Definition of a free country

Originally posted by Wajoma
Then there are things people should not be able to vote on in a free country for if they are to vote them away the country is no longer free.

This is exactly what I have been saying.

Originally posted by FMF
This is exactly what I have been saying.

You believe in a free society, freedom of expression for everyone except employers and employees should be safely gaurded and put beyond the realm of the popular vote?

I want to get 100% clear on this because it sounds a lot like what I have been saying all along (apart from the censoring employers and employees bit).

Originally posted by Wajoma
You believe in a free society, freedom of expression for everyone except employers and employees should be safely gaurded and put beyond the realm of the popular vote?

I want to get 100% clear on this because it sounds a lot like what I have been saying all along (apart from the censoring employers and employees bit).

You might not want there to be a return to 19thC style child labour. You might not want any pollution whatsoever to affect you and your property. You might not want to factor in or even recognize such things as externalities. You might want to alter the size of the military - or support or oppose a task it is given - or modify the powers of the police or decrease the punishments for certain types of illegal behaviour. These policies - you'll no doubt admit - might restrict the freedom of action of some fellow citizens in the real world.

I might want to support certain protections for workers or employers. I might want to oppose tax evasion. I might want to advocate legal aid for those who cannot afford competant legal representation. I might want to alter the size of the military - or support or oppose a task it is given - or modify the powers of the police or decrease the punishments for certain types of illegal behaviour. These policies - I admit - might also restrict the freedom of action of some fellow citizens in the real world.

My proposal is that these policies - both yours and mine - are best processed by democratic mechanisms in which we are all free to have our say and participate. If not by such mechanisms of democratic deliberation, then by what process?

Originally posted by FMF
For me freedom is not 'freedom from stuff happening that I disagree with'. Freedom is about being able to participate without restraint, although - as I think everyone agrees on this thread - freedom in this respect is never absolute in the real world. I believe that freedom is about participation and process, and not about preordained outcomes.

Your definiti untested definition of "egalitarian conditions" is threatened.

I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of freedom in Cuba and indeed about what it was that I was trying to say throughout the thread.

In an ideal state the individual doesn't only need the political liberties prescribed by the Constitution, so he or she can participate in the political process, for the individual to be capable of giving full expression to his political nature he needs to be free from the restraints of poverty, ignorance, discrimination, and other undesirable elements commonly found in society. The alleviation of these vices does take precedence over liberties which in theory contribute to a healthier civil society where rational debate can flourish.

For me the special interests, and harmful ideas I have been referring to are by no means criticized due to politically-motivated disagreement, my criticism arises precisely out of my concern that in many countries the political process is exploited in order to advance the interests of certain groups to the detriment of society as a whole.

Like I have said previously, once you have convinced yourself that only your preferred system of government can provide society with freedom, you have in effect a very blinkered viewpoint preventing you from finding virtue anywhere else. I wouldn't say that Im somehow projecting my values or preconceived views on society, I have never implied or said openly such thing, Cuba's values are not my values and as noble as they may be in the eyes of the Cuban revolutionaries who engineered the socialist state I wouldn't want to replicate them in my own country.
Having said that, I acknowledge the merits of the principles on which the Cuban state is founded on, and I respect their accomplishments in the realization of their principles in the real world, despite all the pressures imposed by aggressively imperialist nations like the US and the many times of adversity Cuba has experienced.

Clearly in this context, that of Cuba, you are relying on a badly told story, a malicious misrepresentation of the degree of popular participation in the Cuban political process. Elections are held every five years, which ensure the representation of citizens in the legislature, and local governance enjoys the democratic mechanism of elections. Not only that but the constitution also provides for direct proposals of law by citizens. These are all facts which you have brushed aside in your characterization of Cuba as a country where the principles of freedom and representative government don't reside.

The mere fact that I acknowledge these admirable qualities of the Cuban model should serve as evidence that my concern for the welfare of society trancends any personal preferrences or ideological convinctions, and yet you come here and accuse me of endorsing the suppression of political liberties of those I disagree with; I can't help but conclude you have simply embarked on yet another campaign of defamation against me, as you have done before.

Originally posted by FMF
You might not want there to be a return to 19thC style child labour. You might not want any pollution whatsoever to affect you and your property. You might not want to factor in or even recognize such things as externalities. You might want to alter the size of the military - or support or oppose a task it is given - or modify the powers of the police or decreas ay and participate. If not by such mechanisms of democratic deliberation, then by what process?

I'm trying to get something pinned down here and you go int rant mode.

You believe that there are some things, or at least one thing i.e. freedom of expression, excluding employers and employees, that should be put beyond the realm of the popular vote?

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'm trying to get something pinned down here and you go int rant mode.

LOL. No rant involved, Wajoma. Just a post responding to your post.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of freedom in Cuba and indeed about what it was that I was trying to say throughout the thread.

In an ideal state the individual doesn't only need the political liberties prescribed by the Constitution, so he or she can participate in the political process, for the individual to be c ...[text shortened]... simply embarked on yet another campaign of defamation against me, as you have done before.

Thanks for taking the time to respond at such length. I needn't add any more, I think. As I said before, sounds to me like your instincts are those of an authoritarian. Clearly you disagree. But you have laid out your view very clearly, so at least we can say there is no lingering misunderstanding.

Originally posted by FMF
LOL. No rant involved, Wajoma. Just a post responding to your post.

I'm trying to ascertain what distinguishes this 'freedom of expression for eveyone but employers and employees' (that people should not be able to vote on) from other freedoms (that people can vote away from minorities).

Originally posted by Wajoma
'freedom of expression for eveyone but employers and employees'

Where did I say this?

Originally posted by FMF
Where did I say this?

So employers and employees can adress each other in any way they like?

Originally posted by Wajoma
So employers and employees can adress each other in any way they like?

Of course. But I believe that employees should be able to bring cases of constructive dismissal to court. Same goes for things like sexual harassment, defamation, physical assault. I think it is totally appropriate for there to be protections.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course. But I believe that employees should be able to bring cases of constructive dismissal to court. Same goes for things like sexual harassment, defamation, physical assault. I think it is totally appropriate for there to be protections.

"Of course. But..."
That 'But...' negates your "Of course..." and we can just toss the "Same goes..." to the wind because it is not "Same goes..." All people should be protected from physical sexual harassment, defamation and physical assault whether or not they are in an employer/employee relationship as all people should be free to express themselves whether or not they are in an employer/employee relationship.

It's all by the by anyway, the question is: What distinguishes the right to freedom of expression for everyone except those in an employer/employee relationship from other rights that may be voted away from minorities by the popular vote?

Is it a feeling you have?

Originally posted by Wajoma
"Of course. But..."
That 'But...' negates your "Of course..." and we can just toss the "Same goes..." to the wind because it is not "Same goes..." All people should be protected from physical sexual harassment, defamation and physical assault whether or not they are in an employer/employee relationship as all people shou ...[text shortened]... ionship from other rights that may be voted away from minorities by the popular vote?

We disagree over the issue of constructive dismissal. This is because we disagree about what the terms 'force' and 'fraud' mean.

Originally posted by FMF
We disagree over the issue of constructive dismissal. This is because we disagree about what the terms 'force' and 'fraud' mean.

There are a whole bunch of unrelated things under the 'constructive dismissal' umbrellla, one of them is; Saying mean things or expressing oneself in an un-approved manner.

And still no answer as to why an employer or employee would go through this ridiculous hint, hint process and not come right out and say "This relationship is no longer mutually beneficial." Bu that's a side issue, an easy diversion for you served on a plate, enjoy.

Originally posted by Wajoma
There are a whole bunch of unrelated things under the 'constructive dismissal' umbrellla, one of them is; Saying mean things or expressing oneself in an un-approved manner.

And still no answer as to why an employer or employee would go through this ridiculous hint, hint process and not come right out and say "This relationship is no longer mutually beneficial." Bu that's a side issue, an easy diversion for you served on a plate, enjoy.

As I said, we disagree over the issue of constructive dismissal. As far as I am concerned, a constructive dismissal case that has any chance of getting through the courts would be one that involves 'force' and 'fraud', albeit perhaps not according to your definitions of 'force' and 'fraud'. "Saying mean things" and "ridiculous hint, hint processes" sound like frivolous cases that would have no chance whatsoever. But I do understand why you want to trivialize the concept of constructive dismissal.