4 ms·

Look up the Non-Aggression Principle.

by yucky 4y ago

lowbloodsugar 4y ago
Right. So the Non-Aggression Principal is incompatible with Individual Freedom. The point is that everything is incompatible with Individual Freedom, even Individual Freedom. So saying Democracy is incompatible with Individual Freedom is meaningless. Authoritarianism is incompatible with Individual Freedom. Communism in incompatible with Individual Freedom. Libertarianism is incompatible with Individual Freedom. In fact Individual Freedom can only be possible if there is exactly one Individual - and this should give you a clue to why narcissists make claims about Individual Freedom: they aren't talking about your Individual Freedom, they're talking about theirs and no one else's.
- yucky 4y ago
  It sounds like you're struggling with the definition of freedom. It encompasses the NAP. Therefore by definition, harming someone else is incompatible with the concept of freedom.
  - lowbloodsugar 4y ago
    I understand that your definition of freedom encompasses the NAP. So by your definition, harming someone blah blah blah. I don't know if you're trolling or genuinely ignorant. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The issue with the Individual Freedom schtick is that everybody has a different definition for what shouldn't be allowed while still saying their definition is "Individual Freedom". Rich Libertarian's have property, so they say that Individual Freedom should include property ownership, and there should be a government who enforces these recognized deeds of ownership and evicts poor communists. Poor communists don't have property, and so they say that property is theft, and that Individual Freedom should include the right to shelter, and there should be a government that takes property from Rich Libertarians. Individual Freedom can have only one indisputable definition, and it's in the name: Individual Freedom means I can do anything I want. Unfortunately, that is paradoxical unless there is exactly one person. As soon as we hedge, and say "well, individual freedoms means you can do anything that doesn't harm other people", then we open the floodgates to any and all rationalizations for anything. You can't drive a truck to work because it is causing climate change. You can't own this 50 acres in this scenic area because thats enough room for 250 houses. You can't be here at all because all this land is owned by Native Americans and you stole it. You can't preach that I'm going to hell because that harms me. You can't stop me from preaching that you're going to hell because that harms me. etc. Meaningless.
    - yucky 4y ago
      You're just making an argument that you don't value freedom as much as others, and that's fine. It's just not relevant to the point. The point is that by definition freedom is incompatible with democracy. In democracy, state power (the proxy power of others over you) only grows. That erodes freedom, definitionally. I have no interest in convincing you to become an anarchist or a libertarian or whatever, I was just correcting this false notion that the two can be compatible long term. They are oil and water, over time the separation between them grows.
      - clouddrover 4y ago
        > You're just making an argument that you don't value freedom as much as others No, that is not what lowbloodsugar said. You have not understood what has been said to you.

Look up the Non-Aggression Principle.

by yucky 4y ago

Look up the Non-Aggression Principle.

Right. So the Non-Aggression Principal is incompatible with Individual Freedom. The point is that everything is incompatible with Individual Freedom, even Individual Freedom. So saying Democracy is incompatible with Individual Freedom is meaningless. Authoritarianism is incompatible with Individual Freedom. Communism in incompatible with Individual Freedom. Libertarianism is incompatible with Individual Freedom. In fact Individual Freedom can only be possible if there is exactly one Individual - and this should give you a clue to why narcissists make claims about Individual Freedom: they aren't talking about your Individual Freedom, they're talking about theirs and no one else's.

yucky 4y ago
It sounds like you're struggling with the definition of freedom. It encompasses the NAP. Therefore by definition, harming someone else is incompatible with the concept of freedom.
- lowbloodsugar 4y ago
  I understand that your definition of freedom encompasses the NAP. So by your definition, harming someone blah blah blah. I don't know if you're trolling or genuinely ignorant. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The issue with the Individual Freedom schtick is that everybody has a different definition for what shouldn't be allowed while still saying their definition is "Individual Freedom". Rich Libertarian's have property, so they say that Individual Freedom should include property ownership, and there should be a government who enforces these recognized deeds of ownership and evicts poor communists. Poor communists don't have property, and so they say that property is theft, and that Individual Freedom should include the right to shelter, and there should be a government that takes property from Rich Libertarians. Individual Freedom can have only one indisputable definition, and it's in the name: Individual Freedom means I can do anything I want. Unfortunately, that is paradoxical unless there is exactly one person. As soon as we hedge, and say "well, individual freedoms means you can do anything that doesn't harm other people", then we open the floodgates to any and all rationalizations for anything. You can't drive a truck to work because it is causing climate change. You can't own this 50 acres in this scenic area because thats enough room for 250 houses. You can't be here at all because all this land is owned by Native Americans and you stole it. You can't preach that I'm going to hell because that harms me. You can't stop me from preaching that you're going to hell because that harms me. etc. Meaningless.
  - yucky 4y ago
    You're just making an argument that you don't value freedom as much as others, and that's fine. It's just not relevant to the point. The point is that by definition freedom is incompatible with democracy. In democracy, state power (the proxy power of others over you) only grows. That erodes freedom, definitionally. I have no interest in convincing you to become an anarchist or a libertarian or whatever, I was just correcting this false notion that the two can be compatible long term. They are oil and water, over time the separation between them grows.
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      > You're just making an argument that you don't value freedom as much as others No, that is not what lowbloodsugar said. You have not understood what has been said to you.