No. People had a great deal of liberty. They were free to pursue their own needs to the nth degree. This led to conflict, civil strife, pissed off people caught in the crossfire, and heavy restrictions on that troublesome liberty.
Some detail please. How did this liberty lead to this conflict?
I think you may be misinterpreting his point here. He offered the formation of the city-states as an example of the need to temper the excesses of liberty.
The OP asked if absolute liberty can be sacrificed for more “meaningful” liberty. I agree with Jaboney’s assessment. It isn’t a question of absolute vs. meaningful liberty. Society establishes a hierarchy of values and imposes restrictions based on that ranking; E.g., we value freedom from foreign invasion more than the liberty to spend a certain portion of our paycheck, so we collectively pay for a defense force.
Some detail please. How did this liberty lead to this conflict?[/quote]
Jaboney, I believe, is referring to the vacuum of power resulting from the church’s loss of influence during the Investiture Controversy. The church had played a major role is keeping the peace between local factions. The papacy’s loss of investiture privileges meant that civil leaders could appoint their own bishops, who were generally family members of the leading factions and were unsympathetic to rivals. Bishops become involved in the feuds, and civil war broke out across northern and central Italy. In some regions, like Umbria and the Veneto, the state collapsed entirely. For a while people did have liberty to the nth degree, but it was hard to enjoy with the constant threat of being robbed and/or stabbed. The republics were formed as a compromise, a means of sharing power between the ranking families. Individual liberty was curbed but order was restored.
Yep. Well put.
By absolute liberty, with reference to the comment about knowing the difference between liberty and anarchy (not sure whether whether that poster appreciated that anarchy does not necessarily imply chaos), I meant [quote]“A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code.”[/quote] OED
By meaningful liberty I meant the freedoms from (as in Gao Bohan’s example) - but not to the exclusion of all freedoms to (just some, like murder). The freedom to afforded by anarchy (absence of government) is effectively meaningless unless it can throw off the association with chaos.
All of your examples have missed the point. Some state that absolute liberty of the idiviual leads to anarchy. Example after example has been sighted but in none has anyone been able to show that it was this absolute liberty the caused a descent into anarchy or chaos. What the do show is that what led to the chaos was individuals or groups of individuals who sought to impose themselves on others attacking their liberty. The root cause of this isn’t individuals with too much liberty. The cause of this is the darkness in human nature which often tends to come to the fore when we organise ourselves into groups. So in the end all you’ve shown in your examples is the complete opposite of what you say. It is not the abundance of individual liberty that leads to anarchy and chaos it is the attempts to curtail individual liberties that leads there.
So, going back to my original response to the OP’s question. It is never justified to curtail another persons liberty. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen and it doesn’t mean that people can’t decide to give up some of their own personal liberity for some benefit to themselves.
On a side note. I’ve always disliked the word ‘justify’. More often than not the only actions that need to be ‘justified’ are actions that are inherently unjust.
By absolute liberty, with reference to the comment about knowing the difference between liberty and anarchy (not sure whether whether that poster appreciated that anarchy does not necessarily imply chaos), I meant [quote]“A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code.”[/quote] OED
By meaningful liberty I meant the freedoms from (as in Gao Bohan’s example) - but not to the exclusion of all freedoms to (just some, like murder). The freedom to afforded by anarchy (absence of government) is effectively meaningless unless it can throw off the association with chaos.[/quote]
I want to address this goofy notion that in a free society with absolute liberty given to the individual murder is some how a natural result. For the sake of argument let’s take a case where we have no government and no system of justice. I decide I’m going to murder someone. Are you folks really making the case that I’m going to be free and clear to do this??? If I murder someone in such a society I can just walk up to them in broad daylight on a crowded street and shoot him in the chest and all his friend and other bystanders would just shrug and say “its a free country”?? That there will be no consequences? You guys are making the common mistake that enjoying full personal liberty means no consequences for the actions you take.
By extension, are you going to make the case that in the abundant real world examples of societies where there is a large degree of curtailment of personal liberties there is no murder?
No Gman, the point is that ‘absolute liberty’ can only be ahem enjoyed in an anarchic state. Unless by ‘absolute liberty’ you mean something like ‘rather a lot of liberty’ or an ‘anarchic socialist’ kibbutz such as Chomsky is wont to advocate: in which case you’re likely to end ip with all kinds of silly infringements, such as raised in the dry county example.
No Gman, the point is that ‘absolute liberty’ can only be ahem enjoyed in an anarchic state. Unless by ‘absolute liberty’ you mean something like ‘rather a lot of liberty’ or an ‘anarchic socialist’ kibbutz such as Chomsky is wont to advocate: in which case you’re likely to end ip with all kinds of silly infringements, such as raised in the dry county example.
So? How is this relavent to the OP? Never did he question if absolute liberty was possible. He questioned weather the curtailment of an individaul’s liberty is justified. I say it isn’t justified and it isn’t moral.
Incidently, what makes you think silly infringements are confinined to your dry countries? If you look hard enough you will find an abundance of them in Western societies.
You say it isn’t; others demonstrate that liberties conflict and one must yield before another (because both cannot be fully enjoyed at the same time), and you continue to repeat: not justified, not justified, not justified.
It is. It’s necessary. Unless you can demonstrate how conflicting liberties can be simultaneously enjoyed, that circular argument’s going nowhere.
(I did not suggest that the silliness would be confined.)
[quote=“Jaboney”]You say it isn’t; others demonstrate that liberties conflict and one must yield before another (because both cannot be fully enjoyed at the same time), and you continue to repeat: not justified, not justified, not justified.
It is. It’s necessary. Unless you can demonstrate how conflicting liberties can be simultaneously enjoyed, that circular argument’s going nowhere.
(I did not suggest that the silliness would be confined.)[/quote]
As far as I can recall nobody has demonstrated any such thing (I’ll grant you that I may have missed it. This thread isn’t my life). People keep bringing up examples that they state show liberties conflict or that the state of chaos ensued from too much individual liberties. However in each example the chaos ensued when a group of people moved to curtail the liberties of others. Even in your Italian city state example, I asked you directly and more that once to demonstrate directly how individauls with too much liberty led to anarchy. I every case you failed to address that question. So I ask you one more time lay it out for me. [color=#000040]Where in history did chaos and anarchy ensue due to the fact that the individual enjoy full personal liberty and those liberties were respected? [/color] Lay it out for me.
The fundamental logical flaw that I see is that people are some how equating murder and other criminal acts to liberties. How is comitting murder a liberty? In my opinion you have to be one pretty sick individaul to equate the two. Are you trying to state that full liberties means you are bound by nothing? I accept that a society where individauls enjoy full personal liberty is impossible. Where I differ from you is in the reason it can not exist. [color=#000080]The reason a society where the individuals enjoy full personl liberties cannot exists is because in order for such a society to exists the liberties of individuals have to be RESPECTED and human nature is simply incapable of letting that happen[/color]. I also differ from you in that I reject the notion that because human nature is such that an individuals full personal liberty will never be respected that curtailments of those liberterties are somehow just.
Gman - anarchy means the absence of government. Not chaos. That is a more colloquial meaning. Both meanings can be used - but don’t say someone is referring to one when they are talking about the other. Let’s stick to chaos or disorder when referring to the latter idea.
So, anarchy, the absence of government and the organisation of people in an ordered but free, consensual manner, is one interpretation of absolute liberty. Anarchists believe in freedom from governance, and that given freedom people will act in a good way. Even then, they believe people would be constrained by social norms. We’re not talking about Vivian from The Young Ones here.
Why is a law against murder a constraint on liberty? Because it says “thou shalt not”. You are not free to do this.
You have stated that any constraint on liberty is immoral. That means any constraint on anti-social behaviour is immoral. Murder was just my extreme example, the same goes for any other supposedly anti-social crime. Thou shalt not steal. Why not?
[quote=“fruitloop”]Gman - anarchy means the absence of government. Not chaos. That is a more colloquial meaning. Both meanings can be used - but don’t say someone is referring to one when they are talking about the other. Let’s stick to chaos or disorder when referring to the latter idea.
So, anarchy, the absence of government and the organisation of people in an ordered but free, consensual manner, is one interpretation of absolute liberty. Anarchists believe in freedom from governance, and that given freedom people will act in a good way. Even then, they believe people would be constrained by social norms. We’re not talking about Vivian from The Young Ones here.
Why is a law against murder a constraint on liberty? Because it says “thou shalt not”. You are not free to do this. [color=#000080][color=#000080]This is just not true. So you are not free to murder because there is a law that says so? You know that’s not true. Sadly, anywhere on this Earth you are free to murder and if you do you will face a range of consequences. Even in a society free of government you will face those consequences. Murder is not an example of a liberty.[/color][/color]
You have stated that any constraint on liberty is immoral. That means any constraint on anti-social behaviour is immoral. Murder was just my extreme example, the same goes for any other supposedly anti-social crime. Thou shalt not steal. Why not? [color=#000080]Again like murder you can steal there is no more restriction on my ability to steal in a governed society than in an ungoverned society. In both if I am caught I will face the consequences. The only difference is the who brings those consequences to bear. Trying to say that by me saying any constraint on liberty is immoral (I don’t remember saying those exact words BTW) equates to me saying that any constraint on anti-social behavior is immoral is being disingenuous. As I’ve pointed out twice in this post even in a society absent of government there will be constraints on such behavior. Plus you are getting into a sticky area as to what constitutes anti-social behavior. In many societies at present and through history homosexuality has been / is considered anti-social and governments have passed laws banning homosexuality? Is this curtailment of liberty justified?[/color][/quote]
You appear to believe that having liberty is being free of consequences for your actions. This is not the case. I have looked up the definition of Liberty and I haven’t seen any that imply this. My favorite is from Wikipedia;
“Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one’s own personal responsibility and free will”.
Note my emphasis on responsibility.
I see absolute liberty as the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. There is no “freedom” to murder, since murder by its very nature is a violation of another person’s rights. Thus a law against murder is not a constraint on liberty; indeed, it helps safeguard liberty.
[quote=“Gman”]
The fundamental logical flaw that I see is that people are some how equating murder and other criminal acts to liberties. How is comitting murder a liberty? In my opinion you have to be one pretty sick individaul to equate the two. Are you trying to state that full liberties means you are bound by nothing? I accept that a society where individauls enjoy full personal liberty is impossible. Where I differ from you is in the reason it can not exist. [color=#000080]The reason a society where the individuals enjoy full personl liberties cannot exists is because in order for such a society to exists the liberties of individuals have to be RESPECTED and human nature is simply incapable of letting that happen[/color]. I also differ from you in that I reject the notion that because human nature is such that an individuals full personal liberty will never be respected that curtailments of those liberterties are somehow just.[/quote]
However, individuals must not only respect the rights of other individuals, but of people in general. The most liberal (in this sense of the word) country I’ve ever lived in is here: Taiwan. People can grow crops by the side of the road, put up stalls on sidewalks, cut down forest on national land to plant bing lung, double park on a corner, etc etc, and it’s socially acceptable. People just seem to think “no harm, no foul”, and gets on with their own life. There somehow is amazing harmony here.
And yet, the rights of people in general get stomped on. Those sidewalks are closed off, to the point where pedestrians are forced to walk in the street with the scooters and taxis. The scooter riders and drivers are affected. Beautiful mountains and rivers are destroyed, thus denying 23,000,000 people the chance to ever enjoy them, because some guys want to grow stuff or build stuff.
Greed also plays a part. When builders are free to use sub-standard materials, or cut corners in order to save on costs, or fishermen pursue their own personal liberty to catch as much fish as they can despite the problem of their being too many fisherman and too few fish, we all suffer.
The problem as I see it is that there will always be people who want to take more than their share, and there will always be people who seek to prosper at the cost of others. There needs to be some system of limiting the excesses and damage done by these people. There need to be regulations that set standards and keep things safe and fair. There needs to be balance: I think Taiwan is sometimes too “liberal”, especially on the environmental front, whereas my original country is choked with red tape and the fear that someone could hurt themselves.
I see absolute liberty as the freedom to do whatever you wish as long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. There is no “freedom” to murder, since murder by its very nature is a violation of another person’s rights. Thus a law against murder is not a constraint on liberty; indeed, it helps safeguard liberty.[/quote]
That concept of liberty seems simple enough. “Liberty” is the freedom to choose what’s bad for oneself as well as what’s good and the limits of liberty are the limits of one’s personal space. When one begins to make those same bad choices for someone else though it’s not liberty but licentiousness. Hence the difference between suicide and murder.
I’ve always been perplexed why some people have difficulty distinguishing between liberty and licentiousness. That inability always seems to be a prelude to intruding on (personal) liberty by some act of legislation. Heavy-handed laws against smoking, for example, even when a particular act of smoking doesn’t affect anyone else, the pretext being given that it does indeed affect everyone else because society “has to” treat the health effects of smoking even if they’re self-inflicted.
[quote=“ice raven”]However, individuals must not only respect the rights of other individuals, but of people in general. The most liberal (in this sense of the word) country I’ve ever lived in is here: Taiwan. People can grow crops by the side of the road, put up stalls on sidewalks, cut down forest on national land to plant bing lung, double park on a corner, etc etc, and it’s socially acceptable. People just seem to think “no harm, no foul”, and gets on with their own life. There somehow is amazing harmony here.
And yet, the rights of people in general get stomped on. Those sidewalks are closed off, to the point where pedestrians are forced to walk in the street with the scooters and taxis. The scooter riders and drivers are affected. Beautiful mountains and rivers are destroyed, thus denying 23,000,000 people the chance to ever enjoy them, because some guys want to grow stuff or build stuff.
Greed also plays a part. When builders are free to use sub-standard materials, or cut corners in order to save on costs, or fishermen pursue their own personal liberty to catch as much fish as they can despite the problem of their being too many fisherman and too few fish, we all suffer.
The problem as I see it is that there will always be people who want to take more than their share, and there will always be people who seek to prosper at the cost of others. There needs to be some system of limiting the excesses and damage done by these people. There need to be regulations that set standards and keep things safe and fair. There needs to be balance: I think Taiwan is sometimes too “liberal”, especially on the environmental front, whereas my original country is choked with red tape and the fear that someone could hurt themselves.[/quote]
This is the point.
The premise of the question was that telling people what they can and cannot do (any kind of governance or social code) restricts what they can and cannot do (liberty). Implied was the sense that this absolute freedom to do anything is not the whole picture as far as liberty is concerned.
The question was when is government action - which inherently reduces one form of liberty supposedly for a “greater good” - justified.
[quote=“politbureau”] When one begins to make those same bad choices for someone else though it’s not liberty but licentiousness. Hence the difference between suicide and murder.
[/quote]
Theres always grey areas, hence much debate surrounding euthanasia. The governments enforce laws limiting the liberty of individuals all the time, but may be aimed at protecting the individual from themselves or to protect people form others that would take advantage from the absence of a law.
Laws on minimum age for marriage, minimum age to have sex or watch a certain kind of movie or even the limits of what can be put in a movie, Polygamy, prostitution, wearing clothes, the list goes on and on.
To answer the question of when will it be justified for a government to introduce a law that limits liberty, in my opinion the government has a responsibility to strive for harmony and peace within its society. If the chaos resulting from the absence of a law is greater than the chaos that results in the introduction, then I would suggest the government are justified in discussing in more detail the pros and cons of introducing a particular law.