Is Mandatory Freedom Coercive?

[rtwngAvngr]

Discuss.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I remember fighting with some retarded lib on here about establishing democracy in iraq. He kept saying "who are we to do it. let them decide!" and I'd be like "That's what democracy is, the people deciding." and around and around we went. It was weird.

 

[Nightwish]

I remember fighting with some retarded lib on here about establishing democracy in iraq. He kept saying "who are we to do it. let them decide!" and I'd be like "That's what democracy is, the people deciding." and around and around we went. It was weird.

Democracy is a lot more than just the people voting in elections to elect a government. That's a mechanism of democracy, but it doesn't establish a democracy itself. Once that government is elected, it needs to take measures to assure that the voice of the people remains at the forefront of policy-making. That means either putting every policy issue to a public vote (something very difficult to do), or doing something like we have in America, where elected representatives are expected to unequivocally represent the will of their constituents in any and all policy decisions, independent of their own personal views on those issues. Further, the people need to not only be able to elect those representatives into office, but also have recourse to elect them out of office if they don't properly represent them. If that doesn't happen in Iraq, then Iraq won't have a democracy, no matter how many elections they held to create that government.

As for the original question of coerced freedom, freedom is very subjective. What we consider freedom might be considered stifling and repressive to another culture. Freedom is defined by a given society's beliefs and values, and if those beliefs and values don't coincide with ours (as is the case with the Islamic Middle East), then our idea of freedom won't be theirs, and what they consider freedom wouldn't sit well with us.

 

[5stringJeff]

Let's remember, the Iraqis wrote this constitution, the Iraqis voted on it and the Iraqis approved it. The only coersion was that we coerced Saddam Hussein to take a 9 month vacation to Spiderholeland.

 

[Nightwish]

Let's remember, the Iraqis wrote this constitution, the Iraqis voted on it and the Iraqis approved it. The only coersion was that we coerced Saddam Hussein to take a 9 month vacation to Spiderholeland.

I agree. I think the coercion would come into play if we decide we don't like the government they put into place (like if what they elected becomes a theocracy), and try to force them to start again and keep doing it until they get it right ... according to our standards. I hope that's not what happens. But I'm sure there are plenty of neocons who would be in favor of that tactic. Let's just hope the more level heads on the right prevail.

 

[5stringJeff]

I agree. I think the coercion would come into play if we decide we don't like the government they put into place (like if what they elected becomes a theocracy), and try to force them to start again and keep doing it until they get it right ... according to our standards. I hope that's not what happens. But I'm sure there are plenty of neocons who would be in favor of that tactic. Let's just hope the more level heads on the right prevail.

Frankly, it's up to Iraq to get its government going. We have basically agreed to act as Iraq's military until they can get their army back up to speed, but politically speaking, Iraq's government is Iraq's business.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

freedom is very subjective. .

I call bullshit.

 

[Hobbit]

I call bullshit.

Yeah, I gotta agree with him on this one. If your idea of freedom is different from mine, then one of us is wrong.

 

[trobinett]

Yeah, I gotta agree with him on this one. If your idea of freedom is different from mine, then one of us is wrong.

I agree, the question then becomes, WHO is wrong, and WHO makes that call?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah, I gotta agree with him on this one. If your idea of freedom is different from mine, then one of us is wrong.

Yeah. Then we would enter a debate and determine who is wrong.

 

[Nightwish]

I call bullshit.

You're welcome to provide an objective definition of freedom that is agreed upon in a value sense and sought by everyone who seeks freedom.

If you were to poll every freedom-loving person in the world, and ask them to define freedom as they value it, and all of them gave one unbending definition, what would it be?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're welcome to provide an objective definition of freedom that is agreed upon in a value sense and sought by everyone who seeks freedom.

If you were to poll every freedom-loving person in the world, and ask them to define freedom as they value it, and all of them gave one unbending definition, what would it be?

The right, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then Our bill of rights, for good measure.

 

[dilloduck]

It's a question of degrees of freedom ,isn't it?

 

[Nightwish]

The right, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then Our bill of rights, for good measure.

Good, you've defined it for Americans. Now define it for everyone else. I'd almost go with "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but in order to make that remotely objective, you're also going to have to define "liberty" and "happiness," and set aside the conditions by which those can be found for everyone, regardless of creed or culture.

 

[dilloduck]

Good, you've defined it for Americans. Now define it for everyone else. I'd almost go with "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but in order to make that remotely objective, you're also going to have to define "liberty" and "happiness," and set aside the conditions by which those can be found for everyone, regardless of creed or culture.

Agreed--are our freedoms not limited by present law, economics, physics etc.?

 

[Nightwish]

Agreed--are our freedoms not limited by present law, economics, physics etc.?

Not to mention informed by the philosophical, political, religious and spiritual ideals of our particular society.

 

[dilloduck]

Not to mention informed by the philosophical, political, religious and spiritual ideals of our particular society.

To be practical the discussion of freedom would have to examine the ability to do X under Y circumstances without Z happening. Good luck!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good, you've defined it for Americans. Now define it for everyone else. I'd almost go with "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but in order to make that remotely objective, you're also going to have to define "liberty" and "happiness," and set aside the conditions by which those can be found for everyone, regardless of creed or culture.

All the limits on government provided by the american bill of rights provide a fairly objectively free environment. I would also add certain economic rights, such as the right to own and operate businesses. I know you'd like to add in a bunch of lib crap. Like " the right to not have to work for a living", or the "the right to free health care" But all these "gimme" rights cross the line and require others being coerced out of their goods and services, in the name of "the public good". Freedom is fairly objective. It's not "different in different cultures".

 

[Nightwish]

All the limits on government provided by the american bill of rights provide a fairly objectively free environment. I would also add certain economic rights, such as the right to own and operate businesses.

No, but they offer a good definition of the American concept of freedom.

I know you'd like to add in a bunch of lib crap. Like " the right to not have to work for a living", or the "the right to free health care."

Ooh, zing! Hmmm, to tell him I am against welfare, or not to tell him? That is the question! I mean, I hate to burst his bubble when he's obviously having so much fun belching up stereotypes! Decisions, decisions ...

But all these "gimme" rights cross the line and require others being coerced out of their goods and services, in the name of "the public good".

I'm glad you think so. Now tell it to someone who disagrees with you.

Freedom is fairly objective. It's not "different in different cultures".

You are free to be wrong (pun intended).

 

[5stringJeff]

I'd say that the right to life, the right to personal and economic liberty, and the right to pursue happiness, in forms that don't violate the rights of others, are universally held desires, that cross cultural/national lines.