Liberty

[Koldo]

I don't advocate for that. I advocate for the US constitution, because you don't have liberty without a limited government assuring it. I am for regulated immigration.

You don't advocate for that what?
Liberty as in the OP or open borders?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because they affect other people's liberties in a negative way and are harmful to society as a whole.

How do drugs or immigration do this?

To be clear I am talking about illegal immigration.

But we're talking about what the law ought to be, so it's understood that whatever the policy on immigration, immigration allowed by that policy would be legal.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I get why you wouldn't support abortion (it does involve another individual's life) and drugs (since addiction may rob someone's will and morph it into something else), but immigration? How can you not support open borders (maybe with the exception of preventing dangerous individuals from crossing) with that speech at the OP?

I am for regulated legal immigration. People have the liberty is some countries to come here and seek citizenship. No country can survive with open borders, it is not sustainable. The US is already feeling the effects of this and it is costly. Not to mention the criminals coming across the border.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's a matter of practicality. People's bodies (nursing), the principles of engineering (psychics), the ability to drive a car and so on don't change from state to state. There is no reason why there should not be Federal licenses for these things. Laws do change, so licenses to practice law in a given state are reasonable.

But engineering laws in each state are different as well. I suspect nursing laws are different too.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You don't advocate for that what?

Liberty as in the OP or open borders?

Open borders.

 

[Koldo]

I am for regulated legal immigration. People have the liberty is some countries to come here and seek citizenship. No country can survive with open borders, it is not sustainable. The US is already feeling the effects of this and it is costly. Not to mention the criminals coming across the border.

Then you don't support the liberty you were talking about in the OP. And that's alright, nearly no one does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No one is guaranteed a job, you need to work for it to provide for yourself. You have agency to find a job that is right for you as well.

Sure, but that agency is still coerced. The decision to take a job is often not fully free.

Do private companies not have the liberty to make their own rules?

Hang on. We were talking about what liberty is. You seem to be changing that to ask about what a reasonable level of liberty ought to have.

How is your liberty infringed by having to walk through a metal detector?

You don't think that arbitrary searches diminish a person's liberty?

No, I do not agree. We have the liberty to decide if we want to live in that state with their rules or not. Some people cannot move because of the cost of moving. Should the state move them?

Again: you seem to want to shift the conversation away from what liberty is and to what level of liberty society ought to be.

A person's resources can certainly impact their level of liberty. Someone with enough money in the bank to move across the country tomorrow is more free than someone who doesn't.

Someone who can't afford to move out of state is as deprived of their liberty as someone who has been turned down for a travel permit in a country where they're required.

One is acceptable and the other is not.

... to you. This is a value judgment.

It is in societies interest to have people qualified to work in a profession. I have engineering licences in multiple states, and that is a good thing, do you want engineers or doctors, nurses etc. to not have some kind of credentials?

I said earlier that licensure could be at the federal level. I'm not talking about no licensing (although licensure is also a restriction on liberty); I'm talking about a license that has all the safeguards you touched on but is completely portable from state to state.

I don't know what your problems are so I have no idea.

In the context of liberty, one major problem with the US Constitution is its complete disregard for the idea of freedom of conscience.

And its allowance to this day of various forms of slavery - e.g. conscription, slavery as punishment for crimes - is also a problem for liberty.

... so there are a few issues to start.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Open borders.

Sounds like your support for liberty has at least a few asterisks on it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How do drugs or immigration do this?



But we're talking about what the law ought to be, so it's understood that whatever the policy on immigration, immigration allowed by that policy would be legal.

I am for a regulated immigration policy. Where people need to be vetted and go through a process to live in the US. Liberty just does not happen, it has to be fought for and protected by some form of limited government. So letting anyone into the country goes against that, not all people want liberty and if they don't want it for others then they should not be allowed in the country that protects liberty.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then you don't support the liberty you were talking about in the OP. And that's alright, nearly no one does.

How so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am for a regulated immigration policy. Where people need to be vetted and go through a process to live in the US. Liberty just does not happen, it has to be fought for and protected by some form of limited government. So letting anyone into the country goes against that, not all people want liberty and if they don't want it for others then they should not be allowed in the country that protects liberty.

On the one hand, I agree that maximal liberty for the people isn't a matter of just letting everybody do whatever they want. For instance, the lack of gun control in the US ends up having all sorts of run-on effects that end up causing a net decrease in liberty.

On the other hand, you seem to be going against the position you argued in the OP:

Some believe liberty is being free to do what you want with what you produce within a peaceful and civil society. Others believe liberty is being free to do what you want with what other people produce within a peaceful and civil society. The former is true liberty, and the ladder is fake liberty and will ultimately end up in authoritarian rule.

Your position here on immigration amounts to saying that you should be free to do what you want with what some prospective immigrant produces. Earlier, you called this "fake liberty," so I don't know why you'd be arguing for it now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How so?

Think about what you said from the perspective of the person who wants to immigrate:

Some believe liberty is being free to do what you want with what you produce within a peaceful and civil society. Others believe liberty is being free to do what you want with what other people produce within a peaceful and civil society. The former is true liberty, and the ladder is fake liberty and will ultimately end up in authoritarian rule.

Is the person you want to keep out "free to do what he wants with what he produces within a peaceful and civil society"?

... or are you proposing that you should be free to do what you want with what he produces within a peaceful and civil society?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Sure, but that agency is still coerced. The decision to take a job is often not fully free.

Do you believe people have a moral right to provide for themselves?

Hang on. We were talking about what liberty is. You seem to be changing that to ask about what a reasonable level of liberty ought to be.

Well there are limits implies. You should not have the liberty to hurt anyone else for instance.

You don't think that arbitrary searches diminish a person's liberty?

Depends, if the government does it without your consent then yes. But not at a baseball game put on by a private organization. You have a choice to be searched or not. No liberty is being infringed on. Do you have the liberty to watch the game without paying?

Again: you seem to want to shift the conversation away from what liberty is and to what level of liberty society ought to be.

Yes, they are one in the same.

A person's resources can certainly impact their level of liberty. Someone with enough money in the bank to move across the country tomorrow is more free than someone who doesn't.

I agree. What is the reason one person has more than another? What level of personal responsibility do people have? You may have the liberty to move but not the resources. Just like you may have the liberty to buy a $100k car but not the resources.

Someone who can't afford to move out of state is as deprived of their liberty as someone who has been turned down for a travel permit in a country where they're required.

No, not true. The person who cannot afford to move still has the liberty to move, just not the means to move..

I said earlier that licensure could be at the federal level. I'm not talking about no licensing (although licensure is also a restriction on liberty); I'm talking about a license that has all the safeguards you touched on but is completely portable from state to state.

Ok, I can be ok with that.

In the context of liberty, one major problem with the US Constitution is its complete disregard for the idea of freedom of conscience.

How so?

And its allowance to this day of various forms of slavery - e.g. conscription, slavery as punishment for crimes - is also a problem for liberty.

... so there are a few issues to start.

Ok fair enough. I am against conscription. The constitution says involuntary servitude not slavery for punishments for crimes. This seems to be a complicated issue with some court cases (not supreme court) deciding some things.

 

[Koldo]

How so?

You said true liberty is "being free to do what you want with what you produce within a peaceful and civil society". So, if an immigrant is behaving peacefully and being civil, they should be free to do what they want with what they produce. But they obviously are not allowed to do what they want with what they produce if they are not even allowed to be physically present in a given (public) territory. It follows then that open borders (or close enough) are mandatory for true liverty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe people have a moral right to provide for themselves?

I can take this a few different ways. I'm not sure which way you intend it.

Well there are limits implies. You should not have the liberty to hurt anyone else for instance.

Again, we're talking about two different things:

- does granting a specific right or freedom cause a net increase in liberty?

- is a specific right or liberty more valuable than some other concern (security or the economy, for instance)?

In some cases, we're looking at an apples-to-applies comparison: liberty vs. liberty. Granting one person the right to stab whoever he wants represents an increase in liberty for him, but a serious decrease in liberty for everyone he stabs. The net result of this "right" would be a decrease in liberty.

OTOH, you were talking about a company's "right" to search people coming into their venue. This right isn't about liberty - liberty is about freedom of people, and a corporation isn't a person - but it represents a decrease in liberty for every fan who has to be searched. And while the fans can choose to avoid this infringement on their liberty by not going to the game, it's still an infringement on liberty.

Depends, if the government does it without your consent then yes. But not at a baseball game put on by a private organization. You have a choice to be searched or not. No liberty is being infringed on.

Why the distinction between government and the private sector? The effect is the same.

Do you have the liberty to watch the game without paying?

All else being equal, a society where anyone can watch any major league baseball game for free is more free than one where you have to buy a ticket to watch.

Whether arranging things so that major league baseball games are free is a worthwhile and high priority enough to make happen is a separate question.

Yes, they are one in the same.

But they're not. "Would X make us more free?" and "is X worth the cost in taxes/effort/whatever?" are two separate questions.

I agree. What is the reason one person has more than another? What level of personal responsibility do people have? You may have the liberty to move but not the resources.

If you don't have the practical ability to do something, then for all practical purposes, you don't have the liberty to do it.

Just like you may have the liberty to buy a $100k car but not the resources.

If you don't have $100,000 - or the ability to get a $100,000 loan - then you don't have the liberty to buy a $100,000 car.

No, not true. The person who cannot afford to move still has the liberty to move, just not the means to move..

Then he doesn't have the liberty.

Remember how you defined liberty in the OP: "being free to do what you want with what you produce within a peaceful and civil society." If what someone produces isn't enough for moving expenses and first & last in a new state, then this isn't an option available to him.

Ok, I can be ok with that.

And because professional licensure is done at the state level, you have less liberty than if it were done at the federal level.

How so?

Generally, the only freedom of conscience that US law recognizes is part of freedom of religion... and even then there are limits.

A few examples:

- there have been cases where inmates who are conscientious vegetarians for secular reasons are denied the right to not be served meat (despite the fact that this right is recognized for inmates who are vegetarians for religious reasons).

- famously, Muhammad Ali fought his conscription during the Vietnam War on the grounds that he had a moral objection to the war. The court ruled that this wasn't enough to avoid having to serve in the military; to get conscientious objector status, a conscript would need to be opposed to all war in general.

Ok fair enough. I am against conscription. The constitution says involuntary servitude not slavery for punishments for crimes. This seems to be a complicated issue with some court cases (not supreme court) deciding some things.

Whether you call it slavery or "involuntary servitude," it's anathema to liberty.

 

[PureX]

To some, liberty is a most cherished ideal; to others, liberty is frightening. Thomas Jefferson said, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” Liberty is the guiding principle that thriving societies are built upon. When liberty is no longer valued as an ideal to strive for, societies devolve into authoritarian rule cheered on by the people that espouse liberty but have no idea what that means or what it demands of them.

Sadly, you have completely overlooked the other side of "liberty", and that is the collective responsibility that comes with it. Because your "liberty" ends at the point where it infringes on my right to live free from your abuse, meddling, and selfishness. And not just my right, but that right applies to every single human that you encounter.

For example, you don't get to pollute the land you own just because you own it. Because the damage from that pollution will effect everyone around you. It will pollute their land, too, and damage their health and well-being as a result. And your "liberty" does not justify that kind of negligent selfishness.

The right wingers these days love to prattle on about freedom and liberty but then whine endlessly about ANY inference of responsibility or respect toward their fellow humans. They hate it when the government tells them they can't do something just because they want to because it endangers everyone around them and they're too stupid and selfish to acknowledge this on their own.

Liberty is not blind selfishness. And yet this is exactly how the blowhards in the right are constantly presenting it. While they completely ignore the fact that liberty REQUIRES social responsibility. That it requires respect for the will and well being of ALL the other humans that we live among. Not just the ones that think and act like we do.

Some believe liberty is being free to do what you want with what you produce within a peaceful and civil society. Others believe liberty is being free to do what you want with what other people produce within a peaceful and civil society.

This is more BS from the right. Because almost no one produces anything by themselves anymore. Production is a collective effort except for the parasitic capitalists living fat off the labor of the real producers. But the right wingnuts only want to focus on the poor and weak among us that cannot contribute as much, and so need some extra help. Never mind the billionaires that are driving them and everyone else into poverty. The wingnuts love them! They just hate and blame the weak, and the lost, and the left behind.

Why should we value liberty? Because we all have a duty to be happy and you cannot be happy without experiencing true liberty.

But true liberty is equal parts self and social responsibility. Being free at the cost of someone else's freedom is not freedom at all. It's just oppression and abuse hiding behind the mask of freedom and liberty. This is the freedom and liberty that the right wingnuts so love to preach on. Because they are the echoing voice of the selfish and greedy elites of the rich parasitic overlords that wallow in excess wealth while their fellow humans suffer and go without. This is the phony "liberty" of the Trump supporters. Greed and selfishness and social abuse; hiding behind the mask of freedom and liberty.

But we know that most people in the history of mankind were not born into liberty but into some form of slavery or authoritarian society that limited or downright denied them liberty. Liberty is something most people yearn for but some look to limit it for their own gain. When liberty is denied someone, it is always for the fraudulent but real benefit of someone else. It usually benefits the few and denies liberty to many.

That is not liberty. That is abuse. Those who call it liberty are liars. Real liberty comes with our responsibility toward others BUILT INTO IT. Real liberty is defined by our mutual respect for each other. By our willingness to support each other, and to share in both the labor and the fruits of that labor with each other. Liberty is not, "Me for me and mine!" That's just selfishness.

All governments conceived to try to maximize liberty, will eventually slide toward authoritarianism in some form if the people governed do not keep vigilant and fight against attacks on their liberty. This is done in many ways by government promising peace or safety in exchange for part of your liberty.

More right wingnut blather. Real peace and security is achieved through unity. By recognizing that my well-being is tied to your well-being. And so if we work together for each other's mutual benefit, all our well-being will be protected and increased. But this requires willingness and coordination. And that requires governance and our willingness to follow its directions. And this is when the right wingnuts fall afoul of real liberty and security. Because they are like silly, selfish children, that resent being told what to do and what not to do. They are agents of non-cooperation, and disunity. Always fighting to have everything their own way. And of course they blame this all on those who seek to reign their selfishness in.

It keeps chipping away until enough liberty is taken by the government to effectively be an authoritarian government controlling most of what you can and cannot do in a society. Liberty demands of us to be vigilant, express our concerns and even fight if necessary to keep our liberty.

In the U.S., where I live, the best way to keep our liberty is to understand what liberty is and what the founding documents say and don’t say. To understand why the founding documents are written as they are, the reasons behind our protected freedoms especially free speech, freedom of the press and freedom to assemble. It is important we know and teach our children why we have separated powers and the role of the federal government as stated in the constitution etc. We need to be able to challenge each other’s ideas without retribution or harassment and push back on our elected officials when they promote policies that limit our freedoms.

Liberty is a fragile thing and most civilizations have not been pro liberty but have been some form of authoritarian setup. This is the nature of people, and it takes character and work for leaders in government to keep from seeking power for power’s sake. Liberty is worth fighting and sacrificing for. History shows it is the bold and courageous people that have preserved liberty for the next generation, not the timid and weak.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” ~ Ronald Reagan​

Reagan sold the American people's freedom and liberty out to the oligarchs. And the oligarchs have been using that wealth and power to economically enslave everyone else since the 1980s. He was an idiot that had no idea what real freedom and liberty is, or what it means, or how it works. He was a human cross between an Uncle Miltie and a Howdy Doody ventriloquist dummy with the neo-cons hands up his backside controlling everything he said and did. He's the last person to know anything about liberty!

 

[Nakosis]

To some, liberty is a most cherished ideal; to others, liberty is frightening. Thomas Jefferson said, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” Liberty is the guiding principle that thriving societies are built upon. When liberty is no longer valued as an ideal to strive for, societies devolve into authoritarian rule cheered on by the people that espouse liberty but have no idea what that means or what it demands of them.

Almost everyone you ask will say they are for liberty, they support liberty, but people mean different things by the term liberty. Some believe liberty is being free to do what you want with what you produce within a peaceful and civil society. Others believe liberty is being free to do what you want with what other people produce within a peaceful and civil society. The former is true liberty, and the ladder is fake liberty and will ultimately end up in authoritarian rule. When you tie your liberty to what other people produce, you are denying the other person liberty and history shows the demands of fake liberty get more and more on others in society denying more and more of their free choices.

Why should we value liberty? Because we all have a duty to be happy and you cannot be happy without experiencing true liberty. Every person deserves true liberty just by the fact that they were born. We all have one fragile life that can end at any moment. The universe is around 13 billion years old; we live at max 120 years. We live a brief period of time, and that fact makes our lives precious and something that should not be wasted by others ruling over us or demanding by force we do things we do not want to do. But we know that most people in the history of mankind were not born into liberty but into some form of slavery or authoritarian society that limited or downright denied them liberty. Liberty is something most people yearn for but some look to limit it for their own gain. When liberty is denied someone, it is always for the fraudulent but real benefit of someone else. It usually benefits the few and denies liberty to many.

All governments conceived to try to maximize liberty, will eventually slide toward authoritarianism in some form if the people governed do not keep vigilant and fight against attacks on their liberty. This is done in many ways by government promising peace or safety in exchange for part of your liberty. It keeps chipping away until enough liberty is taken by the government to effectively be an authoritarian government controlling most of what you can and cannot do in a society. Liberty demands of us to be vigilant, express our concerns and even fight if necessary to keep our liberty.

In the U.S., where I live, the best way to keep our liberty is to understand what liberty is and what the founding documents say and don’t say. To understand why the founding documents are written as they are, the reasons behind our protected freedoms especially free speech, freedom of the press and freedom to assemble. It is important we know and teach our children why we have separated powers and the role of the federal government as stated in the constitution etc. We need to be able to challenge each other’s ideas without retribution or harassment and push back on our elected officials when they promote policies that limit our freedoms.

Liberty is a fragile thing and most civilizations have not been pro liberty but have been some form of authoritarian setup. This is the nature of people, and it takes character and work for leaders in government to keep from seeking power for power’s sake. Liberty is worth fighting and sacrificing for. History shows it is the bold and courageous people that have preserved liberty for the next generation, not the timid and weak.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” ~ Ronald Reagan​

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Liberty, the power to do as one pleases. Mentally, people just learn to be pleased with less and call it freedom.

 

[Alien826]

But engineering laws in each state are different as well. I suspect nursing laws are different too.

Aren't these things learned on the job though? I would expect that one's superior would know the laws and make sure you are aware of it. In any case a simple test of the law should be enough, no need to test nursing skills.

 

[Heyo]

I don't like them.

Neither do I, but if I remember correctly, you supported Trump? A guy who wants to be dictator from day one.

 

[Alien826]

I am for a regulated immigration policy. Where people need to be vetted and go through a process to live in the US. Liberty just does not happen, it has to be fought for and protected by some form of limited government. So letting anyone into the country goes against that, not all people want liberty and if they don't want it for others then they should not be allowed in the country that protects liberty.

Isn't that what we have? Immigrants have to approach the appropriate office to start the process. If they don't do that they are "illegal" and subject to deportation. Once that has been done they have to wait for a court date, which can be years in the future. We don't have enough facilities to house them while they wait so we let them go on a kind of "honor system". Once again that's perfectly legal until they don't turn for the appointed date, and then they are illegal. That's for refugees of course, different from applications under other routes. I married a US citizen (supposedly the easiest route) and I had to make my application at a US Embassy in London, not on the USA. I had to jump through lots of hoops, including checks on criminal history, and even an HIV medical check. Even then, the Green Card I got was temporary for two years, when I had to prove that the marriage was genuine. It didn't feel very "open" to me.

It seems to me that the problem is not "open borders" but a set of regulations that we don't have the facilities to enforce properly in all cases.