Just a nice little philosophical question really. What is liberty? how would you define liberty? Is it just the ability to do things, or is it the ability to control your life? They aren't the same concept, after all. Or is liberty, for you, simply the abscence of physical coercion by other people?

Also, is liberty a good thing? In general and in all circumstances. If it is a good thing then why is it a good thing? Is it good simply because it is - i.e. in the same way happiness is a good thing, it is just defined as good. Or is it good because it leads to other things which in themselves are good - i.e. is it good because it leads to the development of the mind, or security, etc.

This isn't intended to attack any position, I just want to see if we can get some kind of discussion on this going. Might be interesting, you never know.

<font color="#33cc33">Those of course are just My opinions.

Edit: Just for fun, thought I would post this too.

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
Pronunciation: 'li-b&r-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
Date: 14th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY b : RISK, CHANCE <took foolish liberties with his health> c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
synonym see FREEDOM
- at liberty 1 : FREE 2 : at leisure : UNOCCUPIED </font>

[ 11-08-2002, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Well I don't know much about it Magik, but it seems to me that what you said is what an anarchist believes in. Complete individual freedom combined with social responsibilty? Not trying to start anything, but this is what the anarchists I know believe in.

liberty is the ability to pursue the things in life that make us happy. Obviously breaking the law (murder,theft,robbery for example) are not to be tolerated and im all for maximum punishment in all cases of criminal activity. But if you want to go out and try new things, travel, and do what consenting adults do behind closed doors thats your liberty. I was in the Marine Corps and in boot camp i had to ask permission to do everything,but it was my choice to persevere(?) during that time. Not having to ask permission to travel or talk or go to the bathroom are liberties. If ppl dont think they have enough liberty in the USA....then move to Iraq where Saddam just elected himself dictator for 7 more years. Yes. liberty is good.

Yo M man! Or some... such... anyway!

So if liberty is not being constrained by anothers actions would you say that someone who has an irrationall fear of flying is free? They are unable to pursue their desires and they are unable to do so because of the constraint of an authority - namely themselves. So they seem unfree, but under your definition they are still free. Are you saying that people simply have the opportunity to be free, but what actually happens to them is not a liberty issue as long as no one interferes.

With the second point, would you argue that murder should be legal? It is my desire to murder people, for instance, and the law stops me from doing so. An outside authority stops me from taking an action. This is an infringement on my liberty, and liberty is an absolutely good thing. So should I be allowed to murder? The same goes for stealing, etc.

Once again, not trying to attack you, just throw around some critiscms and arguments.

So who makes the laws? If you are only allowed to lose liberty through a law who decides on what the laws say? Under what principles should they be made? If we passed a law tomorrow to say that walking without humming was illegal would it be ok to enforce people?

What I'm trying to say is that liberty may be good, but when does it stop being good. We seem to have reached a bit of a concensus, you and me, that liberty tends to be good but it isn't good in all cases - i.e. ones that harm people and are therefore against the law. If that is the case then how do we decide which ones are harmful and which aren't.

And finally, liberty is a good thing - why. What is it that make sliberty so great. Say you could have a society where everybody is happy but has no liberty. Would it be ok to take away their happiness and give them liberty? Or is liberty only good in so far as it gives us something else (e.g. happiness itself)? Any thoughts? To anyone really. Not trying to pick on Steve Blake here.

Edited to clarify things a bit.

[ 11-08-2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

Liberty? Freedom of the mind, I'd say, freedom to say, think and write what you want. To seek what knowledge that you want. Of course without harming anyone intentionally.

<font color="#33cc33">I don't really know any anarchists personally, the ones I have seen in protests don't follow the rule I positedd about my freedom stopping where yours is affected. They were advocating no rules at all of any kind.

Anarchy by definition has no constraints. So maybe you know modified anarchists (not that they have modified themselves, errr they might have but thats not what I meant) :D </font>

[ 11-08-2002, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color=skyblue>I know a man that has friends in Russia. he told me that in order to start a business of his own like a resturaunt...you would have to submit papers to the govt. in order to have permission to open your business. This could take a long time, and could easily get turned down, unless you have a friend on the inside that can help with the legalities of it. In this paperwork, you have to prove to the govt. that the resturaunt will be beneficial to the area.

Next, if you are accepted, you are asked by the govt. to send them a menu, complete with all ingredients used to make the food. You are not allowed to include anything on your menu that has not been submitted for approval. After receiving approval, and opening your resturaunt...if you change an ingredient in a recipe of an item...you must first submit papers for approval to the govt. in order for them to evaluate it. When it has been accepted you may then proceed to use the new recipe.

Now, in the U.S...the only thing you have to do to open a resturaunt is have a degree from college and while operating, maintain a clean atmosphere. If you do not have money to get the education, the govt. will give it to you, especially if you are a minority. In fact, most small businesses where a husband and wife run the show ...the company president will always be the wife, because she gets allowances that the man would not. Any woman that is not caucasion would have a kingdom of her own in no time, if she was smart enough to know how to work the system to get it.

That is the difference TO ME...where I can say that I live in liberty. Here, if you have a desire, you can obtain it if you want it. In other countries...it appears that their dreams remain dreams. That is why so many other countries come here for education in our colleges. We teach the principles that make the world better for everyone. If not so...then people would stop asking us to educate them.</font>

Edmund Burke said somewhere, "Every law is an infringement of liberty. It is the duty of the legislature to enact no law where the benefit to society does not outweigh this loss of freedom and all that it entails for the individual." That, I believe.
BTW, Epona, love your avatar.