He did lead the fight against the Whiskey Rebellion.
1 Like
We have 100% liberty and 0% security in a state of nature. Government and the state is a trade off between those two. The US system of government was constructed to help guarantee the liberty we have innately (at least it used to). But the liberty is not “from” government.
I would never disrespect fallen veterans either. Not sure where that was going.
Doesn’t this reflect upon how the Japanese view themselves as a people? It’s the same in Europe. As much as Americans talk about patriotism and pride in America, I really don’t think we care about other Americans as much as citizens of other nations care about each other. We really do love to label one another in ways that make us different from one another. The free market freaks, and socialists, love to label people as some sort of economic unit.
In a state of nature we wouldn’t even comprehend the term liberty since that is not a natural concept. You can not find liberty in nature.
The concept of what liberty is, as far as how we are allowed to live, is from government. Also, this is a moral argument, that is the innateness of liberty (as well as what liberty is). This means that any discussion of liberty cannot be right or wrong since it is entirely subjective. Which means, defending a concept of liberty as though it is “naturally” right is wrong from the start. Since this is therefore a moral argument, what are the morals that are behind the Constitution and BOR? Do the extreme free market principles that equate property rights with human rights coincide with the morals and values of the Founders? The extreme free marketers and Rand disciples want to have an argument about the material world and nature but not even they can keep the metaphysical out of their own positions. And by admitting that there is a metaphysical element to our lives maybe an intelligent person would recognize there is more to existence, more to defining existence, than what you own. It really is OK to pay people more. The world won’t end. Rand’s ghost won’t haunt you.
So in the realm of ‘dont we have liberty because of government, and not in spite of it’ you’re saying we would still have liberty without the govt?
The way I see it, without the govt, liberty never would have even been an option
If we can all agree that government can limit (which is another way of saying define) or even eliminate liberty, then wouldn’t it follow that it could also grant liberty?
1 Like
And nobody is stopping Amazon, Walmart etc… from doing that. It really is not okay to use the force of government to mandate that Zecarlo Inc. pay people more because feelings.
They are. Habeas Corpus literally means “that you have the body”. It’s ownership of your own person.
Preventing unwarranted search and seizure of your property. That’s right in the BOR man.
lib·er·ty
the state of being free from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.
If there is no state or society then you have liberty. It doesn’t matter if primitive man understood it. Nobody is compelling you to act or think in a certain way. That’s liberty. Nothing subjective about it.
Unless a stronger person comes along and uses force on you. Then you have 0% liberty. So the state is a tradeoff. Less liberty for more security. I’d like more liberty.
I don’t think just handing people more money than they earn is a good business plan. If it was many companies would be doing just that.
1 Like
But the defense of not paying more is because of feelings, so feelings are relevant.
No, they aren’t. Rand justified the murder of the Indians because property was more important than people. How many Westerns had a plot that involved a property owner with access to water, denying his neighbors use of the water during a drought, even though he had plenty of water for everyone? In the 40s, 50s and 60s, when Westerns were popular, that man was the villain, not the hero standing up for his liberty against an oppressive government. What changed?
Really? Let’s look at nature. Caveman A is big and strong. He splits cavenman B’s head open with a club and takes his woman and the animal he just killed for dinner. That is nature. Even the ancient Athenians defended themselves against the Melians by saying that the strong do what they can, and the weak submit. So anyway, the rest of the cavemen decide that life sucks because caveman A keeps taking their stuff and beating them senseless. We could say that they don’t have as much liberty as caveman A (whose liberty was granted by nature which made him bigger and stronger). They make laws that restrict what caveman A can do but which, ironically, grant the rest of the cavemen more liberty, while also in some ways simultaneously restricting theirs as they also can’t go around assaulting others. So where does nature fit in? It seems to not bestow liberty equally.
Who defines what is more than they earn? How many jobs do we say are underpaid? Military, police, firemen, teachers. What about bankers? I think that researcher who is coming up with a cure for cancer is more valuable than any banker on Wall St. But does he make more than the CEO of the company he works for? A CEO who can be replaced but the researcher can’t.
Unfortunately, the Founders and other early Americans ignored the concept of natural rights when it came to some people as they didn’t listen to Francisco de Vitoria, who preceded Hobbes and obviously Locke.
What you ignored was that both natural and legal rights are not only concepts but are also fluid and dynamic.
If the government defines liberty as being allowed three square meals a day, along with a generous allowance of two hours of free time before curfew, we would be liberated?
The US govt therefore liberated native people?
They also weren’t genuinely believed in any way that mattered by the FFs
Of course not, they owned slaves and killed Indians. The arguments for which are older than the liberalism of Locke.
1 Like
Liberated them?
If the govt defines it that way, it’s because the people define it that way. Through action or inaction, every govt action is a result of the people.
They sure liberated an awful lot of them from their bodies
Well, it did, if one believes liberty comes from government. If it comes from government, it gets to define it.
1 Like
Who liberated them? Mother nature.
No, the government that was able to bring them under its authroity.
No, only nature can bestow liberty.
Again, if liberty comes from government, then liberation can be whatever the govt. has the power to impose.