process? How are they funded if not by taxation? At the end of the day I don’t understand how you aren’t just an anarchist.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  The state is compatible with liberty in so far as it acts to secure the liberty of its citizens. Again, liberty here meaning, basically, freedom from violence by other people. A state which acts to protect its citizens liberty is legitimate (in my view) regardless of how its members come to authority. Democracy (in one form or another) seems to be the least-worst option for administering this state (defining the process, etc.), but to me, is it not the source of its legitimacy.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    You just said that interference with private transactions was by definition a violation of liberty, so any outside action of the state would be at best a violation of liberty to secure liberty, somehow. Which, is somewhat nonsensical. There is no well defined liberty math.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      > a violation of liberty to secure liberty You've pretty much got it. These are the only legitimate violations of liberty. Doesn't seem nonsensical to me.