Urban Ag said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

this has devolved into the

worst.

thread.

ever.

now it is just

"nu uh

uh huh"

over and over

---

The worst thing about this thread is people commenting on how dumb the thread is.

---

No he's right. This thread sucks.

---

I'm sorry everything in the world is not for you personally to enjoy. I know it must be hard for you.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

https://soul-candy.info/2022/09/freedom-of-indifference-vs-freedom-for-excellence/

All your solutions for how to resolve conflict are purely pragmatic.

---

Is that supposed to be a criticism?

Quote:

---

pragmatic

adjective

dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

---

You prefer something that is nonsense and unrealistic?

In the end, somebody, whether it is police, judges, politicians, etc. have to make judgement calls on how best to maximize liberty. That's what elections are be for. But they should be limited by the Constitution (and SCOTUS) to stay within their bounds in doing so. All with the goal of maximizing liberty.



BTW, that link is blocked at my work.

---

It's not a criticism except to say that you can't mount a principled defense of your expression of free will. The only principle is the avoidance of a collision of wills, which isn't possible. That's the issue. Negative Liberty tries to resolve the problem of coercion, but it can't. The link is just a criticism of the enlightenment philosophers' notion of freedom. It explains my issue with it better than I can.

---

Except I have mounted a principled defense of free will. The principle is maximization of liberty.

And the "problem of coercion" is not something that needs to be resolved. If coercion isn't needed then government is unnecessary anyway. When somebody murders somebody else, government coerces him into a jail cell. The entire purpose of government is to coerce.

Urban Ag said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

this has devolved into the

worst.

thread.

ever.

now it is just

"nu uh

uh huh"

over and over

---

The worst thing about this thread is people commenting on how dumb the thread is.

---

No he's right. This thread sucks.

---

I don't understand the complaint. This thread is nothing like "nu uh", "uh huh".

I find this crap more interesting than what Trump did today. It's the foundation of government in general.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

https://soul-candy.info/2022/09/freedom-of-indifference-vs-freedom-for-excellence/

All your solutions for how to resolve conflict are purely pragmatic.

---

Is that supposed to be a criticism?

Quote:

---

pragmatic

adjective

dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

---

You prefer something that is nonsense and unrealistic?

In the end, somebody, whether it is police, judges, politicians, etc. have to make judgement calls on how best to maximize liberty. That's what elections are be for. But they should be limited by the Constitution (and SCOTUS) to stay within their bounds in doing so. All with the goal of maximizing liberty.



BTW, that link is blocked at my work.

---

It's not a criticism except to say that you can't mount a principled defense of your expression of free will. The only principle is the avoidance of a collision of wills, which isn't possible. That's the issue. Negative Liberty tries to resolve the problem of coercion, but it can't. The link is just a criticism of the enlightenment philosophers' notion of freedom. It explains my issue with it better than I can.

---

Except I have mounted a principled defense of free will. The principle is maximization of liberty.

And the "problem of coercion" is not something that needs to be resolved. If coercion isn't needed then government is unnecessary anyway. When somebody murders somebody else, government coerces him into a jail cell. The entire purpose of government is to coerce.

---

The false dichotomy of the negative/positive freedom binary was essentially given as a choice between liberty and tyranny. That's an oversimplification, but that's why I mention it.

Without the virtues, the maximization of liberty is meaningless because it always results in a collision of wills. So the maximization of whose liberty in that instance and why? Freedom is not an end unto itself. It's a means to an end.

Here is a quote from the article I linked to:

In a statement that baffles the intellect, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in with its 1992 majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by declaring, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Since conceptions of freedom are derived from what constitutes a person, all this says is that we are the arbiters of how we get to express our free will. And there you have it. A "right" to kill our children created from nothing. There is no common good or public conception of the good. There are only particular goods.

leachfan said:

---

This may be the dumbest question ever.

---

Maybe for those that have no morals.

C@LAg said:

---

this has devolved into the

worst.

thread.

ever.

now it is just

"nu uh

uh huh"

over and over

---

Nuh uh...

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

Logic doesn't work as an answer for him because apparently he doesn't understand it...hell, he needed a definition of logic earlier...

You can't win this one...

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Of COURSE the scriptures all universally agreed upon. That's why there's only ONE Christian denomination.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

https://soul-candy.info/2022/09/freedom-of-indifference-vs-freedom-for-excellence/

All your solutions for how to resolve conflict are purely pragmatic.

---

Is that supposed to be a criticism?

Quote:

---

pragmatic

adjective

dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

---

You prefer something that is nonsense and unrealistic?

In the end, somebody, whether it is police, judges, politicians, etc. have to make judgement calls on how best to maximize liberty. That's what elections are be for. But they should be limited by the Constitution (and SCOTUS) to stay within their bounds in doing so. All with the goal of maximizing liberty.



BTW, that link is blocked at my work.

---

It's not a criticism except to say that you can't mount a principled defense of your expression of free will. The only principle is the avoidance of a collision of wills, which isn't possible. That's the issue. Negative Liberty tries to resolve the problem of coercion, but it can't. The link is just a criticism of the enlightenment philosophers' notion of freedom. It explains my issue with it better than I can.

---

Except I have mounted a principled defense of free will. The principle is maximization of liberty.

And the "problem of coercion" is not something that needs to be resolved. If coercion isn't needed then government is unnecessary anyway. When somebody murders somebody else, government coerces him into a jail cell. The entire purpose of government is to coerce.

---

The false dichotomy of the negative/positive freedom binary was essentially given as a choice between liberty and tyranny. That's an oversimplification, but that's why I mention it.

---

The whole negative/positive freedom thing is nonsense. I would stop mentioning it.

Quote:

---

Without the virtues, the maximization of liberty is meaningless because it always results in a collision of wills. So the maximization of whose liberty in that instance and why? Freedom is not an end unto itself. It's a means to an end.

---

The collision of wills occurs no matter what system we put in place. If 2 neighbors disagree on how loud music can be played, then that's a conflict regardless of which system we use. My system would consider property rights and yours would try to find the answer in scripture. And the end is to allow people to pursue happiness in whatever form that is for them.

Quote:

---

Here is a quote from the article I linked to:

In a statement that baffles the intellect, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in with its 1992 majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by declaring, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Since conceptions of freedom are derived from what constitutes a person, all this says is that we are the arbiters of how we get to express our free will. And there you have it. A "right" to kill our children created from nothing. There is no common good or public conception of the good. There are only particular goods.

---

Just because the SCOTUS used the term "right" in their ruling doesn't mean that they did so properly. Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that affordable housing was a "right". But anybody who understands rights, know that isn't one. Yet she pulled that out of her ass. She did so because our nation was founded on rights, and she needed to pull that out of her ass to justify her ideology. If instead of rights, our nation was founded on scripture, she would justified her position with scripture instead (like with Matthew 25:34-40, Acts 2:42-47). Libs use whatever they can to justify themselves. If the SCOTUS had any interest in actually adhering to the concepts of rights, then rulings like RvW would have never happened.

At least with rights it took a 150 years for the country to go off the reservation. It would have taken 1 or 2 administration if we were founded on "virtue".

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

Logic doesn't work as an answer for him because apparently he doesn't understand it...hell, he needed a definition of logic earlier...

You can't win this one...

---

You're trolling at this point

aTm: I don't agree with liberals on anything
Me: you agree with Berlin's notion of negative freedom, which he defended against positive freedom. He's a liberal.
aTm: that's a strawman.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

Logic doesn't work as an answer for him because apparently he doesn't understand it...hell, he needed a definition of logic earlier...

You can't win this one...

---

You're trolling at this point

aTm: I don't agree with liberals on anything
Me: you agree with Berlin's notion of negative freedom, which he defended against positive freedom. He's a liberal.
aTm: that's a strawman.

---

That's not how that argument went.

And he DOES NOT agree with Berlin, even if you want to keep on repeating the big lie that he does...

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

Logic doesn't work as an answer for him because apparently he doesn't understand it...hell, he needed a definition of logic earlier...

You can't win this one...

---

You're trolling at this point

aTm: I don't agree with liberals on anything
Me: you agree with Berlin's notion of negative freedom, which he defended against positive freedom. He's a liberal.
aTm: that's a strawman.

---

That's not how that argument went.

And he DOES NOT agree with Berlin, even if you want to keep on repeating the big lie that he does...

---

Dude it's not that big of a deal. He was mistaken about Isaiah Berlin's take. I mean I guess you can't handle the nuance of American political theory. I did not mean to cut you so deep by pointing out that if fact, your ideas align well with a proponent of the welfare state. I'm sorry.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

Logic doesn't work as an answer for him because apparently he doesn't understand it...hell, he needed a definition of logic earlier...

You can't win this one...

---

You're trolling at this point

aTm: I don't agree with liberals on anything
Me: you agree with Berlin's notion of negative freedom, which he defended against positive freedom. He's a liberal.
aTm: that's a strawman.

---

That's not how that argument went.

And he DOES NOT agree with Berlin, even if you want to keep on repeating the big lie that he does...

---

Dude it's not that big of a deal. He was mistaken about Isaiah Berlin's take. I mean I guess you can't handle the nuance of American political theory. I did not mean to cut you so deep by pointing out that if fact, your ideas align well with a proponent of the welfare state. I'm sorry.

---

So, you're going to continue to lie about what he's saying?

That's not very Christian of you...

stallion6 said:

---

leachfan said:

---

This may be the dumbest question ever.

---

Maybe for those that have no morals.

---

Read the question again. It's not asking about immoral. It's asking about illegal. Two different things.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

Logic doesn't work as an answer for him because apparently he doesn't understand it...hell, he needed a definition of logic earlier...

You can't win this one...

---

You're trolling at this point

aTm: I don't agree with liberals on anything
Me: you agree with Berlin's notion of negative freedom, which he defended against positive freedom. He's a liberal.
aTm: that's a strawman.

---

That's not how that argument went.

And he DOES NOT agree with Berlin, even if you want to keep on repeating the big lie that he does...

---

Dude it's not that big of a deal. He was mistaken about Isaiah Berlin's take. I mean I guess you can't handle the nuance of American political theory. I did not mean to cut you so deep by pointing out that if fact, your ideas align well with a proponent of the welfare state. I'm sorry.

---

So, you're going to continue to lie about what he's saying?

That's not very Christian of you...

---

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're disagreeing with. Tell you what, I'll go say an act of contrition if you'll go read about it.