When is it okay to violate a person's freedom?

[Sallow]

Your equating freedom with money?

So you're against economic freedom?

I didn't say that. But I don't view freedom in terms of money and there is more to "freedom" than economic freedom. BTW the Constituition gives Congress the right to lay taxes. So I'm guessing you have a problem with the Constitution or at least the taxation part.

Damn, beat me to it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The government does not provide freedom. It protects rights and private property. Or at least it used to do that. now it seems to be responsible for everything except the bath mat.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So what's the answer? 80%? 60%? Maybe 50%?

The answer is any coercive direct unapportioned taxation on labor is slavery.

 

[Dreamy]

The government does not provide freedom. It protects rights and private property. Or at least it used to do that. now it seems to be responsible for everything except the bath mat.

For those who dismiss the existence of God the government does provide for some a sense they are in charge, albeit it is not true freedom except for those who want the freedom to not think and sometimes not work.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I dismiss the existence of god, but i find the state apparatus to do far more harm than good at this point. We're all essentially slaves, it's just that over time the human farmers have learned what to not do to stir the pot adn get themselfves ejected from power.

They get better at it all the time. Most people feel like they are complaetely free, as they pay 45% of their time/labor to causes that rarely, if ever, give them any benefit. And if they question this "fee", or stop paying it, they are violently coerced from their property or wealth to pay.

 

[rosends]

If 100% taxation on ones labor is slavery, at what percentage is it not slavery?

on one level wouldn't that require computing the cost of that freedom? the amount is takes to keep essential roles of government working? I am able to earn a salary because the system works. Thus, I need to pay a certain amount into the middle to keep that system working.

We probably differ on our opinion as to what constitutes and "essential role of government".

we might, I vacillate. That's an essential difference which drives political discourse. And since I can't, on any given day, really back up any of my positions as they relate to politics, I tend to stay silent.

 

[Dreamy]

I dismiss the existence of god, but i find the state apparatus to do far more harm than good at this point. We're all essentially slaves, it's just that over time the human farmers have learned what to not do to stir the pot adn get themselfves ejected from power.

They get better at it all the time. Most people feel like they are complaetely free, as they pay 45% of their time/labor to causes that rarely, if ever, give them any benefit. And if they question this "fee", or stop paying it, they are violently coerced from their property or wealth to pay.

Is this a case of a void needing to be filled by something? If not God, then government?

I feel anything but free today because of government but I also do believe my freedom came from God. Not looking to debate the existence of God but simply to give my personal take on freedom.

 

[koshergrl]

The erosion of liberty, and the definition changes begin...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It could very well be that statists view the role of government as it's ultimate authority. That there are men that are more intelligent, more succinct in thought and know better than others what is best for them. In fact, i think this is exactly why people bow and boot lick government so feverishly.

A soul search for an authority figure has landed them squarely in the open arms of the state. Where these types believe they too are part of the decision making process and that the state truly has their best interest at heart.

To me, this is the ultimate in ignorance. To believe that people are inherently bad and that some of these inherently bad people are equipped with the "good" needed to shepard everyone else and tell them what is best. It's a strange and eerie cognition failure to me.

 

[Dreamy]

It could very well be that statists view the role of government as it's ultimate authority. That there are men that are more intelligent, more succinct in thought and know better than others what is best for them. In fact, i think this is exactly why people bow and boot lick government so feverishly.

A soul search for an authority figure has landed them squarely in the open arms of the state. Where these types believe they too are part of the decision making process and that the state truly has their best interest at heart.

To me, this is the ultimate in ignorance. To believe that people are inherently bad and that some of these inherently bad people are equipped with the "good" needed to shepard everyone else and tell them what is best. It's a strange and eerie cognition failure to me.

A better way would be....?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

....to have far more leaders than followers. To have people take responsibility for themselves and stop asking someone else (in this case the state) to fix every single last problem that arises socially, or economically. Especially when more times than not, it is the state that creates a problem by meddling in these affairs and then offers a "solution" to the problem it created. People seem to fall for this all the time.

I see it the most in the last financial crisis. Government creates a massive economic problem, the statist clamor over a scapegoat or four, and the state gets selected to "fix" the very mess it created. It's extremely perplexing.

 

[Dreamy]

....to have far more leaders than followers. To have people take responsibility for themselves and stop asking someone else (in this case the state) to fix every single last problem that arises socially, or economically. Especially when more times than not, it is the state that creates a problem by meddling in these affairs and then offers a "solution" to the problem it created. People seem to fall for this all the time.

I see it the most in the last financial crisis. Government creates a massive economic problem, the statist clamor over a scapegoat or four, and the state gets selected to "fix" the very mess it created. It's extremely perplexing.

Gotcha. I am with you there. I can't imagine getting the masses off of the government teat in my lifetime, not with the government we elect time after time.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Once the govt. imlodes, there will be little choice BUT to get off the teat. That could very well happen in this lifetime/generation.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I dismiss the existence of god, but i find the state apparatus to do far more harm than good at this point. We're all essentially slaves, it's just that over time the human farmers have learned what to not do to stir the pot adn get themselfves ejected from power.

They get better at it all the time. Most people feel like they are complaetely free, as they pay 45% of their time/labor to causes that rarely, if ever, give them any benefit. And if they question this "fee", or stop paying it, they are violently coerced from their property or wealth to pay.

Is this a case of a void needing to be filled by something? If not God, then government?

I feel anything but free today because of government but I also do believe my freedom came from God. Not looking to debate the existence of God but simply to give my personal take on freedom.

I, too, dismiss the existence of a god, but government is most certainly NOT the answer to "fill the void". I have little doubt that many who have disavowed the existence of a god do indeed look to government and worship that human construct as fervently as many worship the deity of their choice. The worshipers of government also exhibit the propensity to inflict their choice of master upon all others, forcibly, if necessary.

 

[Nightson]

If you take and accept the premise that a natural man is 100% free to do anything he pleases and go from there... Where do you see fit to take his freedom? Only to stop him from taking away the liberty of other people? Is it okay to tax his labor to pay for other people who are less fortunate? How much freedom can be removed from a person before you have crossed the lines of justice?

The question of absolute individual freedom speaks to the innate necessity of the individual to seek the companionship of others--to mate, to empathize, to learn the ways of the ancestors, to ease the burden of one's own survival, etc. This is the root of the nascence of society. If a man were to inhabit a wilderness absolutely removed from all other human habitat, then I believe he would be free to practice absolute individual freedoms as his behaviors, choices and actions would affect no other life but his own.

The limitiation of personal freedom begins with interaction with family, friendships, marriage, offspring and leads to further restriction when one joins a group, a tribe, a society. The willful sacrifice of personal freedom has more to do with the unavoidable "memberships" to which we are indelibly subscribed, from birth, than with the passage of laws which appear to limit it.

A life spent in complete isolation is the only void in which absolute personal freedom is possible. Otherwise, as husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, workers for companies, members of societies, adherents to religions; every action we take which endeavors to fulfil a so called personal freedom has immediate effect on some other individual be it positive or negative.

In conclusion, we sentient human individuals voluntarily surrender varying degrees of ulitmate personal freedom in exchange for interaction with other humans and to become members of the tribe in general. A government, a society then could never endow its citizenry with complete personal freedom or unrestrained pursuit of happiness, very obviously. While Joe or Jane citizen may be satisfied with worshipping the god of their choice, or spending their days baking cookies, John and Jill might prefer joy killing people at rest stops or kidnapping children.

Unfortunately, human nature itself imposes limits on individual freedom--if one believes in civilization, or even the importance of the family unit.

 

[LibertyLemming]

If you take and accept the premise that a natural man is 100% free to do anything he pleases and go from there... Where do you see fit to take his freedom? Only to stop him from taking away the liberty of other people? Is it okay to tax his labor to pay for other people who are less fortunate? How much freedom can be removed from a person before you have crossed the lines of justice?

The question of absolute individual freedom speaks to the innate necessity of the individual to seek the companionship of others--to mate, to empathize, to learn the ways of the ancestors, to ease the burden of one's own survival, etc. This is the root of the nascence of society. If a man were to inhabit a wilderness absolutely removed from all other human habitat, then I believe he would be free to practice absolute individual freedoms as his behaviors, choices and actions would affect no other life but his own.

The limitiation of personal freedom begins with interaction with family, friendships, marriage, offspring and leads to further restriction when one joins a group, a tribe, a society. The willful sacrifice of personal freedom has more to do with the unavoidable "memberships" to which we are indelibly subscribed, from birth, than with the passage of laws which appear to limit it.

A life spent in complete isolation is the only void in which absolute personal freedom is possible. Otherwise, as husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, workers for companies, members of societies, adherents to religions; every action we take which endeavors to fulfil a so called personal freedom has immediate effect on some other individual be it positive or negative.

In conclusion, we sentient human individuals voluntarily surrender varying degrees of ulitmate personal freedom in exchange for interaction with other humans and to become members of the tribe in general. A government, a society then could never endow its citizenry with complete personal freedom or unrestrained pursuit of happiness, very obviously. While Joe or Jane citizen may be satisfied with worshipping the god of their choice, or spending their days baking cookies, John and Jill might prefer joy killing people at rest stops or kidnapping children.

Unfortunately, human nature itself imposes limits on individual freedom--if one believes in civilization, or even the importance of the family unit.

I understand that freedom is restricted as a result of interaction. I don't think that familial and other relationships are the same as the relationship between government and the people.

My "husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, workers for companies, members of societies, adherents to religions" do not lock me in a cage if I don't do something they tell me I have to do. They generally don't deprive other people of their liberty by attacking them with weapons and killing other people(s). They don't take money out of my pocket, I can not give it to them, etc, etc. The reason we have government at all is so when people do these things, these things that violate the liberty of other people, the disputes can be dealt with fairly (lol).

The distinguishing factor of government is force.

Freedom is given up via social contracts, for sure, and of which government is one. The question is how much should government be allowed to take and I suppose that depends on your desire to be free versus your desire to survive with a lesser degree of effort.

As for TakeaStepBack, who I thought spoke very eloquently, and the question of slavery. I suggest that are no degrees of slavery. One is either a slave or he is not.

 

[Nightson]

I dismiss the existence of god, but i find the state apparatus to do far more harm than good at this point. We're all essentially slaves, it's just that over time the human farmers have learned what to not do to stir the pot adn get themselfves ejected from power.

They get better at it all the time. Most people feel like they are complaetely free, as they pay 45% of their time/labor to causes that rarely, if ever, give them any benefit. And if they question this "fee", or stop paying it, they are violently coerced from their property or wealth to pay.

Is this a case of a void needing to be filled by something? If not God, then government?

I feel anything but free today because of government but I also do believe my freedom came from God. Not looking to debate the existence of God but simply to give my personal take on freedom.

I, too, dismiss the existence of a god, but government is most certainly NOT the answer to "fill the void". I have little doubt that many who have disavowed the existence of a god do indeed look to government and worship that human construct as fervently as many worship the deity of their choice. The worshipers of government also exhibit the propensity to inflict their choice of master upon all others, forcibly, if necessary.

I suspect most people do not ponder their existence so deeply while going about the daily business of personal survival. God is there--for some. The state is there, but do they really assign a face to the infrastructure above until they have no other choice? How much money is in the bank? What will I make for dinner? Can I cover the bills this month? What financial doom looms on the near or far horizon? Questions like these dominate most minds I would forward. Thinking on a "world" view level probably terrifies most people. This is not a generalization, but I believe the deeper, broader thinking really begins for most people during certain events in their lives which force it. Events such as losing ones job, or a national election or a personal tragedy which can drive one to seek a higher authority to which to ascribe the blame.