define liberty, I would say that private property and waged labor are anti freedom, as they agrigate economic power to those with certain skills, while limiting the liberty of everyone else. I'm sure you would disagree, but I think it proves that we can't govern our society on set principles. TDPRK thinks its protecting freedom of the press by outlawing non state press, I'll look up the agument later.
Liberty: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life (courtesy of Google).
What liberty is NOT is economic equality (which, as far as I could make out, was your argument above.) In fact, I think an argument could be made that pure liberty and pure equality are inherently contradictory and mutually exclusive.
The way I always understood "liberty" and "freedom" is that natural man starts out in a state of complete "freedom" with no restrictions whatsoever, but gives up some of that to get along with others (where the social contract comes in). Your liberties are the things you can still do after you give up some of your freedom.
No one (so far as I know) has complete freedom, but everyone has some liberties. The question is what is the "best" amount of liberty to have in a society.
imagine: I would ague that liberty requires equality and equaltiy requires liberty:
If a boss can order you to work or starve you are not free
If a commisar can tell you, work or be shot, you are not equal
Sorry, but the work or starve thing is one of the laws of nature. If a cheeta wants to eat a gazelle, it has to run for it. If a man wants to eat grain, he needs to plant and tend to it. You can't get the benefits of work (food) if you don't work.
As for the 'work or be shot', I agree that you are neither free nor equal in that situation- but all that shows it that it's possible to have neither equality nor freedom. That doesn't prove that pure equality and pure freedom can coexist (or if it does, I missed it).
Here's the way I see it: you have an apple and I have an apple. If we have pure freedom, I can take your apple. (You, of course, can take both apples back, or plant your own apple tree- it's pure freedom. You can do what you want.)Because we both have pure freedom, we cannot have pure equality.
Pure equality is the basis of most dystopian novels. If we have pure equality, someone or something is making sure that you and I always have the same number of apples. You cannot plant an apple tree, because then you would have more apples than me. I cannot give you an apple for your birthday, because then you would have more apples than I do. In this case we are perfectly equal, but not free.
^ That's a very good example of the rationalization of the Social Contract.
If there is a force keeping you equal, then your not equal.
There is a difference between needing to eat to live, and having to sell your labor to a boss in order get food.
One is biological force, the another is a human exerting power over you.
Orwell defined himself as an socialist, he attacked the Soviet Union as in egalitarian (all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal).
Look up Wage Labor is Not Voluntary and Orwell on Socialism on Youtube
Well I guess no one or thing is free so long as the Force of Nature exists. *raises eyebrow*
Have you ever taken biology before? At a certain point a population reaches the point where resources cannot be equally distributed, at that point competition occurs. For humans it's no different, competition occurs and people are forced into positions where overpowering one another is the only choice.
Perhaps in a theoretical world where everyone was perfect and there was plenty to go around, maybe complete anarchy would work, but that's pretty much the definition of heaven :)
Free people are not equal and equal people are not free.
Otherwise "God" or "Nature" or "Nature's God" or whatever you want to call it would have given us all the same bodies and minds. But he/she/it didn't.
Ergo we are not equal.
That wasn't really what I wanted to say. I wanted to pose a slightly tangential question.
Say one generation enters into a certain social contract. Is it possible for succeeding generations to "renegotiate" the social contract, or is posterity forever bound? If it is possible, how is it done?
In regards to whether succeeding generations would be allowed to "renegotiate" the contract, of course! :P That's even how America works, we have an entire legislative branch dedicated to changing and writing new laws.
Granted, you may be talking about renegotiating into an entirely new form of government, in that case the answer is still yes. After all, that's how America got here to begin with.
Our own constitution says that if the government violates the equality of life, liberty, or freedom to pursue happiness, it is the people's responsibility to overthrow said government.
Now keep in mind that it is not that those 3 freedoms have to be absolute, it's that they have to be equal among all. So, in theory, just because your freedom of happiness might include stealing my stuff, you still don't have that right because it would violate the equality of freedoms.
human: If you don't have the choice not to work, then no, you are not free. If your choice is to work or face the consequences of not working without further repercussions, then you have the freedom to choose. Working for or with someone else is not inherently bad- in fact, it is necessary. Organization and teamwork are necessary for allowing a complex civilization to develop. If everyone was concerned with getting enough food for themselves only, no one would have time to do anything else. No writers, scholars, scientists, builders, doctors, or inventors. If there was no division of labor, so some people do one thing and some another, so some grow food and others don't, there could be no advancement because everyone is concerned only with getting enough nourishment to make it to tomorrow. No new technology or developments- no electricity, cars, medicine, communications, computers, or even sitting here having this discussion.
And if there is no force keeping you equal, how is equality even possible? If there is no force, then we have true freedom, and someone can always make themselves better or worse off than others. The force doesn't even have to be outside, or malicious- it can be societal pressure. In its ideal (non Soviet) form, that's how Communism works. It can be a sense of duty. If I always give you some of my apples because it's my responsibility to see that we are equal, then I am bound by my sense of fairness and prevented from having true freedom. If it's true freedom, I can make the choice not to give you the apple- and as soon as I do, we are unequal.
I was born to parents who have no way to sustain themselve on there own. They are forced to sell there labor and brain power to a class that owns the means to sustain life. Its not my fault, its the fault of the system of private property, waged labor and exploitation, the only way to change this is to organize as a class to create a new world in the shell of the old.
By equality I mean equality of authority, equality of access and equality of product. In that sense the "force" would be structure of society, the same way that our society is structured to create inequality.
Read debt the first 5,000 years, its free as a PDF at Libcom .or g
So do you support equality of opportunity more, or equality of results?
So do you support equality of opportunity more, or equality of results?
I believe everyone has a right to the means of human flourishing (education, the arts, community, therapy, ETC) and the right to the means of human survival (food, shelter, medicine, ETC). I also believe in creating a society in which it is just unthinkable that it would be any different. For example, taking the principle of emergency room care to the entire medical industry, without charging a penny.
Also look up
Dispatches from Hurricaned NY: Mutual Aid Is a Social Relationship