Why is freedom good?

Freedom is abstract and subjective. One person's right to freedom ends where another's begins. Obviously I can't do whatever I want if it hurts others.

Ya think? It seems to me the minority imposing its will on the majority is far worse than the other way around.

 

If a minority imposes its will on the majority a larger number of people are jeopardized then when the majority imposes its will on a minority. Also, the only minority libertarians care about is the minority of rich people. They have never been known for their defense of blacks or gays. They certainly never tried to defend the rights of Communist Party members in the United States.

 

This is an obvious exception. We all have the right to do certain things, and the only limitation is that we cannot infringe on other people's rights to do these things as well. We're talking direct infringement here, because it's very easy to stretch that to include all kinds of things.

Probably because you're assuming that we're talking about a minority of heartless rich people versus a majority of people who want what's best for everyone. Neither is necessarily the case, especially the the latter. When everyone is forced to do what 'most people' think is best, that's a pretty fucked up situation.

Stupid. You don't look at freedom from a quantitative viewpoint. A member of the majority will quickly see how far his freedom reaches is he changes his mind and agrees with the minority. Neither the minority nor the majority have freedom in this case -- the majority only appear free because they hold certain beliefs. Freedom to think a certain way is not freedom.

What is this shit? I'm not a Libertarian. This may be in the Libertarian forum, but I suggest you not pigeonhole people in your arguments, lest you should look like a fucking idiot.

 

Infringement is subjective as well. My definition of the word may be different than yours. Given that rules must be made, the logical rule making body would be the majority, would it not?

My assumption here is that everyone is fully informed, which is obviously flawed in the sound bite driven culture we live in now, so I'll add that transparency and an informed public is also necessary for freedom.

Given our limitations, the only way to be free is to avoid others, or find others who have the same standards of conduct, and cut yourself off from the rest of the world as much as possible by living on the fringes.

 

the majority are idiots.

 

The Nazis won the plurality of seats in 2 elections in Germany and Hitler came in a close 2nd in the presidential race in 1932. Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

 

As I said, I don't agree with majority rule. On decisions that affect everyone it's fine, but there has to be a more basic set of rights that cannot be voted away.

Majority rule is a retarded standard for anyone to hold. As Madcap said, the German people voted the Nazis in -- not a good idea. In the early centuries of America, the vast majority believed in the inferiority of blacks and that their rightful lot was that of the slave. We can all agree that these are poor choices, so how can you justify majority rule?

 

"On a dark, rainy Sunday, April 10, 1932, the people voted. They gave Hitler 13,418,547 or 36%, an increase of two million, and Hindenburg 19,359,983 or 53%, an increase of under a million.
The 85-year-old gentleman was elected by an absolute majority to another seven year term. "
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/runs.htm

-----

The fact that an 85 year old man defeated Hitler handily gives evidence of how desperate most Germans were to keep Hitler from power.

 

Way to simplify shit. Why can an 85-year-old not be a good leader?

 

Most Germans are offended by Hitler's memory.

The point is, if the majority is misinformed, as the Germans were, you'll end up with some bad decisions, but that doesn't prove that majority rule is a bad idea. More people bring more perspectives to the table, the sum of which is more balanced than that of a select few, particularly when those few are insulated from the problems most people face. It's absurd that congress determines health care policy when it's members have no idea what it's like to go without health insurance, or that a few asshole wall street insiders determine economic policy when they don't know what it's like for the middle class to pay their bills.

I will agree though that we need more informed people making the important decisions. We can start by listening to the scientists instead of the politicians and the media.

The question then is whether it's better to permit unbridled capitalism without oversight, while pulling the plug on subsidies, or continue with the system we have now in which oversight is marginal at best, yet we fork out billions in TARP funds to help the banks become bigger and more problematic, while doing very little to reform banking practices. I say pull the plug on the subsidies and replace our loophole-ridden tax code with a flat tax. If that means doing away with oversight, so be it. The shit heads that are running the economy into the ground now will be boycotted by the general public, and will go out of business.

 

Hindenburg was a great war and loved by nearly all of Germany, even Hitler was aware of this and in public paid the utmost respect to Hindenburg before he died. The fact Hitler who was near unknown outside Bavaria a few years before hand did so well speaks for itself.