De Vaticanus GodwiniiFollow

If we needed to include a 3 paragraph for every single political term we use, posting would take way longer than it should. And it isn't our job to teach you what it is that you believe (which varies post to post anyway, and I have no interest in having to define every single conservative philosophy every week).

But that's not even the big problem. The biggest problem with you is this:



You've been wrong in all the threads you've posted this in. THIS is the problem with you making up definitions as it suits you. You change the term to something that seems synonymous in one specific context, but is not in others. And then you try and use the new word to show why we are wrong. Except that you are arguing against something we never said and do not believe. So in your own mind, you've proven us wrong. But in actuality, you've shakingly disproves something that was ridiculous and unsupported in the first place.

Example why the above is wrong:

1. People have the liberty to cross the street at pedestrian right-of-way cross walks.
2. Not all people have the ability to cross the street at cross walks.

Let's say the reason they cannot cross is a mental phobia (and I'm sure some people, perhaps with a fear of vehicles, would be unable to cross a road--they may be few, but that's irrelevant). No one says the government should provide underground tunnels so that these people can have the ability to cross streets without having to face cars. They are at their liberty to cross them, regardless of whether they are physically able.

Now, there ARE senses where the two words are synonymous, simply in virue of circumstances.

For example, if we say all Americans have the liberty to own health insurance (which isn't necessarily true--just an example of a statement), we *are* saying they have the ability to own it. However, we only mean that with *one* definition of "ability." What we mean is that no one can stop you from purchasing it. Not that your liberty means the gov't guarantees you can have it regardless of whether or not you buy it. It just means that, if you had the money and wished to purchase it, you could regardless of other factors.

So, yes, ability fits in ONE sense. But is very wrong in others. What you try and do is claim we mean ability in all its definitions, which we don't, and then show why it's wrong. Well duh, we all thought that from the start. We just weren't retarded enough to make two different terms synonymous in every sense.

Another example:

You have the liberty to make your own life choices. You don't necessarily have the ability to do it (there are medical and mental disorders that render people virtually unable to choose, for instance). Hell, you may not even be able to carry out the choice you make (if you choose to go to college, but get rejected from all you apply to). You still had the liberty to choose your own path. No one says you must be able to follow it. So no, here the liberty to do something exists without the ability.

But thanks for playing.

No. Others I argue against do this. Constantly. I clearly define what I'm talking about and consistently stick to that use of whatever label I'm using at the moment. Others insist that since I used some term, and that term can mean something else, that I'm wrong because what I'm talking about doesn't match that other definition. Kinda like exactly what is happening here btw.



Except that I can demonstrate repeatedly that what I'm talking about is applicable to the situation at hand. When I say that someone's ideology is based on a belief that simply not having a law preventing you from doing something isn't sufficient to have the "right" to do that thing, but that the ability to do it must be provided, I'm able to show this by simply pointing to the statements of those I'm talking about.

I didn't arrive at this conclusion by inventing an ideology and then looking for ways to apply it. I started by observing behavior. I've seen what I see as "odd" uses of terms like rights and liberty and freedom used to support ideas that I view as being in opposition to those things. That's where this comes from.


I'm not sure how you can deny this. The entire concept of positive rights derives from this belief. It is the core of the modern "liberal" (or "progressive", or whatever term they're using) movement. After the zillionth time someone has argued that the government should force people to pay more taxes so that they can provide some needed thing for others on the grounds that not doing so would deny those people the "right" to something, it's not unreasonable for me to point out that this is what's going on.

That some of those who parrot these arguments have never stopped to consider the source of their own position is not my fault, but is also part of the reason I keep pointing this out. I keep hoping that someday even a few potential liberals out there will read what I write, stop and think about the positions they've been taught to support, and realize that they are based on absurd ideas and should be rejected. Who knows? Maybe some have?



What's funny is that you almost certainly honestly think this is a reasonable response. Do you understand that you're still doing exactly what I said you're doing? You are equating someone lacking the financial ability to purchase something, with someone else stopping them from purchasing something. Remember when I said that this ideology manifests as an inability to see a difference between someone causing you harm, and someone failing to help?

You just proved my point. It's not about the specifics. It's about the equivalence I just mentioned. You can't even see that you're doing it. That's what's so interesting about this. Even when I point it out, you can't see it. Scary!



It's not about semantics though. I'm talking about a very specific case. And in that case, you insist that if we fail to provide someone the ability to do something, you equate that to denying them the liberty to do that thing. That you don't do this for some things has nothing to do with whether you make this equivalence or not, but rather that you just haven't been told to fight for that thing yet.

If the next generation is taught that the failure to provide underground tunnels at intersections infringes the "right" of those with car phobias to cross the street, that generation will fight for that right just as strongly as you are fighting for the right to have health care provided for people. The reasoning behind it is identical. It's only the specifics which change.

In this thread, I made a comment about how conservative ideology primarily seeks to avoid government intrusion into people's lives. Someone (belkira?) asked how that could be true, and I explained the difference between classical liberalism (modern conservativism) and social liberalism (modern liberalism aka progressivism).

I started with an explanation of the two ideologies, and how they differed. I even mentioned how the concept of positive rights is derived from social liberalism. It is absurd after all of that for someone to insist that I'm wrong because what I'm talking about doesn't match some definition which they hold for the term "social liberalism". Talk about "look for a definition that doesn't fit"...

I have been consistent with my use of the term "social liberalism" on this forum since years before you began posting here. I certainly have been consistent not only with my use of the term in this thread, but with the description of the ideology I'm talking about when using the term. If you have a specific claim to make about me switching meanings halfway through the thread, then make it.



A few months ago, I got into a several page argument with several posters who apparently didn't agree with that distinction. Also, it's not just that one is not the same as the other, but that one is not (or should not be) dependent on the other.



Tell that to those who argue that if someone cannot afford to buy health care, or housing, or food, or obtain an education, that their "right" to such things are being infringed. Tell that to the next guy who argues that conservatives are wrong because they're denying people the right to those things. I agree that they are not interchangeable. But there's a whole political ideology which rests on the assuption that they are.

I'll invite you again to look up "positive rights". Can you explain how those things can be labeled as rights unless one believes that only by providing the ability to do something is the liberty to do that thing protected? Have you ever researched the issue of positive rights? It might do you good to learn about them.



But you used them as though they were. Right after insisting that you don't do this.



NO! That's what you aren't getting. Liberty and ability are never the same or similar. They are completely different concepts. Never, ever, ever, ever is liberty dependent on ability or vice versa.



No. But it does mean that you sometimes treat them as though they are. That's what I'm talking about. It's not about whether you always do this, or do this in situations where it's not correct. It's about whether you *ever* do this.

I'll repeat what I said in the previous thread:

Ability denotes the "can" of something. It has to do with physical, mental, financial aspects which determine whether you can do something you want to do.

Liberty denotes the "may" of something. It has to do with permission. If you are denied permission to do something (or even arguably if you have to ask), then you do not possess the "liberty" to do that thing.


In grade school, you were taught the difference between may and can, right? Do you remember that difference? There is no overlap between them. There is never a case where the permission to do something hinges on the ability to do something or vice versa. They are two completely different concepts.


Yet, there is an ideology that has been growing for the last century and a half, that is founded in the assumption that if one lacks the ability to do something, that it is equivalent to lacking the liberty to do that thing. Thus, if one cannot afford health care, it's the same as being denied the right to health care. That ideology (whatever you want to call it) is responsible for the creation of the idea of positive rights. That ideology is also what is largely driving the modern US liberal political agenda, and certainly is at the core of the agenda and position of the Obama administration.


It is also this ideology which most of the "liberal" posters on this board very obviously adhere to. Even if many of them don't realize it.



Missing the point I think.

I'm talking about any time one argues that if the ability to do something is missing, that this represents an infringement of someones liberties, they are doing this. Anytime one argues that by giving to someone the ability to do something, we are providing them with liberties, they are doing this.


Let me give you an easy one:

I believe that the best society is one which maximizes the amount of liberty for it's citizens. I believe that no government act can add to our liberties, but can only subtract from them. This is because governmnts cannot pass laws to make things legal, but only to make them illegal. Which means it can only act to limit our liberty and never increase it. I believe that only sufficient government needed to protect our liberties should exist. It should be just large enough to be able to enforce laws restricting only those actions which others may take which will infringe the liberties of those around them. Anything more than this represents a net loss of liberty with no corresponding protection.

This is why I support small government. It's why I support low tax rates. I especially disagree with welfare type programs as they not only infringe the liberties of those they take the taxes from, but also infringe the liberties of those who receive the benefits. I oppose socialized medicine, not because I want people to be sick, but because it represents a reduction of our liberties. In the same way, I oppose many government programs. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking a given group, but rather an belief that it is better for society as a whole for us to be free to make our own choices than to not be, and an understanding that when the government steps in to protect us from our own choices, it ultimately ends out controlling those choices as well.


I have expressed this position many times on this forum over the years (with minor variation perhaps). Every single time I have expressed it, the response has overwhelmingly been that I'm wrong because by the government acting on people's behalf, it's increasing their freedom and liberty. Thus, the net effect is positive, not negative with regard to liberty.

Heck. I even had one poster argue for several pages that a man living on welfare was more free than a man supporting himself by his own labors, because the government had "freed him" of the need to work for a living. I'm not kidding!


While that may have been an extreme example, the consistent response has been one that clearly shows the ideological belief I call "social liberalism": The idea that without the ability to do something, the liberty to do so isn't worth much. It's not like I'm making this up. We could go digging through dozens of political threads and see this concept being repeated over and over and over. The sheer volume of arguments that depend on "rights" being dependent on others providing the thing in question is astounding.


The only thing more astounding is that you'd deny that so many people hold this position. of course they do! It's the core ideology behind the health care bill that just passed. And it's even more entrenched in most European countries.



You've got it backwards though. It's not that people are arguing that ability is based on liberty. It's the other way around. They would argue that you do not have the freedom to visit pluto, while you do have the freedom to eat celery. Which is absolutely incorrect.


In their minds, liberty cannot exist without ability. If you "cannot" do something, it's the same as if you "may not" do that thing. Surely you agree that these are two different things, right? Yet, how often do we see a political argument of that form?



Turn it the other way around. Then you'll see what I'm talking about. Surely you can see that a whole lot of political arguments are based on the assumption that by not providing the ability to do something, we are denying them the liberty to do that thing. Hell. You can't avoid tripping over this concept in modern politics. It's certainly all over this forum. You've got to have some serious mind blocks going to not be able to see this!

Edited, Apr 13th 2010 5:29pm by gbaji

that's the longest gbaji post i've seen in months days hours

And just when you thought it wouldn't get any more wrong, they finger the Jews.



annnnd I'm spent.

Fudge.

You totally have to read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson's SF books. Perfect, unbreakable encryption is invented. So everyone moves their money into untraceable accounts. Untraceable, therefore untaxable. All tax revenue disappears, so all governments collapse and disappear. Everything, everything at all is left to the private market.

Strangely enough, things all go rather Neuromancer Cyberpunk... the same way every author and scriptwriter envisages a post-governmental world. Reading Snow Crash well may give you a case of the warm fuzzies.

Shucks.

Elinda,



And the govn get's to let us know who must be controlled and who shouldn't.

Yes. Would you rather have, maybe, the catholic church doing it? (hint - see the op)