[quote=“politbureau”]They were completely free to choose not to buy and consume alcohol before they voted to pass a law prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol.
All they’ve accomplished is prohibiting other people who want to consume alcohol from consuming alcohol.
Legislating morality is always an infringement on others’ liberty. For a paleo-American like myself that’s not a mysterious concept.[/quote]
Well, I think the dry county folks may have also accomplished increasing the odds that they can take their kids down the street on an evening without running into drunk people cursing, acting belligerently, urinating in bushes or otherwise setting a bad example in public (as they see it) for their kids. Possibly also accomplished reducing (to some extent) the odds that they or their kids will be killed by a drunk driver on the road. These people may not care at all about the “morality” of the drinkers, but they care about the harm that (as they see it) the consumption of alcohol in the community has on them and their families.
You know I’m basically with you on this, politbureau. But the problem with “Do as you like so long as you don’t harm others” is that it just doesn’t get us very far so long as we all disagree about what causes harm to others.
Laws outlawing/limiting prostitution or pornography are described by some “legislating morality” and having nothing to do with anyone but the producers and consumers involved, but others believe that these things degrade women, promote a societal tendency to regard women as sex objects, and otherwise harm women and girls throughout the community.
Some believe that an employer and an employee can agree between them on the employee’s wage and that this should be nobody else’s concern, while others believe that some market determined wages will be too high, others will be too low, and that these mutually agreed upon wages can have an influence on (or harm) third parties.
If you believe that a 6-month old fetus is a human being then aborting at that point in a pregnancy is harming another person, and a law against it would be justified under the “Do as you like so long as you don’t harm others” principle. If you believe that a 6-month old fetus is part of its mother’s body then the “Do as you like so long as you don’t harm others” principle says that the state has no business outlawing it.
In case after case after case, two people could both support “Do as you like so long as you don’t harm others”, and come to completely different conclusions about what the state should be allowed to do. So to me it’s a little bit like saying “I only support laws that are fair and beneficial”. It’s hard to argue with – but it’s not terribly helpful either.
[quote=“Hobbes”][quote=“politbureau”]They were completely free to choose not to buy and consume alcohol before they voted to pass a law prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol.
All they’ve accomplished is prohibiting other people who want to consume alcohol from consuming alcohol.
Legislating morality is always an infringement on others’ liberty. For a paleo-American like myself that’s not a mysterious concept.[/quote]
Well, I think the dry county folks may have also accomplished increasing the odds that they can take their kids down the street on an evening without running into drunk people cursing, acting belligerently, urinating in bushes or otherwise setting a bad example in public (as they see it) for their kids. Possibly also accomplished reducing (to some extent) the odds that they or their kids will be killed by a drunk driver on the road. These people may not care at all about the “morality” of the drinkers, but they care about the harm that (as they see it) the consumption of alcohol in the community has on them and their families.
You know I’m basically with you on this, politbureau. But the problem with “Do as you like so long as you don’t harm others” is that it just doesn’t get us very far so long as we all disagree about what causes harm to others.
Laws outlawing/limiting prostitution or pornography are described by some “legislating morality” and having nothing to do with anyone but the producers and consumers involved, but others believe that these things degrade women, promote a societal tendency to regard women as sex objects, and otherwise harm women and girls throughout the community.
Some believe that an employer and an employee can agree between them on the employee’s wage and that this should be nobody else’s concern, while others believe that some market determined wages will be too high, others will be too low, and that these mutually agreed upon wages can have an influence on (or harm) third parties.
If you believe that a 6-month old fetus is a human being then aborting at that point in a pregnancy is harming another person, and a law against it would be justified under the “Do as you like so long as you don’t harm others” principle. If you believe that a 6-month old fetus is part of its mother’s body then the “Do as you like so long as you don’t harm others” principle says that the state has no business outlawing it.
In case after case after case, two people could both support “Do as you like so long as you don’t harm others”, and come to completely different conclusions about what the state should be allowed to do. So to me it’s a little bit like saying “I only support laws that are fair and beneficial”. It’s hard to argue with – but it’s not terribly helpful either. [/quote]
I’m not sure what point you’re making, Hobbes. You seem to be saying that harm is real in an objective sense but it’s so difficult to perceive accurately that it’s a useless legal principle. Is my perception of the point you’re making accurate?
There’s this guy in Britain who keeps getting sent to prison for refusing to wear clothes. What have you to say about this oppression, libertarians?
If anyone brings up the right of other people not to have to look at his bare bohiney, then would it be permissible for society to require women to wear the burqa, on the basis that other people find their bare faces offensive?
If you say that nudity ought to be allowed, then would public masturbation be okay too? How about public sex? With a sheep, on a bus filled with wide-eyed schoolgirls…?
Bah, there’s a good deal of difference between a passive nude and a masturbator.
Complicating the matter is there’s no way for a nude male to conceal arousal. So, nudity slides into public sexuality rather too easily. Far more easily and more graphically than an expose face, or gasp legs.
Try drawing too clear a line and you’ll run into contradictions. Embrace the ambiguity.
Sorry, politbureau, I didn’t mean to give the impression that I thought it was a useless legal principal. I think it’s an excellent principle, and a good rule of thumb to use as an internal guide in making laws.
Where I don’t think it’s very useful is in situations where two people are debating whether the government is justified in prohibiting X, Y, or Z, because very often Side 1 ends up arguing against the law saying “The government should only outlaw individual acts if those acts harm third parties”, and then Side 2 says “Yes, that’s my guiding principle as well! And I support this law because the acts being prohibited here do, in fact, harm third parties.”
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]There’s this guy in Britain who keeps getting sent to prison for refusing to wear clothes. What have you to say about this oppression, libertarians?
If anyone brings up the right of other people not to have to look at his bare bohiney, then would it be permissible for society to require women to wear the burqa, on the basis that other people find their bare faces offensive?
If you say that nudity ought to be allowed, then would public masturbation be okay too? How about public sex? With a sheep, on a bus filled with wide-eyed schoolgirls…?[/quote]
I was hoping you wouldn’t ask that question as I don’t have a rational answer that squares with my libertarian principles.
Because I shouldn’t have to suffer the indignity of having your scrawny, bare white ass in my field of vision?
That’s pretty lame, I know.
I don’t know. I guess you’ve just got me on that one.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Correct. As I said, it’s an outlier. But similar constraints over time include forms of representation. And if 100% of the citizens voted in favor of the law, what are they overstepping, the rights of absent individuals? The young? Their inconsistent selves? If you would disallow them the right to constrain themselves, on what grounds do you so limit their liberty to do so?
Where are you from? Did you, or your parents, vote on the country’s constitution? Probably not: you probably found it there when you moved in, or were born. That document and similar conventions are binding on you and constrain your liberty. Do you view this as illegitimate? If so, would you prefer periodic reaffirmations (say, every ten years) of basic constitutions? [color=#BF0000]If it matters I’m from Canada. To be a wise ass, we didn’t have a constitution when I was born but we got one now. I don’t think there should be no government. I tire of that particular leftist strawman. Like everything else it’s a matter of degree. The problem I have with the concept of the social contract and its justification of the curtailment of liberties as a trade for good government is I’m hard pressed to think of an example of good government or, certainly one that doesn’t exand on the encroachment of liberties of individuals without any recipicol benefit.
Looking at it on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is the least government intrusion and 10 is absolute government control I would like to see it set at 1. The problem is that government is not a static organisim it may start at a low level but history has shown that governments are never statisfied with a 1 or 2 level. Wether through good intentions or not, they tend to creep further and further up the scale. So with that in mind maybe your idea of a periodic reaffirmations would be a good thing. It might even make people think more about how they want to be governed. Philsophically I do at times question the need for government, or perhaps more accurately the nation state. It would be interesting to see a world not defined by borders but by communties or phyles of individuals of common interests.[/color]
As you’re an engineer, how about a practical example? You own a house; I’m building a house next door. While my house is being built, you notice that I’m using the cheapest electrical components available: sub-standard stuff. This is a serious safety concern, for both of us. You try to persuade me to upgrade, at least to code[color=#BF0040]code? There’s a code? I’ll assume you mean to a minimal safety standard from a technical view rather than some codified set of rules[/color]. I refuse: “Those regulations are excessive. It’s my house, I’ll do what I want.” Ok, if my house burns down, and the insurance company refuses to pay, I’m fully responsible. And if my house fire results in burning down your house, I’m fully responsible, but unable pay for your losses. And if my house fire results in a death in your home, does it matter that I agreed in advance to accept full responsibility for the consequences that flow from acting with full liberty?[color=#BF0040]Well I guess knowing what I would about how you constructed your home and with no effective third party to arbitrate it would have to be up to me to accept the risk of living next to you, find a technical solution to safeguard my home, or move. It’s funny you choose this as an example because I am living this situation by choosing to come and live in Taiwan. Yet I know the risks and I’ve made the decision to do so and will accept the outcome. Would it have been reasonable for someone at Pearson from the government of Canada prevent me from moving to Taiwan for my own good as there is a real risk that the electrical practises in Taiwan (to say nothing of the traffic) pose a real danger to my well being?[/color]
Gotta run, so I’ll tip my hand. I entirely disagree with your position:[quote=“Gman”]When is it justifiable for government/society/the majority/an individual to infringe upon liberty by legislation or executive action?
Answer: never[/quote]In part, because it is necessary and unavoidable to infringe on individual liberty.
And, in part, because this: [quote=“Gman”]An Individaul should be free to choose all aspects of how they live their life. It is also mandatory that people accept the full consquences for the choices they make.[/quote]…is impossible. Impossible and impractical. [color=#BF0040]Well, was the OP about principle or practical reality??[/color]
Realizing the many benefits of society requires that we accept many infringements on individual liberty. “Never” is an ideological answer that must necessary bow to practical conditions. You might want to hold on to it as an unrealizable ideal, in order to encourage yourself to always limit infringements, but it can’t be considered a serious proposal in itself.[color=#BF0040]Oh no you don’t. Now you’re cheating. You can’t disqualify my ideal as impractical When your own ideal is just as impractical. The only reason that the idea of government exist and is seen as the only means of furthering human interest (The idea that it does is false). Is that a government creates a concentration of power which attracts the worst of humanity (IMHO) while a community of individuals persuing there own RATIONAL best interests creates no such concentration of power. Sadly there are many who rather than take responsibility for their own lives are willing to hand over some of that responsibility and the power that comes with it to those who seek that power. Most of the great developments of mankind (if not the vast majority) have come from individuals working towards their own best interests. In short while you can say that my idea is an ideological answer you can only say that because it has not been allowed to be put into practise anywhere on this earth. On the other hand I can say that your ideal is just as unobtainable because it has been a failure in practice over and over and over again.[/color][/quote]
Never is the goal to which governmetns should strive to achieve. Yes it is unobtainable in practice but well, you’ve head the saying “aim for the stars and you’ll at least reach the moon”? I’d rather government err on the side of to much liberty as opposed to the alternative.
[quote=“Gman”]I’d rather government err on the side of to much liberty as opposed to the alternative.[/quote]Agreed.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Correct. As I said, it’s an outlier. But similar constraints over time include forms of representation. And if 100% of the citizens voted in favor of the law, what are they overstepping, the rights of absent individuals? The young? Their inconsistent selves? If you would disallow them the right to constrain themselves, on what grounds do you so limit their liberty to do so?
Where are you from? Did you, or your parents, vote on the country’s constitution? Probably not: you probably found it there when you moved in, or were born. That document and similar conventions are binding on you and constrain your liberty. Do you view this as illegitimate? If so, would you prefer periodic reaffirmations (say, every ten years) of basic constitutions? [color=#BF0000]If it matters I’m from Canada. To be a wise ass, we didn’t have a constitution when I was born but we got one now. I don’t think there should be no government. I tire of that particular leftist strawman. Like everything else it’s a matter of degree. The problem I have with the concept of the social contract and its justification of the curtailment of liberties as a trade for good government is I’m hard pressed to think of an example of good government or, certainly one that doesn’t exand on the encroachment of liberties of individuals without any recipicol benefit.[/quote]I don’t recall invoking a ‘no government’ stawman.
There are many examples of good government, though it’s popular to bemoan the lack thereof.
[quote=“Gman”]Looking at it on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is the least government intrusion and 10 is absolute government control I would like to see it set at 1. The problem is that government is not a static organisim it may start at a low level but history has shown that governments are never statisfied with a 1 or 2 level. Wether through good intentions or not, they tend to creep further and further up the scale.[/quote] It’s not just government that tends to creep and grasp for power. Institutions and individuals that do so can be just as corrosive to liberty.
[quote=“Gman”]So with that in mind maybe your idea of a periodic reaffirmations would be a good thing. It might even make people think more about how they want to be governed. Philsophically I do at times question the need for government, or perhaps more accurately the nation state. It would be interesting to see a world not defined by borders but by communties or phyles of individuals of common interests.[/color][/quote] It’d be expensive and highly unpopular, I think. But appeals to my idealistic side.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Ok, if my house burns down, and the insurance company refuses to pay, I’m fully responsible. And if my house fire results in burning down your house, I’m fully responsible, but unable pay for your losses. And if my house fire results in a death in your home, does it matter that I agreed in advance to accept full responsibility for the consequences that flow from acting with full liberty?[color=#BF0040]Well I guess knowing what I would about how you constructed your home and with no effective third party to arbitrate it would have to be up to me to accept the risk of living next to you, find a technical solution to safeguard my home, or move. It’s funny you choose this as an example because I am living this situation by choosing to come and live in Taiwan. Yet I know the risks and I’ve made the decision to do so and will accept the outcome. Would it have been reasonable for someone at Pearson from the government of Canada prevent me from moving to Taiwan for my own good as there is a real risk that the electrical practises in Taiwan (to say nothing of the traffic) pose a real danger to my well being?[/color][/quote]Some gov’ts take the line that their citizens can be prohibited from traveling to unsafe jurisdictions; the Canadian gov’t does not. But I think your analogy is flawed in that in my example you’re already established, and in yours you move and place yourself in peril.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Realizing the many benefits of society requires that we accept many infringements on individual liberty. “Never” is an ideological answer that must necessary bow to practical conditions. You might want to hold on to it as an unrealizable ideal, in order to encourage yourself to always limit infringements, but it can’t be considered a serious proposal in itself.[color=#BF0040]Oh no you don’t. Now you’re cheating. You can’t disqualify my ideal as impractical When your own ideal is just as impractical. The only reason that the idea of government exist and is seen as the only means of furthering human interest (The idea that it does is false). Is that a government creates a concentration of power which attracts the worst of humanity (IMHO) while a community of individuals persuing there own RATIONAL best interests creates no such concentration of power. Sadly there are many who rather than take responsibility for their own lives are willing to hand over some of that responsibility and the power that comes with it to those who seek that power. Most of the great developments of mankind (if not the vast majority) have come from individuals working towards their own best interests. In short while you can say that my idea is an ideological answer you can only say that because it has not been allowed to be put into practise anywhere on this earth. On the other hand I can say that your ideal is just as unobtainable because it has been a failure in practice over and over and over again.[/color][/quote]Hmmm… what do you think my ideal is?
You seem to be overstating the argument against gov’t: “The only means” is way over the top, while the idea that rational individuals won’t be subject to the dangers inherent in a concentration of power is unfounded. Government creates the conditions under which individuals can work towards their own best interest and benefit everyone: that’s basic Locke and Smith.
“[color=#0000BF]I don’t recall invoking a ‘no government’ stawman.
There are many examples of good government, though it’s popular to bemoan the lack thereof.”[/color]
True you didn’t but others on this forum have. I could ask for examples but that just leads to a further argument on what constitutes good government and what standards to apply.
[color=#000080]“It’s not just government that tends to creep and grasp for power. Institutions and individuals that do so can be just as corrosive to liberty.”[/color]
Agreed, it’s not just government that tends to creep and grasp but you are wrong on the degree. The creep of government is far more corrosive to liberty than either, it’s not even close. In fact in many cases the institutions and individuals that grasp for power and corrode liberty are enabled to do so by the government. Furthermore, the government does so in a far more insidous nature. Often a crises that sparks further curtailments in liberty on the part of government are justified by blaming institutions or individuals yet in fact, have their roots in flawed government policy or a failure of government to act or apply the regulations already in place.
[color=#000080]“Government creates the conditions under which individuals can work towards their own best interest and benefit everyone: that’s basic Locke and Smith.”[/color]
Really? Credit for this goes to governments? Mao’s China? Kims North Korea? Tito’s Yugoslavia? (I’m personally familar with this one) Mugabe’s Zimbabwe?
These conditions aren’t created by government, these conditions are created by human drive. More often than not government causes the deterioation of these conditions.
I’m much freer here in Taiwan than I was in the United States. Here the small “g” government pretty much minds its own business – lining its pockets – and I mind my own business – lining my pockets – and we get along just fine.
I wouldn’t live in the United States in this age of expanding, big “G” government and contracting personal liberties if you paid me.
Really? Credit for this goes to governments? Mao’s China? Kims North Korea? Tito’s Yugoslavia? (I’m personally familar with this one) Mugabe’s Zimbabwe?
These conditions aren’t created by government, these conditions are created by human drive. More often than not government causes the deterioation of these conditions.[/quote]
Yes, credit goes to gov’t. Those you name are extreme outliers, and the contention that “more often than not government causes the deterioration of those conditions” is wholly erroneous – that’s born out by history.
You point to historical examples of extreme government intervention. Very well, but history also speaks to the opposite: the extreme minimum of government. Individuals acting alone in pursuit of whatever drives them are ineffectual in carving out a public sphere in which others are free to pursue their ends. Any success depends on the cooperation of others and the establishment of some manner of corporate body (or Leviathan). Even then, unless those particular parties are bound together in some greater, coordinated body, you’re not going to escape the war of all against all. This is well demonstrated in places such as Somalia and anarchic regions that fall out of formal gov’t control: Pakistan’s north-east, southern Afghanistan, regions of central Africa, ect.
The Roman republic occasionally found it necessary to counter the threat posed by excessive individual drives to reshape conditions through the institution of a dictatorship: the alternative was civil war. Italian city states established themselves as republics because individual drives – while yielding spectacular works – inevitably led to house wars and bloodbaths.
The conditions for human flourishing don’t spontaneously emerge. Ungoverned or uncoordinated, the drives of individuals inevitably come into conflict. When they do, violence is often the result. Those condition arise after negotiation, coordination, ect; that is, through gov’t.
Another engineer metaphor. You know those popsicle stick bridges? The individual sticks: those are individuals and sectors. Gov’t: the glue. Either on its own gets you nowhere.
I’m not advocating no government the issue I have is with the expansion of government over time. I don’t want to argue further about government because that would really be suited for it’s own thread. The topic of the thread was liberty and to sum up my position I think liberty should be treated as something to be cherished. The preservation of it should be the prime consideration when organising a society. Perhaps the best analogy for my attitude would be that of a stingy miser where liberty is my stack of coins. Yes I hoard it, guard it carefully and I don’t spend it easily. When I do spend I make sure I get value for it. Too often I see societies sacrificing their liberties for very little or no real gain. When I see folks talk about the social contract and the need to surrender some liberties for the benefits of good government what I don’t see is them asking the important questions about how much liberty is surrendered and for what benefit?
[quote=“Jaboney”]
Another engineer metaphor. You know those popsicle stick bridges? The individual sticks: those are individuals and sectors. Gov’t: the glue. Either on its own gets you nowhere.[/quote]
To be cheeky, I could build you a popsicle stick structure with just the sticks and no glue but, I like this metaphor. I agree completely with it and I would point out two aspects in particular that I like about it.
The glue represents a very small proportion of the overall structure
The glue’s function is well defined and there is no opportunity for it to expand and take over the structure.
Your examples are flawed. Are any of these places you sight places where individuals have full liberties. You are confusing ultimate liberty with anarchy again. None of those places have fallen into those state of affairs due to an abundance of liberty and personal choice have they? Even your historical examples don’t show the ill effects of full liberty quite the opposite. If anything they show that once people organise themselves into groups one of the first things they set about doing is to impose themselves and their values on other individuals or groups. Even in your example Italian city states, did they conflicts arrive because of the liberties enjoyed by the citizens? I don’t think so.
None of your examples are of cases where individuals enjoyed full liberties which resulted in strife. On the contrary the strife occurred due to efforts towards curtailment of those liberties.
Edit: Sorry this post should have been before the other one (not that it matters a heck of a lot)
[quote=“Gman”]Your examples are flawed. Are any of these places you sight places where individuals have full liberties. You are confusing ultimate liberty with anarchy again. None of those places have fallen into those state of affairs due to an abundance of liberty and personal choice have they? Even your historical examples don’t show the ill effects of full liberty quite the opposite. If anything they show that once people organise themselves into groups one of the first things they set about doing is to impose themselves and their values on other individuals or groups. Even in your example Italian city states, did they conflicts arrive because of the liberties enjoyed by the citizens? I don’t think so.
None of your examples are of cases where individuals enjoyed full liberties which resulted in strife. On the contrary the strife occurred due to efforts towards curtailment of those liberties.[/quote]
Could you distinguish for me (again?) between anarchy and liberty? In states without much in the way of government, individuals are certainly free of formal constraints on their behaviour.
Civil strife within Italian city states certainly did arise due to a lack of constraints on individual action. Machiavelli’s Discourses provides a decent account.
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Gman”]Your examples are flawed. Are any of these places you sight places where individuals have full liberties. You are confusing ultimate liberty with anarchy again. None of those places have fallen into those state of affairs due to an abundance of liberty and personal choice have they? Even your historical examples don’t show the ill effects of full liberty quite the opposite. If anything they show that once people organise themselves into groups one of the first things they set about doing is to impose themselves and their values on other individuals or groups. Even in your example Italian city states, did they conflicts arrive because of the liberties enjoyed by the citizens? I don’t think so.
None of your examples are of cases where individuals enjoyed full liberties which resulted in strife. On the contrary the strife occurred due to efforts towards curtailment of those liberties.[/quote]
Could you distinguish for me (again?) between anarchy and liberty? In states without much in the way of government, individuals are certainly free of formal constraints on their behaviour.
Civil strife within Italian city states certainly did arise due to a lack of constraints on individual action. Machiavelli’s Discourses provides a decent account.[/quote]
Good god! You don’t know the difference between the two??? Seriously? You’re not screwing with me right? Ok, don’t take it from me take it from the good folks at Websters online;
You will have to site a particular account from Machiavelli’s Discourses because everything I’ve read about the strife during that time was due to wars waged by Popes and the threats from foriegn powers such as France and Spain. Not because the citizens of the city states enjoyed a high degree of liberty.
Sadly you’ve reverted to the anarchist strawman again. Did you pay any attention at all to my interpretation of your popsicle stick bridge analogy? How about my miser analogy?
Why is it so important for you to equate my view of liberty as advocating anarchy? Go back and read my miser analogy. Here I’ll say it again for you;
" Perhaps the best analogy for my attitude would be that of a stingy miser where liberty is my stack of coins. Yes I hoard it, guard it carefully and I don’t spend it easily. When I do spend I make sure I get value for it. Too often I see societies sacrificing their liberties for very little or no real gain. When I see folks talk about the social contract and the need to surrender some liberties for the benefits of good government what I don’t see is them asking the important questions about how much liberty is surrendered and for what benefit?"
comment on that instead of your misinterpretation of history.
That is questionable. Life in the Italian city states was extraordinarily violent. All major families maintained defensive towers and intra-city warfare was common. Most of the republics that arose in central and northern Italy after the Investiture Controversy in the 12th century had devolved into monarchical tyrannies by 1300. And the surviving republics eventually instituted tighter controls to prevent feuds/vendettas from constantly disrupting the city.
Don’t get your knickers in a knot. I understand perfectly well the difference between anarchy and liberty.
You invoke ‘ultimate liberty’. What is that? Given your previous statements, it would seem that ‘ultimate liberty’ obtains when there is no governmental authority constraining an individual’s liberty. The absence of government seems the best condition to fulfill that requirement. If you’re interested in maximizing liberty, that’s something else; then you’re got to decide which forms of liberty should take priority, because they quickly come into conflict.
[quote]You will have to site a particular account from Machiavelli’s Discourses because everything I’ve read about the strife during that time was due to wars waged by Popes and the threats from foreign powers such as France and Spain. Not because the citizens of the city states enjoyed a high degree of liberty.
[…]
" Perhaps the best analogy for my attitude would be that of a stingy miser where liberty is my stack of coins. Yes I hoard it, guard it carefully and I don’t spend it easily. When I do spend I make sure I get value for it. Too often I see societies sacrificing their liberties for very little or no real gain. When I see folks talk about the social contract and the need to surrender some liberties for the benefits of good government what I don’t see is them asking the important questions about how much liberty is surrendered and for what benefit?"
comment on that instead of your misinterpretation of history.[/quote]Two passages of Machiavelli of possible interest to you:
[quote]Chapter 46: "[color=#0000FF]And thus the desire of defending liberty caused each to prevail [raise itself] in proportion as they oppressed the other. And the course of such incidents is, that while men sought not to fear, they begun to make others fear, and that injury which they ward off from themselves, they inflict on another, as if it should be necessary either to offend or to be offended.[/color] From this may be seen one way among others in which Republics ruin themselves, and in what way men jump from one ambition to another, and how very true is that sentence which Sallust placed in the mouth of Caesar, [color=#0000FF]That all evil examples have their origin in good beginnings.[/color] Those ambitious Citizens (as was said before) who live in a Republic seek in the first instance not to be able to be harmed, not only by private [citizens], but even by the Magistrates: in order to do this, they seek friendships, and to acquire them either by apparently honest means, or by supplying them money or defending them from the powerful: and as this seems virtuous, everyone is easily deceived and no one takes any remedy against this, until he, persevering without hindrance, becomes of a kind whom the Citizen fear, and the Magistrates treat with consideration. And when he has risen to that rank, and his greatness not having been obviated at the beginning, it finally comes to be most dangerous in attempting to pit oneself against him, for the reasons which I mentioned above concerning the dangers involved in abating an evil which has already grown much in a City; so that the matter in the end is reduced to this, that you need either to seek to extinguish it with the hazard of sudden ruin, or by allowing it to go on, enter into manifest servitude, unless death or some accident frees you from him. "
[/quote]
How much have you read on the strife in Italy at this time? (You ought to read more.) Gao Bohan’s references should answer you well enough. If not, try to find images of those houses. If you’re building fortresses to guard against your neighbours down the street, that’s a sign things are a bit off.
You may also enjoy Machiavelli’s History of Florence:
[quote]Chapter 9:“Being united, the Florentines thought the time favorable for the ordination of a free government, and that it would be desirable to provide their means of defense before the new emperor should acquire strength. They therefore divided the city into six parts, and elected twelve citizens, two for each sixth, to govern the whole. These were called Anziani, and were elected annually. To remove the cause of those enmities which had been observed to arise from judicial decisions, they provided two judges from some other state,— one called captain of the people, the other podesta, or provost,— whose duty it was to decide in cases, whether civil or criminal, which occurred among the people. And as order cannot be preserved without a sufficient force for the defense of it, they appointed twenty banners in the city, and seventy-six in the country, upon the rolls of which the names of all the youth were armed; and it was ordered that everyone should appear armed, under his banner, whenever summoned, whether by the captain of the people or the Anziani. They had ensigns according to the kind of arms they used, the bowmen being under one ensign, and the swordsmen, or those who carried a target, under another; and every year, upon the day of Pentecost, ensigns were given with great pomp to the new men, and new leaders were appointed for the whole establishment. To give importance to their armies, and to serve as a point of refuge for those who were exhausted in the fight, and from which, having become refreshed, they might again make head against the enemy, they provided a large car, drawn by two oxen, covered with red cloth, upon which was an ensign of white and red. When they intended to assemble the army, this car was brought into the New Market, and delivered with pomp to the heads of the people. To give solemnity to their enterprises, they had a bell called Martinella, which was rung during a whole month before the forces left the city, in order that the enemy might have time to provide for his defense; so great was the virtue then existing among men, and with so much generosity of mind were they governed, that as it is now considered a brave and prudent act to assail an unprovided enemy, in those days it would have been thought disgraceful, and productive only of a fallacious advantage. This bell was also taken with the army, and served to regulate the keeping and relief of guard, and other matters necessary in the practice of war. With these ordinations, civil and military, the Florentines established their liberty.”[/quote]
That’s rather a lot of order imposed to ‘establish their liberty’.
Chapter 17: This is pure internecine civil strife.
I think your analogy is flawed. You can safeguard liberty, but you can’t hoard it. Well, you could deny it to others and try to acquire all you can for yourself – as a slaver would – but that’s surely not your point.
That is questionable. Life in the Italian city states was extraordinarily violent. All major families maintained defensive towers and intra-city warfare was common. Most of the republics that arose in central and northern Italy after the Investiture Controversy in the 12th century had devolved into monarchical tyrannies by 1300. And the surviving republics eventually instituted tighter controls to prevent feuds/vendettas from constantly disrupting the city.[/quote]
Then Jaboney putting it forth as an example where people were given an extremely high level of personal liberty is erroneous. So the whole Italian city states tanget is pointless.
You still can’t give me an example of where individauls enjoying full personal liberties caused strife and sufferring. Granted, I’m cheating a bit because to my knowledge there hasn’t been any case where that was allowed to happen.
Here is the miser analogy modified for you. Perhaps now you can focus on the point of it? Of course I get the feeling I’m being wildly optimistic.
Perhaps the best analogy for my attitude would be that of a stingy miser where liberty is my stack of coins. I guard it carefully and I don’t spend it easily. When I do spend I make sure I get value for it. Too often I see societies sacrificing their liberties for very little or no real gain. When I see folks talk about the social contract and the need to surrender some liberties for the benefits of good government what I don’t see is them asking the important questions about how much liberty is surrendered and for what benefit?
