What If Freedom Doesn’t Serve The Greater Good?

[Granny]

I'm not sure what you mean about "the greater good" but if you think socialism, communism, etc. will serve anybody well, you're sadly mistaken. These types of governments will definitely create nothing but enslavement, poverty, complete loss of freedom, fear and a lot of other stuff that Americans can do without.

 

[JBeukema]

Laws protect the individuals' rights.

The Law declares the existence of the rights, as well.

What's your point?

Or at least they should. In so protecting the rights of each individual, the rights of the collective preserved

That's debatable. Interesting that you speak of 'collective rights'- do feel free to speak further on this concept, my collectivist friend.

Ah the ad hominem attacks.

link?

Unlike you I don't expect others to do anything for me but that does not necessarily mean I do not help another.

sure

The day you're hit by a car, we'll judge your reactin to those who step over you. Like the Bourgeois Liberals, suspect we'll see your rhetoric is for nothing and you'll very much wish for someone like me to find you as opposed to someone who speaks your own words and leaves you to die.

You see the idea of respecting individual liberties precludes the concept of projecting your thoughts and ideals onto another.

Except that you're sitting here advocating your concept of how to protect your concept of rights and trying to project it into policy and law...

careful painting yourself into that corner

 

[JBeukema]

I'm not sure what you mean about "the greater good" but if you think socialism, communism, etc. will serve anybody well, you're sadly mistaken. These types of governments will definitely create nothing but enslavement, poverty, complete loss of freedom, fear and a lot of other stuff that Americans can do without.

What the fuck are you babbling about, moron?

What I am basically asking is are you a deontological libertarian (natural rights) or consequentialist libertarian (utilitarian)?

This entire discussion is among libertarians and about libertarianism.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not sure what you mean about "the greater good" but if you think socialism, communism, etc. will serve anybody well, you're sadly mistaken. These types of governments will definitely create nothing but enslavement, poverty, complete loss of freedom, fear and a lot of other stuff that Americans can do without.

Pretty much what is about to happen on the Gulf coast, in other words.

Republicans are always arguing for drilling for oil to serve the greater good. But oddly enough no one calls them communists for it. Why is that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Laws protect the individuals' rights.

The Law declares the existence of the rights, as well.

What's your point?

Or at least they should. In so protecting the rights of each individual, the rights of the collective preserved

That's debatable. Interesting that you speak of 'collective rights'- do feel free to speak further on this concept, my collectivist friend.

The collective is nothing more than a collection of individuals is it not? So the protection of individual rights benefit all people.

link?

Link to what? You mentioning morality first?

here

I love how people say you shouldn't have to do that which is 'good' or 'moral', yet they then claim that their anarchy is good and moral and claim the moral highground for their arguments.

Unlike you I don't expect others to do anything for me but that does not necessarily mean I do not help another.

sure

The day you're hit by a car, we'll judge your reactin to those who step over you. Like the Bourgeois Liberals, suspect we'll see your rhetoric is for nothing and you'll very much wish for someone like me to find you as opposed to someone who speaks your own words and leaves you to die.

[/QUOTE]

More hypothetical bullshit

You see the idea of respecting individual liberties precludes the concept of projecting your thoughts and ideals onto another.

Except that you're sitting here advocating your concept of how to protect your concept of rights and trying to project it into policy and law...

careful painting yourself into that corner

[/QUOTE]

The Constitution was based on individual rights and the protection of those rights from government usurpation. I am not projecting anything. I have never mentioned how an individuals rights should be protected have I?

What I said was an individual is not bound to act in the greater good. And that the only restriction on individual rights is that in so exercising his rights an individual is prohibited from violating the rights of another.

My opinion of people who pass by an injured man is moot. They are not required to assist period.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I vehemetly oppose individuals being coerced into supporting something, financially or otherwise, deemed to the greater good by others (altruism). Individuals should choose what they feel are worth causes and give their time, resources, and/or money accordingly or not give at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here are the REAL questions: how are we defining "greater good", and who gets to define it? Is there an objective, universal definition and understanding out there of "greater good", or is it a matter of perspective?

I would argue that the only one who could define it is God.

Oh, we can ALL define it, but the definitions will all be different and totally subjective.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not sure what you mean about "the greater good" but if you think socialism, communism, etc. will serve anybody well, you're sadly mistaken. These types of governments will definitely create nothing but enslavement, poverty, complete loss of freedom, fear and a lot of other stuff that Americans can do without.

Haven't you noticed that there are some people around here who think that IS the "greater good"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thought I'd mirror this guy's post here, as it should make for interesting discussion

What I am basically asking is are you a deontological libertarian (natural rights) or consequentialist libertarian (utilitarian)?
Of course you are probably a bit of both. You believe freedom is moral and that it also happens to serve the greater good.
Which is why I ask… what if it doesn’t? What if voluntary markets aren’t the best means to allocate resources? Are you still for freedom (based on principle) or would you be willing to accept a legitimacy for government intervention?

original

Why does freedom have to serve the greater good? I see no real basis for claiming that freedom is either moral, or that it serves the greater good. Freedom is my choice and my responsibility. No one owes me my freedom, and I will do everything I can to stop those who try to take it away from me, no matter what their rationale.

Unless the "Greater Good" serves my freedom it is meaningless to me.

 

[JBeukema]

Why does freedom have to serve the greater good?

So liberty is not good?

I see no real basis for claiming that freedom is either moral

So you have no problem with totalitarianism and tyranny, so long as you're the dictator and your liberties aren't infringed?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thought I'd mirror this guy's post here, as it should make for interesting discussion

What I am basically asking is are you a deontological libertarian (natural rights) or consequentialist libertarian (utilitarian)?
Of course you are probably a bit of both. You believe freedom is moral and that it also happens to serve the greater good.
Which is why I ask… what if it doesn’t? What if voluntary markets aren’t the best means to allocate resources? Are you still for freedom (based on principle) or would you be willing to accept a legitimacy for government intervention?

original

Why does freedom have to serve the greater good? I see no real basis for claiming that freedom is either moral, or that it serves the greater good. Freedom is my choice and my responsibility. No one owes me my freedom, and I will do everything I can to stop those who try to take it away from me, no matter what their rationale.

Unless the "Greater Good" serves my freedom it is meaningless to me.

I'm pretty sure the OP is talking about the morality of having a country that allows people to have freedom, rather than oppressing them in the name of achieving some "greater good" as determined by those with the power to do the oppressing.

 

[Ravi]

How surprising that none of the "conservatives" are commenting on drilling for oil for the greater good being communist.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How surprising that none of the "conservatives" are commenting on drilling for oil for the greater good being communist.

I don't see how a private company drilling for a commodity that it will sell for profit is communist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why does freedom have to serve the greater good?

So liberty is not good?[\quote]

I didn't say that, I said that it does not have to serve the greater good. Individual liberty trumps societal need. I also stated that I see no reason for claiming it is moral. Morality implies a duty on me that I may or may not choose to accept. As I believe my only duty is to make my own choices I refuse to allow other's morality to be a factor in my choices.

I see no real basis for claiming that freedom is either moral

So you have no problem with totalitarianism and tyranny, so long as you're the dictator and your liberties aren't infringed?

That works for me, does that make me a hypocrite?

What I said is that freedom is my choice, and my responsibility. I would not be free if I was a tyrant, I would be to busy making sure that all my subjects were either to happy or too afraid to challenge me.