Nice flash animation about freedom

[shanek]

Kind of long, but this flash animation does an excellent job spelling out the basics of freedom and what it means to have life, liberty, and property:

http://jonathangullible.com/mmedia/philosop.swf

 

[Tony]

That philosophy is the very antithesis of the prevailing thoughts of many of our members here.

 

[shanek]

That philosophy is the very antithesis of the prevailing thoughts of many of our members here.

I've noticed...

 

[Reager]

Although I don't agree with it, it certainly is a very pretty video. Pleasing to the eye and ear. It almost reminds me of a ride at EPCOT, tho I can't remember which one.

Mike

 

[Grammatron]

Although I don't agree with it, it certainly is a very pretty video. Pleasing to the eye and ear. It almost reminds me of a ride at EPCOT, tho I can't remember which one.

Mike

Out of curiosity, what about out you do not agree with?

 

[chulbert]

I generally agree with much of it, though I tend to get a little nervous when people start raving about "defending their property."

And was it just me, or did they lift the theme music for Halloween for that?

 

[shanek]

That was "Tubular Bells" by Mike Oldfield.

 

[Reager]

Out of curiosity, what about out you do not agree with?

It promotes a philosophy that is based upon some assumptions and principles that I don't agree with. I'm not sure that the view of liberty espoused by that site is a) correct or b) desirable. Especially the bits about governance and property. For example, takeng to the logical extreme, there is no reason why the US Constitution should govern any of us (or anyone in the original thirteen states besides those who diectly ratified it)...since we did not assent to be governed by it. While that may be a defensible position theoretically, to have everyone in society agree on the laws and structure of government before they would be individually bound by them...how in the world could that be accomplished, practically? It's a recipe for chaos.

Mike

 

[Jessica Blue]

Gosh that flash is really beautiful. A Utopian vision of Randian ideals.

It should be shown in every kindergarten...

 

[shanek]

For example, takeng to the logical extreme, there is no reason why the US Constitution should govern any of us

It doesn't. It governs government. It watches the watchmen.

 

[Earthborn]

I absolutely love it! Rarely do you see such clear explanation of someone's philopsophy as this Ken Schoolland here did. I watched it many times, and I agree with most of it.

However, there are things that seem self-contradictory or at odds with reality.

In the part about protecting life, liberty and property:
"And you may ask others to help protect you."

This seems infinitely reasonable. In todays world, people will ask professionals to protect them, and in many cases this will be governmental forces, such as the police or armed forces.

However, at the end, we learn:
"The solution is for the people of the earth to stop asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf."

It may seem that this isn't a contradiction, since the initiating of force is not the same as being protected, but there is no fine line between the two. In most cases people turn to the government to be protected, which is what the government is for. People don't ask the government to initiate force, the government however may justify initiation of force in order to be able to protect the people that asked to be protected.

"Evil does not only arise from evil people but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own end."

This is true, but it does not tell why these people tolerate it: to be protected. They will tolerate this if they feel that it is the only way to protect their life, liberty and property.

Also we should realise that this is not only true of government. When people ask others to help protect themselves, they always run the risk the person they ask for protection will initiate force.

"to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery and to take property is theft."

Yet there are situation where any of them is considered legitimate, even by libertarians. If someone threatens to kill you, you can take his life if that is the only way to protect yourself. Even in Libertarian Utopia, people can end up in jail, or have possesions confiscated if those were taken through illegimate means. There is of course the problem of defining what is illegitemate or a punishable offense. The author recognizes this:

"You have the right to protect your own life, liberty and justly acquired property from the forceful agression of others."

What is 'justly acquired' is something that is subject to a lot of interpretation. For that we will probably need some sort of government officials (or a Libertarian equivalent).

However:
"You have the right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose leaders onto others."

This will mean that if you have some government officials that are able to define what is illegitemate or just, you have no way that they can use these definitions on others. Others may simply say that it isn't their leader, since they didn't choose them, so the definitions the leader decided for you doesn't apply to them.

I can see it now: criminals who simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of the court and cannot be tried because of that. Any justice system will have to impose it's authoriy on others against their will, I see no way around it.

This idea is also in direct contradiction with modern constitutional democracies. That too imposes leaders on many others by the people who vote for the winning candidate. To achieve this Libertarian goal of people chosing their own leaders but not being able to impose them on others, requires a fundamentally different voting system and political system than the world has ever seen. I'd like to know how it might work.

"Your action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is virtuous only when it is derived from voluntary mutual consent."

But this just steps over situations in which someone cannot give any consent for any actions done to them. If I lie unconscious on the street because of a traffic accident, I expect people to make decisions for me without my explicit consent, for instance by taking me to hospital in an ambulance. They will just have to assume I consent with it, without asking and without any proof of consent. In fact it is in such a case the only virtuous thing to do it is without consent.

"you own your life.

To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do"

But there are many situations where another actually knows better what is good for me than I do myself. If I suffer from cancer and I must endure sickening chemotherapies, I might start to wonder whether the suffering is worth it and whether it isn't better to stop. I expect however that medical personel pulls me through, demands of me that I do not stop because I will be gratefull later. I need to put my life in their hands, and since I will die if I don't, it isn't really voluntarily. In many medical situations people need to learn to submit to the doctor's orders, simply because he knows better.

"Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off, or they wouldn't do it."

This assumes that both are able to assess with certainty what the value of the property they are getting is. This may not always be obvious: sometimes by deliberate fraud or by error of the other person, they are getting something that was not worth what they paid for it.

Also in many cases the person who receives the worthless thing feels too ashamed for making such a bad deal that they don't dare to ask for a refund, or the amount paid isn't enough to justify sueing the party they got it from. This is how the crappy stuff from home shopping channels gets sold.

"This is the basis for a truly free society. I tis not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical"

Wow! Not only is it good, it is also easy. However, this is in direct contradiction with the challenges that lie ahead for this to work that are mentioned at the end:

"Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk and to act."
"Especially when it is easier to do nothing..."

I think this is asking too much of many people. People will prefer easier solutions, as they will lack the courage to stand up for themselves, they will prefer to relegate hard thinking to others and hope others will act in their behalf.

So in short, I'm not buying it yet. Perhaps you can show something less propagandistic?

 

[Reager]

It doesn't. It governs government. It watches the watchmen.

Sigh..you completely missed the point, as usual...probably intentionally, because you have no adequate response.

Mike

 

[Reager]

However:
"You have the right to seek leaders for yourself, but you have no right to impose leaders onto others."

This will mean that if you have some government officials that are able to define what is illegitemate or just, you have no way that they can use these definitions on others. Others may simply say that it isn't their leader, since they didn't choose them, so the definitions the leader decided for you doesn't apply to them.

I can see it now: criminals who simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of the court and cannot be tried because of that. Any justice system will have to impose it's authoriy on others against their will, I see no way around it.

This idea is also in direct contradiction with modern constitutional democracies. That too imposes leaders on many others by the people who vote for the winning candidate. To achieve this Libertarian goal of people chosing their own leaders but not being able to impose them on others, requires a fundamentally different voting system and political system than the world has ever seen. I'd like to know how it might work.

Oh, that I were so eloquent...you did a much better job of explaining this point than I did. But I still think Shanek is being purposefully obtuse, it's not *that* tough a concept to grasp.

Mike

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One error - it states that the taking of another life is murder. That is not always true. It is always killing, but not always murder.

 

[shanek]

It may seem that this isn't a contradiction, since the initiating of force is not the same as being protected, but there is no fine line between the two. In most cases people turn to the government to be protected, which is what the government is for. People don't ask the government to initiate force, the government however may justify initiation of force in order to be able to protect the people that asked to be protected.

Wait...in the first sentence, you agree that the initiation of force is not the same thing as protecting someone else, since the force used in that protection would be in the form of defense or the justice system. But then in the last sentence, you say that the government can justify initiating force to protect them, even though you've admitted that they aren't the same thing!

No, the initiation of force to "protect" someone (e.g., the Patriot Act) is not justified. As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up their essential liberties in order to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery and to take property is theft."

Yet there are situation where any of them is considered legitimate, even by libertarians. If someone threatens to kill you, you can take his life if that is the only way to protect yourself. Even in Libertarian Utopia, people can end up in jail, or have possesions confiscated if those were taken through illegimate means. There is of course the problem of defining what is illegitemate or a punishable offense.

But those are not initiations of force; they are reactions to the initiation of force by others.

What is 'justly acquired' is something that is subject to a lot of interpretation. For that we will probably need some sort of government officials (or a Libertarian equivalent).

Sure, we need government to protect property rights. I don't know of anyone (short of an anarchist) who is denying that.

I can see it now: criminals who simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of the court and cannot be tried because of that.

Again, that wouldn't count because the criminal (at least in a free society) would be the one who initiated the force, and the courts are reacting to that.

(That means that certain "crimes" like drug use and prostitution that only involve consenting adults would not be crimes at all.)

But this just steps over situations in which someone cannot give any consent for any actions done to them. If I lie unconscious on the street because of a traffic accident, I expect people to make decisions for me without my explicit consent, for instance by taking me to hospital in an ambulance. They will just have to assume I consent with it, without asking and without any proof of consent. In fact it is in such a case the only virtuous thing to do it is without consent.

But that is a perfectly reasonable assumption and in no way constitutes an initiation of force. If you're a Christian Scientist who would rather have people pray as you bleed to death, then you could carry a card or bracelet letting people know that.

But there are many situations where another actually knows better what is good for me than I do myself. If I suffer from cancer and I must endure sickening chemotherapies, I might start to wonder whether the suffering is worth it and whether it isn't better to stop. I expect however that medical personel pulls me through, demands of me that I do not stop because I will be gratefull later. I need to put my life in their hands, and since I will die if I don't, it isn't really voluntarily.

Of course it is! You could choose to do nothing, you could choose psychic surgery, or homeopathy, or all sorts of weird options. You'd only choose the chemotherapy because you yourself was convinced that it was your best, if not your only, chance for survival. It's still your choice. True, you need to defer to others with more knowledge to advise you, but the final decision is still yours.

"Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off, or they wouldn't do it."

This assumes that both are able to assess with certainty what the value of the property they are getting is. This may not always be obvious: sometimes by deliberate fraud or by error of the other person, they are getting something that was not worth what they paid for it.

But that was covered by the initiation of force or fraud. You don't have the right to defraud anybody. And as for mistakes, well, they happen. As the buyer, shouldn't you check it out to make sure you're getting what you pay for? Caveat emptor.

 

[shanek]

One error - it states that the taking of another life is murder. That is not always true. It is always killing, but not always murder.

Good point. Killing in self-defense is not murder.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Good point. Killing in self-defense is not murder.

Also executions by the state are not murder. And abortions are not murder.

 

[Earthborn]

But then in the last sentence, you say that the government can justify initiating force to protect them, even though you've admitted that they aren't the same thing!

I am sorry if I was unclear. I did not mean to imply that they are justified that in initiating force, only that they are justifying (falsely) the fact that they do. When people ask for help to be protected by others, they always run the risk that the other will go to far, especially if the other is the government.

The point was that the solution the animation presents us is in many cases not a solution at all, as people are asking to be protected by the government (a legitimate thing) but the government might use request/demand to initiate force (an illegitimate thing). The solution can't be that people simply stop asking the government to use initiation of force, because usually they don't.

As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up their essential liberties in order to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Note that he said 'essential liberties'. Apperently he recognized that at least in some situations people should be expected to give up at least some freedoms.

I think it is also a bit dangerous quote. I can imagine that one day there will be some dictator misconstruing that exact same quote to argue that the vast majority of people deserve neither liberty nor safety.

But those are not initiations of force; they are reactions to the initiation of force by others.

The animation makes no such distinction. You do because you realize that it doesn't adress this important point.

Again, that wouldn't count because the criminal (at least in a free society) would be the one who initiated the force, and the courts are reacting to that.

Again, the animation doesn't make that distinction. It argues that choosing a leader that rules over others without their consent is illegitimate. It doesn't tell us anything about the others, so we'll have to assume that anyone is implied.

But that is a perfectly reasonable assumption and in no way constitutes an initiation of force.

I think it does. The ambulance workers have no way of knowing what I want, even if it is a 'reasonable assumption'. It means that you give them the power to judge whether something is a reasonable assumption, and thus you allow some subjectivity to creep in. If you allow that, you might also allow 'liberating people from an evil dictator' since it can be argued that it is a reasonable assumption that these people want that.

If you're a Christian Scientist who would rather have people pray as you bleed to death, then you could carry a card or bracelet letting people know that.

I believe that the right to (a healthy) life is more important than freedom, I also believe that there are situations in which someone's wishes should be overruled. If someone's wishes prevent them from getting proper treatment, I think they should get treatment. Doctors have the job of saving lives.

You'd only choose the chemotherapy because you yourself was convinced that it was your best, if not your only, chance for survival.

But I expect the doctors to put maximum effort into it to convince me of that.

True, you need to defer to others with more knowledge to advise you, but the final decision is still yours.

But there are many situations where I cannot (be trusted to) make that decision for myself. I think this is one of the major reasons alternative medicine is on the rise: people are unwilling to submit to medical science and are searching for what they think is an easier way out. One that is likely going to hurt them even more, even killing them. I find that an unacceptable price for freedom.

You don't have the right to defraud anybody.

That does not mean it doesn't happen and it does not mean there shouldn't be some sort of authority preventing it from happening.

As the buyer, shouldn't you check it out to make sure you're getting what you pay for?

As a buyer you may not be able to check before you pay, for instance if you order something by mail. Or you may not have the expertise or equipment to check it and you may end up finding out much later. How would you know whether the engine in your car has microscopic cracks in it? Or whether the gaspipes in your house do? Doesn't the orginal seller have the responsibility to sell you a good product and submit to prior inspection by some sort of independent authority?

 

[Luke T.]

And was it just me, or did they lift the theme music for Halloween for that?

Close.

Originally posted by shanek
That was "Tubular Bells" by Mike Oldfield.

More commonly known as the theme music for The Exorcist.

 

[Grammatron]

I believe that the right to (a healthy) life is more important than freedom, I also believe that there are situations in which someone's wishes should be overruled. If someone's wishes prevent them from getting proper treatment, I think they should get treatment. Doctors have the job of saving lives.

As soon as I saw this paragraph I had to comment. This is completely unacceptable as it gives others control of your life. I don't even mean in the context of the flash animation but in general. If someone wants to commit suicide who the heck are you to stop them? If someone believes that blood transfusion is bad for them then let them live and die with that. It's the same stupid reasoning people use to outlaw marijuana and all the other drugs. You might as well say "You are not smart enough to live your life; we are going to tell you how to do it."