15 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, you say Cuba is "NOT a free country". So if you can answer the question: Why? Then perhaps you will have some pointers that are relevant to the context of this thread.
We are not outside the context of this thread, are we?
I wonder if you'll start a new thread as if the context would magically change.
15 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIf you can't understand what I meant, such is life, I'm sure others here do.
Well, you say Cuba is "NOT a free country". So if you can answer the question: Why? Then perhaps you will have some pointers that are relevant to the context of this thread.
The caravan rolls on.
15 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWhat is arguably even more interesting is FMF's fondness of flying the flag of "freedom" without ever expounding on the actual meaning of it in the real world and how it is justified, and we've all seen this before, with his uncompromisingly unrealistic take on freedom of speech, and we even have those favorite keywords of his, "freedom advocates", "human rights", how can anyone oppose these? It seems that with FMF "freedom" trumps all other concerns of mankind, whether it be equality or privacy, in FMF's cavalier judgments these are all negligible.
What I've found interesting on this thread is how you rather uncontroversially said this at the beginning:
[b]"I hope I'm not going to ruin the point of this thread, but I guess that depends on what you mean by "free". Most of the times the terms "free" or "freedom" is used as an adjective of support (i.e. support for the ability to be safe while being unpopu anathema to freedom advocates and human rights activists the [same] world over!
Even if his particular brand of freedom involves the surrender of society's direction to market forces, that is in his view preferrable to any other consequence of a different system or approach to these matters. Its very strange though that you accuse me of being overly sympathetic to despots and tyrants when you ,with your posts so far, appear to have become a shill for special interests and other forms of oligarchy.
15 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaIf someone is in gaol, say, for calling for elections in which every adult citizen can stand for office, can discuss policies freely, and can vote, that person being in gaol is a political fact not a political opinion. If a person purporting to be either a "libertarian" or a "communist" believes that person belongs in gaol for his or her words or actions, then what is the relevance or validity of their opinion about "what makes a country free"?
Do you agree that a libertarian and a communist will have very different opinions of what makes a country free?
If yes, isn't asking someone if a country is free just another way of gauging his political opinions?
15 May 11
Originally posted by generalissimoWhat are you talking about? Citizens should have the freedom to modify the policies of, and reject restrictions on their freedom handed down by, their governments. Adult citizen should be free to stand for office, to discuss policies freely, and to vote. There should be freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of action. I have "expounded" on "actual meaning of freedom in the real world" hundreds and hundreds of times on this forum over the last six years.
What is arguably even more interesting is FMF's fondness of flying the flag of "freedom" without ever expounding on the actual meaning of it in the real world
...with his uncompromisingly unrealistic take on freedom of speech
Uncompromisingly unrealistic? How so?
15 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaThis might be the case, but it is also possible that a libertarian and a Communist would agree on what freedom is, but have different ideas about how valuable it is.
Do you agree that a libertarian and a communist will have very different opinions of what makes a country free?
If yes, isn't asking someone if a country is free just another way of gauging his political opinions?
15 May 11
Originally posted by FMFAs much as anyone else's. They are just expressing support for that system. But that is only problematic if you find the question meaningful.
If someone is in gaol, say, for calling for elections in which every adult citizen can stand for office, can discuss policies freely, and can vote, that person being in gaol is a political fact not a political opinion. If a person purporting to be either a "libertarian" or a "communist" believes that person belongs in gaol for his or her words or actions, then what is the relevance or validity of their opinion about "what makes a country free"?
Can you answer my questions directly now?