board77

And how important is it to you that it be protected?

Libertarians have a very specific notion of what "liberty" means and how important it is. Oddly, I picked up my views on it during school well before I knew what "libertarian" meant. But I have noticed that many people have different views on both what it means and how important it is. So I'd like to hear people's views on the subject.

I feel liberty is the most important thing the US has going for it. I think it is the freedom to do what you want to do, as long as it doesn't interfere with what someone else wants to do.

Naturally... the definition of that interferance introduces a whole lot of complications.

Most people will say that, but if that's what the beleived, they'd be for the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, ect. There is some other principle at work. (This isn't a debate about those things. Just that your views on liberty should affect your views on things like that.)

Well, drugs, I've always said should be legalized... as regulated and taxed makes them much harder to abuse, and avoids a lot of the dangers.

Prostitution... the same thing, but I Think there are other issues involved there as well... not sure about that one.

Gambling... is legal... at least in a national sense. HIghly regulated where it's legal locally.

Some people actually mean what they say

My personal philosophy can be completely summed up in hal's definition of liberty.

Some people want liberty for everyone.

Others want it only for themselves. Those who advocate strict laws on everyone else often think to themselves that the laws won't apply to themselves, such as the AIDS czar whose name was released by a madam or a New Jersey governor who doesn't wear seatbelts but has his highway patrol officer ticket people who don't wear seatbelts.

The world is full of hypocrites. Recognizing this is healthy.

Yes, the world is full of hypocrites, which is an important part of the answer to Yovi's questions. Some want liberty for me and thee, others want liberty for me but not for thee.

Quote:

I feel liberty is the most important thing the US has going for it. I think it is the freedom to do what you want to do, as long as it doesn't interfere with what someone else wants to do.

That sounds great, but we all share the same world and literally everything you do affects everyone else. Even the simple act of breathing alters the composition of the atmosphere--the change is just so minuscule that no one worries about it under normal circumstances.

I have a hypothesis that freedom is only possible when resources are plentiful. Any time a person consumes a resource, everyone else in the world is denied the freedom to do the same. If there is enough air/land/housing/food/water/oil to go around, it doesn't matter. If not, only the rich are really free. This is why I believe overpopulation is the #1 threat to freedom.

So how would you answer the question, Dave?

yovargas wrote:

So how would you answer the question, Dave?

I'd say that liberty is just a word and it can mean whatever you want it to mean. But I think the most useful definition is the freedom to do what you want as long as that doesn't directly infringe on someone else's ability to do the same. I'd add that this is an unattainable ideal and the extent to which it can be realized depends on the availability of resources and the will to pursue it.

So how important is it to you that we try to reach or maintain that ideal considering you view it as unattainable.

yovargas wrote:

So how important is it to you that we try to reach or maintain that ideal considering you view it as unattainable.

I think it is 15.642 important . It's a values question; there are always tradeoffs. It's a lot like an investment question, really. Personal freedom is a great reward--how much risk are you willing to incur pursuing it? Everyone will come up with a different answer, and for most people it will depend on how much they have to lose. Maybe Me & Bobby McGee had it right...

I confess I was actually wrong about something. Being such a strong supporter of liberty, I forgot there are people out there who actually aren't supporters of it at all. Liberty neither for me nor thee.

They want to be restrained lest they act inappropriately. What, no self control? Maybe not.

hal--

Can you reduce the Penny Arcade a bit? It's stretching the pages you're posting on.

all--

I think there are idealogical (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense here) and pragmatic definitions of liberty. I am more interested in the latter myself, and tend to work backwards from how liberty is abridged: being constrained to do something I don't wish to, or from doing something I do wish to. There are certainly circumstances under which either form of constraint is bad, but are there circumstances under which such constraints can be good?

The situation is further muddied by the simple fact that some things I desire may be mutually exclusive. For example, if I want to take six months off to write a novel, that probably conflicts with my desire not to live in a cardboard box. So there has to be some sorting out of which desires should take priority for me. I am theoretically free to do all sorts of things...but free does not mean at no cost, in most cases.

Ax,

It sounds like you're defining "liberty" as "doing anything at all that you want all the time"? Is that about right? If so, is it much of a meaningful concept to you?

I see that as one extreme logical definition--a proposed starting point, if you will--from which a discussion could proceed. This would be a subtractive model: you can do anything you like, except (list follows). This is in opposition to an additive model: you can (or should) only do (list follows).

It has meaning in that the model one chooses to start with can't help but shape the end result.

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

I confess I was actually wrong about something. Being such a strong supporter of liberty, I forgot there are people out there who actually aren't supporters of it at all. Liberty neither for me nor thee.

Was this provoked by anyone in particular?

Liberty is NOT "what you are allowed to do". Liberty is being able to do what you want, with certain obvious exceptions.

I think I should be allowed to do what I want, providing it doesn't hurt someone else. (Providing I am of legal age, too. And that's a whole other argument.)

But it also means being responsible and it means not avoiding the consequences of your actions. Sure, take off 6 months to write the novel, but don't whine (and I know you wouldn't!!!! Ax) when you have no money for food or rent. A person who took off 6 months to write without having arranged his affairs properly is an irresponsible nutbar. And the world is full of them.

But I am also a pragmatist and recognize that C_G's Libertarian Utopia never existed, doesn't exist now, and never will exist. I am happy enough with the status quo, although I am saddened to see the USA infringe on the sacred liberties of its citizens.

Maybe this is relevant: liberty means being your own boss as opposed to having a boss who is generous enough to let you make most of your own decisions.