Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (8912)	12/14/2010 10:23:26 AM
From: Oeconomicus	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

"Let me break it down for you. "Society has to have rules for social order. But people also should be free to manifest their destiny. "Societie's rules at times will impinge on an individual's feedom [sic]. So melding the two is what is needed, but also a dilemma. "Can you follow that? "Chomsky would not have liked existentialism as an ideal. And I agree. But otherwise, it is only an abstract concept. "You would call a Chinese book, gobbledygook, because all you would see is chicken scratch." No, I would call it a Chinese book because, you know, it's written in Chinese. I had no problem reading what you wrote, but it conveyed no meaning because it was gobbledygook. Gibberish. As for your attempt at clarification, "people should be free to manifest their destiny" isn't any better as far as defining freedom goes. It is so vague that it means nothing on its face, but could be construed to mean just about anything the speakers wishes. Sounds a bit like J.S. Mill and Harriet Taylor's "freedom as self-development" position (much like the concept of "existential freedom", I suppose), which I think to be inadequate because it overlooks the importance of economic and political freedoms. However, Mill also argued that the legitimate authority of government or society over the individual is limited to preventing harm to others - i.e. violation of the rights of others - which is essentially the libertarian view. From the essay “The Contest in America”, published in Harper's in 1862: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right." Anyway, back to your vagaries. You say, with regard to freedom and order, that "melding the two is what is needed, but also a dilemma." You've said nothing to establish this as distinct from the libertarian view. Most self-described libertarians (excluding those who are really anarchists of various stripes) understand that the rule of law (what you might call 'order') is crucial to the preservation of individual liberty, and further that it is the role of government to maintain the rule of law. So, I ask again, how do you define freedom, how is that different from how others define it, and how do you distinguish your balancing of freedom and order, liberty and authority, from how libertarian or other philosophies would balance them?