Libertarianism = Liberty? No

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

Your rights have then been violated, that does not mean that you do not have them. You have the right to sell your labor, and if in slavery, that right is being violated every day.

So let me get this straight, if someone goes "my car has been taken away!" you'd go "no, it was violated and it's contining to be violated, it does not mean you don't have your car"

it just doesn't sound logical

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So let me get this straight, if someone goes "my car has been taken away!" you'd go "no, it was violated and it's contining to be violated, it does not mean you don't have your car"

it just doesn't sound logical

Your car isn't a right...

Look at it this way: you have a right to free speech ("speech" here in the wider definition of expression so as to include writing, etc.). If someone silences you, you have not LOST your right to free speech, it has just been infringed upon. You still have every ability to speak freely, you just can't do so without being punished. Unless you quite literally have your vocal chords cut out, hands cut off, and get lobotomized, it is absolutely impossible to TAKE AWAY the right to free speech, thus it is an inalienable right.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

Your car isn't a right...

Look at it this way: you have a right to free speech ("speech" here in the wider definition of expression so as to include writing, etc.). If someone silences you, you have not LOST your right to free speech, it has just been infringed upon. You still have every ability to speak freely, you just can't do so without being punished. Unless you quite literally have your vocal chords cut out, hands cut off, and get lobotomized, it is absolutely impossible to TAKE AWAY the right to free speech, thus it is an inalienable right.

I don't have a right to own property? I didn't say drive, I just said had a car

Also, if someone puts you in a cell that is sound proof, you have lost your right to free speech, there is no way you for you to speak freely to anyone about anything

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't have a right to own property? I didn't say drive, I just said had a car

Also, if someone puts you in a cell that is sound proof, you have lost your right to free speech, there is no way you for you to speak freely to anyone about anything

You have a right to own property, but you're confusing the theft/taking away of property with the taking away of the right to own property. Someone stealing your car in no way would affect your ability to own property, it just means that someone has infringed upon your property ownership.

And no, you have not lost your right to free speech if you're put in a sound proof cell. You've had your right infringed upon to the extreme, but you're still perfectly capable of saying and thinking whatever you want, even if no one else can hear it. Someone else being involved or not has zero bearing on it.

[Thorgrim]

the right to think and mutter to oneself is not what anyone meant when they wrote the "right to free speech"

I think it's ridiculous that you would say you're "capable of...thinking whatever you want" I mean...seriously...how is that related to the grand right of "free speech"

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

Your rights have then been violated, that does not mean that you do not have them. You have the right to sell your labor, and if in slavery, that right is being violated every day.

and the effective difference between not having that right and it being violated in zero.

The only point to the "you cannot have a right taken away argument" is to establish a stronger position arguing about what rights one should have.

After all if the premise is that the rights can never be taken away, only violated it automatically assumes those rights are a good thing and all violations of said rights bad.

If the rights could be established and removed there is more "wiggle room".


In any case they are merely a construct and have no meaning without others also supporting the same interpetation of the construct

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the right to think and mutter to oneself is not what anyone meant when they wrote the "right to free speech"

I think it's ridiculous that you would say you're "capable of...thinking whatever you want" I mean...seriously...how is that related to the grand right of "free speech"

You still have the right. It is unalienable. It is impossible to put a lien on someone's negative rights because they are inherent.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

You still have the right. It is unalienable. It is impossible to put a lien on someone's negative rights because they are inherent.

Inherent in what? Rights are not fundamentally operative like say, gravity

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Inherent in what? Rights are not fundamentally operative like say, gravity

Rights are subject to the existence of humans, much like gravity is subject to the existence of mass. Both are still objective.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

What kind of force are you talking about? The only force that would be necessary is tax money, and that becomes unnecessary if people are willing to foot the bill on their own accord. Since such a setup does not go against libertarian philosophy, you're 100% wrong to claim that protection of liberty requires the use of force.

Right because your an Anarcho-capitalist, but my post was geared towards the minimalists who would still use force in the manner that I would think you would not agree with.

Regardless, force is a subjective term coined by libertarians so it is really difficult to design how libertarianism is also an ideology of force (like all ideologies) without the argument falling onto a bias that favors the one who defines it.

I don't disagree that government can be oppressive and that some things are best left to the marketplace with very little regulation, but to assume such rationality from society is dangerous. Would you agree that most libertarians would not favor a pure democracy in which the majority always got their way? Because the majority can violate the rights of a minority of course, but why then do we let such a notion dominate the marketplace? Will it not do the same thing? Humans are never 100% rational, our emotions do get the best of us, now add money and power into the mix and it gets even worse. That to think the market itself will correct it may be a fallacy because it presupposes the same players who are in the market - and who may be benefiting from violation of rights - would be willing to change it such that they don't have an advantage anymore, it doesn't make sense from a profit point of view. PAC's in government try to that now by influencing leaders to change rules and regulations that were meant to protect us so it could benefit themselves so why would it be any different if we cut out government as the middle man?

You also assume society at large would be more or less righteous. The marketplace does play a huge role in our society but society itself is its own entity with its own unwritten rules and norms that could certainly violate the rights of individuals - who then rectifies that?

Of course it would be government, we talked about that, but as I said before, being that government must be in these roles there must be positive liberty so that these violations are known in the forum of government and protected. Positive liberty then, is democratic in nature - the right to use free speech (free speech itself is a negative right, the exercise thereof is positive) to get your message out - and must supersede negative liberty in cases where violations occur in order to have a just and liberal society.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Rights are subject to the existence of humans, much like gravity is subject to the existence of mass. Both are still objective.

Ideas are not fundamentals, they are abstract thought. You could say murder only exists because people do, but that does not make it a right.

Rights exist only because people decide they do, and people can change their minds.

[Dumpy Dooby]

You're arguing against a fundamental tenet of libertarian beliefs. Obviously we think you're 100% wrong.

And I didn't say that all things subjective to human existence are "rights." Murder isn't a right, and I never said it was. Nice straw man, though.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

You're arguing against a fundamental tenet of libertarian beliefs. Obviously we think you're 100% wrong.

I'm not arguing against the belief, I am pointing out that beliefs are not inherant, they are based on ideas. I can't see how anyone can claim that a human construct simply exists without it being an idea.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

And I didn't say that all things subjective to human existence are "rights." Murder isn't a right, and I never said it was. Nice straw man, though.

A good point, a little bit too much cow-is-table logic. What I was trying to convey, unsuccessfully, was that human existence entails a great deal of complex thought and ideas, everything is related to this.