The fetishization of "Freedom."

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is not an objective definition, and is wholly based upon subjectivity. Subjectivity cannot be reasonably used to "objectively" define anything.


Wrong.

It is an objective definition. If you asked every single ATS member to define ''freedom'', then every single member's answer would fall into the definition which I mentioned above.

In fact, ask any single human being, and their answer would still fall within the strict, objective parameters which I've outlined above.

You can't get much more ''objective'' than 100%, irrefutable definitions, based on factual evidence.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





Wrong.

It is an objective definition. If you asked every single ATS member to define ''freedom'', then every single member's answer would fall into the definition which I mentioned above.


Objectivity is not derived through consensus. Clearly you have no understanding of what objective means:


1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.


Now, let's contrast that with the definition of subjective:


1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.





In fact, ask any single human being, and their answer would still fall within the strict, objective parameters which I've outlined above.


So hopelessly subjective are you in your understanding of objectivity that you ignore the fact that I, a single human being, do not agree with your definition in order to assert that "any single human being" would answer the same as you.

It is arguable that any single human being would have thought that you would have actually bothered to look these definitions up for yourself, just to make sure you were correct in your argument, instead of waiting for your opponent to point out through definition your glaring error.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Name one enumeration of power listed in the Constitution for the United States of America that grants government the authority to bar freedom.


"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises etc.."

This grants the government the authority to restrict your freedom to own rightfully acquired property. Basically, the power to steal (thats what taxes are).

The only establishment which completely respects freedom is anarchy. All governments by definition restrict freedom, if only a little.
edit on 3/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
good thread. some could argue the root of all evil is the concept of self, and complete freedom. Imagine I felt I had the freedom to take anything I wanted, because I wanted to hoard things to make me feel secure

not good for you if I want your stuff

I think freedom is mistaken for upward mobility in most cases



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises etc.."

This grants the government the authority to restrict your freedom to own rightfully acquired property. Basically, it the power to steal (thats what taxes are).


Taxation is not theft. Insisting on having a government and refusing to pay for it would be theft. This is why the federal Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union. The Articles of Confederation did not allow the national government to lay or collect taxes and that national government could only request funding from the states. Some states granted funds others did not and this became a problem, thus the creation of the Constitution for the United States of America.

A direct tax on property does not restrict anyone from the right to property. Further, a direct tax comes with the rule of apportionment imposed upon Congress which makes any direct taxation - capitation or property - extremely difficult for Congress, which is why that legislative body generally avoids laying any direct tax and instead relies heavily upon indirect taxation, which also comes with a Constitutional rule of uniformity.

Even further, your assertion was that "It (the Ninth Amendment) bars denial of freedoms if the denial is based on the fact that certain rights are enumerated in the Constitution (but does not bar denial of freedoms if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution)", but you have not shown Congress' complete and plenary power of taxation to be a denial of any freedom.

Taxation is not a denial of freedom, it is a necessary form of revenue for government.

Flailing arms indeed.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leftist

With this thread I would like to make two points:

1) "Freedom" as an ideological value is usually very poorly defined in any given argument that pushes for it.

2) When it is defined, it is usually given excessive, almost mystical importance.
edit on 5/30/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)


Your points 1 and 2 are an epic fail.

You have made assertions based on no evidence or facts. Please cite references to freedom being "poorly" defined in any arguments, or examples of "excessive" importance.

You are simply stating an opinion. It's like saying I like vanilla ice cream.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Taxation is not theft. Insisting on having a government and refusing to pay for it would be theft.


Taking the property of others against their will is theft, denial of their right to property (or freedom to own). Period.

Your argument is like claiming stealing property of others is not theft as long as the thief substitutes it with something (does not matter that they dont want it). If I stole a car, and left the owner a bicycle, am I not a thief? How is stealing their money, and leaving them the government they may not want different?

If someone wants government, they can voluntarily pay for it, that would respect freedom and property rights. Taxes are not voluntary.

Taxation limits the "unalienable" right to property.
edit on 4/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
What is clear is that both sides of this argument follow a particularly definition of freedom that follows their political leanings. I have no problem with that but would the right be happy to allow trade unionists to follow their political beliefs? I think not.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Altruism is good. Government-enforced altruism is terrible, because it isnt true altruism. It makes the receivers of handouts dependent, and the reluctant "givers" hold a grudge. The correct way of doing it would be to create a voluntary fund for the have-nots instead of demonizing and stealing from the haves. Thus freedom is defined as others refraining from imposing on us in this manner. Compassionate-Libertarianism is a system with a future.
edit on 4-6-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





Taking the property of others against their will is theft, denial of their right to property (or freedom to own). Period.


Taxing property is not taking property.




Your argument is like claiming stealing property of others is not theft as long as the thief substitutes it with something (does not matter that they dont want it). If I stole a car, and left the owner a bicycle, am I not a thief? How is stealing their money, and leaving them the government they may not want different?


Stealing property is theft, your reification that taxation is theft is a lie. Taxing property is not stealing property.




If someone wants government, they can voluntarily pay for it, that would respect freedom and property rights. Taxes are not voluntary.


All indirect taxes are voluntary and all indirect taxes are defeatable.




Taxation limits the "unalienable" right to property.


No one is limited to owning property by way of taxation. You are simply making wild claims and inexplicably still and stubbornly so, flailing your arms.

Anyone who wants to own property can, and further Congress very rarely taxes property anyway. I asked you to show me an enumerated power with in the federal Constitution that denies freedom. This is the best you can do?

At least by failing we know you've tried, but precisely what are you trying to accomplish?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Taxing property is not taking property.


Then from where the tax revenue comes from, if not from the property of the taxed? Let me guess, "nature".

Of course all taxes by definition take property from the taxed.



Stealing property is theft, your reification that taxation is theft is a lie. Taxing property is not stealing property.


If stealing is defined as taking the rightfully owned property of others against their will, then taxation is theft.



All indirect taxes are voluntary


This is clearly incorrect. Try to refuse to pay indirect taxes, and see what happens. There is nothing voluntary in coercion.
Besides, Constitution allows also for direct (income) tax. Not that there is any important difference between the two when it comes to whether they are voluntary and their effect on freedom. All taxes are involuntary, otherwise they would not be called taxes.



Anyone who wants to own property can, and further Congress very rarely taxes property anyway. I asked you to show me an enumerated power with in the federal Constitution that denies freedom. This is the best you can do?


Its enough to show that Constitution indeed denies freedom and natural rights. If you cannot prove it incorrect, why go further?

I find it ironic that most of the time, its those more on the left claiming that taxation is not theft, and those more on the right (or libertarians) claiming that it is. Now its reversed.
edit on 4/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





Then from where the tax revenue comes from, if not from the property of the taxed? Let me guess, "nature". Of course all taxes by definition take property from the taxed.


You are arguing from ignorance.


The court, fully recognizing in the passage which we have previously quoted the all embracing character of the two great classifications, including, on the one hand, direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other, excises, duties, and imposts subject to uniformity


~Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad~

All direct taxes are either capitation taxes (poll tax) or property tax, all indirect taxes are either excises, duties, or imposts. Government no more takes property as theft than a grocery store takes property from you at the cash register, or a contractor takes property from you at the completion of a job and handing of a bill. If a tax has been lawfully imposed, that tax is not theft. You can keep screaming it all you want, you offer no evidence to support your contention.




This is clearly incorrect. Try to refuse to pay indirect taxes, and see what happens. There is nothing voluntary in coercion.


Luxury taxes are indirect taxes. Tax on tobacco is an indirect tax. Tax on alcohol is an indirect tax. If a tax is laid upon the manufacture of a yacht, and the manufacture passes that tax onto the buyer, the buyer has two options; purchase the yacht and pay the tax, or not purchase the yacht. If the buyer declines to purchase the yacht the tax was defeated. The same applies to tobacco, alcohol or any other indirect tax.

Arguing from ignorance is yet another logical fallacy you rely upon.




Besides, Constitution allows also for direct (income) tax. Not that there is any important difference between the two when it comes to whether they are voluntary and their effect on freedom. All taxes are involuntary, otherwise they would not be called taxes.


Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? What is your point with this remark?




Its enough to show that Constitution indeed denies freedom and natural rights. If you cannot prove it incorrect, why go further?


The only thing you've shown is your vast ignorance of law, nothing more.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Government no more takes property as theft than a grocery store takes property from you at the cash register, or a contractor takes property from you at the completion of a job and handing of a bill.


You have a choice as to if you want to shop at a specific grocery store or not. You dont have a similar choice to not pay the taxes to the government.
You have a choice as to whether you even want to buy groceries. You dont have a choice as to whether you even want to buy the government. False analogy.



If a tax has been lawfully imposed, that tax is not theft.


If stealing is defined as taking the rightfully owned property of others against their will, then taxation is theft. ANY tax. The only thing that would respect property rights would be government funded from voluntary contributions.



If a tax is laid upon the manufacture of a yacht, and the manufacture passes that tax onto the buyer, the buyer has two options; purchase the yacht and pay the tax, or not purchase the yacht. If the buyer declines to purchase the yacht the tax was defeated. The same applies to tobacco, alcohol or any other indirect tax.


Your point? If a thief robs you of your profits so that you have to increase your prices to survive and make up for it, and people stop buying from you, its no longer theft? Nonsense.



Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? What is your point with this remark?


Both direct and indirect taxes restrict freedom and natural rights. The only system that fully respects natural rights completely is voluntary society (anarcho-capitalism). If you are not an anarcho-capitalist, you already agree with some disparagement of rights.



The only thing you've shown is your vast ignorance of law, nothing more.


You are still making excuses for the inexcusable. Trying to prove that taxation does not disparage property rights or economic freedoms is like squaring the circle, because thats the sole purpose of taxation.

Besides, why is there "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, instead of "property"?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
The only system that fully respects natural rights completely is voluntary society (anarcho-capitalism).


I agree with most of what you're saying but not this.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

Capitalism being the private ownership of the means of production, and the root problem of our issues.

Capitalism is not voluntary, it was forced on society when it replaced feudalism in the mid 1700's. It came about simply because land laws were changed, which allowed land owners to sell off parcels of their land. This also allowed the new land owners to deny its use to the commoners. This forced the commoners into towns, and cities, to work in factories, and mills, owned by the land owners. The land owners became extremely wealthy from this. In the 1800's the socialists named this new system capitalism. Originally defined as, 'the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others', by Louis Blanc.

Capitalism can not be anarchistic, as it is an authority itself. Capitalism is the exploitation of labour, as workers have to produce more than they are paid for in order for the capitalist to make profit. Workers are subservient to the private owner, as the worker does not have access to the means of production. If profit is not being made the means of production is removed and no longer produces, with no regard for peoples needs. Capitalism creates the state in order to protect its interests, and to keep the people from getting ideas that are a threat to capitalism.

Anarchism came out of the working class, and has always been traditionally socialist, because the only way for economic freedom is through the workers owning the means of production themselves, so we are free to produce for our needs. Otherwise it is freedom for capitalists, exploitation for workers. Without government over site capitalists would be the de facto state, and we would have nothing to protect us, just like capitalist would have nothing to protect their capital. It would fall into complete chaos. No true capitalist would support a stateless system.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

Anarchists were the socialists who apposed the political path of the Marxists, and wanted direct action to change from capitalism to socialism.

It all comes from a misunderstanding of terms. Capitalism is not free-market, whereby socialism actually is. The goal of all left-wing ideologies is the free association of producers...


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

Without free-association there is no free-market.

edit on 6/4/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Congress does not lay and collect taxes directly. While they certainly have the authority to do so the rule of apportionment - designed to make direct taxes difficult - discourages Congress from doing so. Thus, even a tax such as the estate tax is an indirect tax on the "transfer of property":


The federal estate tax is collected on the transfer of a person's assets to his or her loved ones after death, and the total tax due is calculated by adding up the fair market values of all of the decedent's assets on the date of death and then applying estate tax credits and subtracting out allowable estate tax deductions.


The inheritors of property have a choice, and can decline the inheritance, just the same as you can decline to eat, or choose the grocery store of which you will eat at. No freedom has been denied by this or any other tax.




Both direct and indirect taxes restrict freedom and natural rights. The only system that fully respects natural rights completely is voluntary society (anarcho-capitalism). If you are not an anarcho-capitalist, you already agree with some disparagement of rights.



You're just making this stuff up as you go along. It is really quite amusing to watch you flail so desperately, like this:




You are still making excuses for the inexcusable. Trying to prove that taxation does not disparage property rights or economic freedoms is like squaring the circle, because thats the sole purpose of taxation.

Besides, why is there "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, instead of "property"?


Ha ha ha ha! Which is it, Maslo? Are property rights disparaged, or are they not even a right? What is your point about the Declaration of Independence. Arguing from ignorance is always a fun site to see.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I did not say anarcho-capitalism respects freedom or rights in the socialist sense (positive freedom and rights). It only respects negative freedoms and rights, hence I said "natural rights". Its voluntary in the Lockian negative freedom sense, but its not voluntary in the when it comes to positive freedoms.

"Anarcho" has more meanings - for some (right-anarchists), negative freedom (freedom from) is enough. For others (left-anarchists), positive freedom (freedom to) must also be included.
I also as a consequentialist do not draw distinction between the two, but when talking in the context of natural rights ideology, which does not recognize positive rights, "voluntary" means only negative rights.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




The inheritors of property have a choice, and can decline the inheritance, just the same as you can decline to eat, or choose the grocery store of which you will eat at. No freedom has been denied by this or any other tax.


Of course a freedom has been denied. An inalienable freedom to inherit all of my parents property if they wish to, without some third person theft stealing from it in the process. Right to property does not say "you have a right to property, except when it is inherited, then you only have right to some part of it". It says right to property, with no further qualifiers.



Which is it, Maslo? Are property rights disparaged, or are they not even a right? What is your point about the Declaration of Independence.


My point is that right to property is not even mentioned there. Its not based on classic "natural rights" which you says it fully protects, but on some modified form of them, which substitute right to property for "pursuit of happiness".



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Your freedom to inherit property from your family has not been denied, simply taxed. You have the choice to not pay that tax by simply declining the inheritance. No freedom is denied through taxation per se. There are taxes that are legal and lawful, and there are taxes that are not. The estate tax is not an illegal tax, nor is it an unlawful tax.

Your point about the Declaration of Independence does not disprove a damn thing I have said and it is only just more muddled nonsense from you. I have all ready stated that unalienable rights do not need to be enumerated by statute or constitution in order to exist.

You just keep muddling and muddling and muddling and....



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Your freedom to inherit property from your family has not been denied, simply taxed.


Taxing is denying part of the property, so it indeed denies right to property. You are again resorting to semantical arguments. "Simply taxed" means " simply denied the right to part of the property".



You have the choice to not pay that tax by simply declining the inheritance.


And you also have a choice not to pay anything the thief who wants to rob you by not having any property. This "choice" is not a choice. Its forced on you with the threat of violence.



Your point about the Declaration of Independence does not disprove a damn thing I have said and it is only just more muddled nonsense from you. I have all ready stated that unalienable rights do not need to be enumerated by statute or constitution in order to exist.


But the right to property is not only absent from the Declaration, it is specifically proclaimed as allowed to be breached in the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises etc.."

Ninth amendment does not bar denial of freedoms and rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.

If taxation indeed does not breach any rights as you claim (is done by right), then everyone would be allowed to do it (not just the state), because what does not disparage any rights of others is itself an unalienable right.
Why are then ordinary people not allowed to tax their neighbours? If someone taxed his neighbour the same way as the state does it, he would be jailed for armed robbery.

When the state does it, its done by right, but when ordinary citizen does exactly the same thing, its suddenly not a right? Make up your mind, you cant have it both ways.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


You've gone from denying the existence of unalienable rights to now taking up the cause of property rights as an unalienable right, are you aware of this? Do you even believe in any cause or do you just enjoy playing devils advocate? This has gone way past the point of absurdity with you.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join