Go back
Freedom

Freedom

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wedgehead2

And there isn't an objective meaning of freedom.
Unless you can convince me otherwise.
And repeating your position does nothing to strengthen your case.
You're a very confused fellow.

You state there is no objective meaning of the word freedom.
You then challenge me to convince you otherwise.
You then stipulate that I am not to repeat my already asserted postion.

If I change the definition to something like: Freedom = putting your hand in your neighbours pocket, whether he likes it or not. Is that what you're looking for. Well that ain't true.

Freedom:
Genus: action (i.e. freedom is not a roof over your head, nor a book in your hands, nor a hospital bed. All these things are things.)

Differentia: voluntary (oh, I know that word grates on the control freaks nerves...suck it up), the absence of coercion.

How about I give a definition and you give the correct word. If you're struggling we'll make it multichoice.

The best word to describe the absence of force is .......

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Amaurote
The only envy I see here is the envy of middle-class people who would prefer to buy their less talented children the berths that a true meritocracy would allot to gifted working-class children. And of course, for all the talk about rags to riches and the American Dream, social mobility in the Anglo-American model has been on a steep decline for years.
I believe envy can be a great motivator. As long as the motivation is not to enlist the services of guvamint thugs to steal from your fellow man.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Amaurote
The only envy I see here is the envy of middle-class people who would prefer to buy their less talented children the berths that a true meritocracy would allot to gifted working-class children. And of course, for all the talk about rags to riches and the American Dream, social mobility in the Anglo-American model has been on a steep decline for years.
True.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You know, wedgehead2, envy is one of the seven deadly sins -- be careful: http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/envy.html
I'm in the state funded "Gifted and Talented" scheme, which means that I get to go on extra trips like to Oxford or Cambridge University, in order to try to persuade me to go there.
That doesn't mean I in anyway support it. The money would be far better spent on helping those with special needs than spent in such a pointless way.

The G&T schme appears to be for those whose middle class parents would vote for the other party unless they felt their children were getting preferntial treatment, away from the working classes, which they so despise.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're a very confused fellow.

You state there is no objective meaning of the word freedom.
You then challenge me to convince you otherwise.
You then stipulate that I am not to repeat my already asserted postion.

If I change the definition to something like: Freedom = putting your hand in your neighbours pocket, whether he likes it or not. Is that w ...[text shortened]... ing we'll make it multichoice.

The best word to describe the absence of force is .......
socialism. ๐Ÿ˜›

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wedgehead2
socialism. ๐Ÿ˜›
socialism relies heavily on force for it's implementation. Try again.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
socialism relies heavily on force for it's implementation. Try again.
what do you mean by force? Are you talking physical or economic?

total absence of force/ absence of the state would be anarchy.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wedgehead2
what do you mean by force? Are you talking physical or economic?
Physical.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Physical.
socialism needs physical force?

Generally socialists don't go around beating people up.
Nazis do though.
You might be confused...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wedgehead2
what do you mean by force? Are you talking physical or economic?

total absence of force/ the state would be anarchy.
The role of guvamint is to protect your life, liberty and private property.

That is not anarchy.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wedgehead2
socialism needs physical force?

Generally socialists don't go around beating people up.
Nazis do though.
You might be confused...
If I refuse to pay for your education what do you think will happen?

The guvamint will threaten me with force, remove my freedom, take my property.

All by force.

No confusion there, crystal clear.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
The role of guvamint is to protect your life, liberty and private property.

That is not anarchy.
I didn't challenge that. ๐Ÿ˜•

Although I will challenge your ideas of the role of government. ๐Ÿ˜€

The role of government is to protect life, liberty and equality.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
If I refuse to pay for your education what do you think will happen?

The guvamint will threaten me with force, remove my freedom, take my property.

All by force.

No confusion there, crystal clear.
so would any government, capitalist, socalist or fascist, if you don't pay taxes. ๐Ÿ˜•

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wedgehead2
I didn't challenge that. ๐Ÿ˜•

Although I will challenge your ideas of the role of government. ๐Ÿ˜€

The role of government is to protect life, liberty and equality.
Liberty and equality are incompatible.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wedgehead2
so would any government, capitalist, socalist or fascist, if you don't pay taxes. ๐Ÿ˜•
Libertarian. Look it up.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.