Liberty is bad??

[RDKirk]

According to the Index of Economic Freedom, India received the following scores.

Those "scores" conflate clumsy bureaucracy with a command economy. There is a very great deal of difference. I spent decades professionally studying and observing command economies such as the Soviet Union and China as well as economies such as India (which has been a pet poli sci study of mine since college in the early 70s). There is a significant difference.

India has a heavy government bureaucracy, but it is not a command economy.

 

[Paradoxum]

I was wondering what evidence you have for this accusation? If such a thing is occurring shouldn't someone be made aware of this unlawful undertaking?

Well if you google I think you will easily find evidence that euthanasia and assisted suicide are banned in most 'free' countries. Other nations have in legal and have proven it is safe, yet we still treat our sick and poor lower than animals (animals are put to sleep, but humans are denied that choice).

Economic liberty is a part of both personal and social liberty. Economic liberty means the right to buy and sell as we choose, own property, start businesses, hire and be hired. Plainly if we're denied these things, then we're being denied our personal liberty. Since economic decisions are always part of social life, denial of economic liberty is also denial of social liberty.

I would agree that some economic freedoms are social liberties, in so far as they contribute to greater liberty. Environmental regulation isn't part of that.

I'm kind of wondering that too. It can't be a reference to health care, since America's Medicare system gives seniors much more money for health care than any other nation.

See above.

 

[pjnlsn]

Economic liberty is a part of both personal and social liberty. Economic liberty means the right to buy and sell as we choose, own property, start businesses, hire and be hired. Plainly if we're denied these things, then we're being denied our personal liberty. Since economic decisions are always part of social life, denial of economic liberty is also denial of social liberty.


I'm kind of wondering that too. It can't be a reference to health care, since America's Medicare system gives seniors much more money for health care than any other nation.

That's what the word means, but as far as what's right and what's wrong, upwards wealth inequality in the united states has been escalating for several decades. Indeed, speaking of liberty, it was an example of the exercise of economic liberty that created the recession.

 

[AlexBP]

Those "scores" conflate clumsy bureaucracy with a command economy. There is a very great deal of difference. I spent decades professionally studying and observing command economies such as the Soviet Union and China as well as economies such as India (which has been a pet poli sci study of mine since college in the early 70s). There is a significant difference.

I agree that a command economy and a massive bureaucracy are two different things. However, both of them are systems which restrict economic liberty. Moreover, both impede economic growth, both leave populations stranded in poverty, and both block technological progress. Thus one can point to both China and India as examples of how denial of economic freedom harms people.

 

[grasping the after wind]

A great amount of personal liberty... though old and sick people are still unnecessarily forced into torturous and undignified deaths against their will.

Well if you google I think you will easily find evidence that euthanasia and assisted suicide are banned in most 'free' countries. Other nations have in legal and have proven it is safe, yet we still treat our sick and poor lower than animals (animals are put to sleep, but humans are denied that choice).

First, death is ultimately a necessity. Second, Let us drop the euphemisms. Animals are not put to sleep they are killed often not to alleviate suffering but because they have become inconviences for their owners. Euthanasia is legalized killing and may be carried out in humans for the same reasons as animals are killed. Assisted suicide is a nonsense term as it actually is no suicide at all but the fulfillment of a person's wish to be killed by someone other than themself. How it becomes the responsibility of a third party to carry out someone's death wish escapes me completely. In any case whatever term one uses no one is actually forced into tourturous death against their will by society or laws. The process of dying is not something that society has forced upon anyone it is a natural process that society is powerless to impose upon anyone. There is no such thing as dignified death. All death is undignified.

 

[jayem]

Admittedly that's anecdotal evidence, but it suggests that in China, where everything is carefully portioned and maintained by the government, the air quality is worse than in the USA.

I agree with most everything in your post except this. Air quality is good in the USA because we have an EPA that regulates industrial pollution and sets strict auto emission standards. Which many in the business community have opposed since Day 1. And many right-wing politicians still believe the EPA is an anti-business bogeyman. China, OTOH, though it ostensibly has anti-pollution regulations, does little to enforce them. Since becoming an economic power, it has put its business development ahead of environmental concerns. This is a case where perhaps more control and less freedom has lead to a better quality of life.

Now maybe we've reached the point in the US where free market forces would require businesses to observe good environmental stewardship. Do you think that would happen if the EPA were reined in?

 

[Paradoxum]

First, death is ultimately a necessity.

Is it? It may not be for future 'humans.

Second, Let us drop the euphemisms. Animals are not put to sleep they are killed often not to alleviate suffering but because they have become inconviences for their owners.

Sometimes they are killed to alleviate suffering though.

Euthanasia is legalized killing and may be carried out in humans for the same reasons as animals are killed.

I'm not sure what weird laws you are hearing of that kill humans than are inconviences.

Assisted suicide is a nonsense term as it actually is no suicide at all but the fulfillment of a person's wish to be killed by someone other than themself.

You've never heard of people being given a pill that they take?

How it becomes the responsibility of a third party to carry out someone's death wish escapes me completely.

Why is it massively different from normal palliative care? If I were qualified and no one else would, I would happily do such a job. It is a more meaningful and loving job than most.

In any case whatever term one uses no one is actually forced into tourturous death against their will by society or laws. The process of dying is not something that society has forced upon anyone it is a natural process that society is powerless to impose upon anyone.

Firstly, science probably does have the ability to impose such deaths on people.
Secondly, the law does impose such a death on people. They can easily die a less painful death, and that is their choice, yet the law forces them to die a torturous death. It is evil and reflects just as poorly on our nations as slavery did.

There is no such thing as dignified death. All death is undignified.

I see nothing undignified in dying in ones sleep or by a pill (I’m not concerned about what happens after death to the body). Or, at least those are more dignified than losing your mind and control of your body, perhaps to the extent that you are almost an undead version of your formed self. Far more dignified than dying it great and unnecessary suffering against your will.

 

[pjnlsn]

First, death is ultimately a necessity. Second, Let us drop the euphemisms. Animals are not put to sleep they are killed often not to alleviate suffering but because they have become inconviences for their owners. Euthanasia is legalized killing and may be carried out in humans for the same reasons as animals are killed. Assisted suicide is a nonsense term as it actually is no suicide at all but the fulfillment of a person's wish to be killed by someone other than themself. How it becomes the responsibility of a third party to carry out someone's death wish escapes me completely. In any case whatever term one uses no one is actually forced into tourturous death against their will by society or laws. The process of dying is not something that society has forced upon anyone it is a natural process that society is powerless to impose upon anyone. There is no such thing as dignified death. All death is undignified.

One suspects you have been taught to react severely to the idea of participating in any sense in the death of another. But this doesn't change what is right or good, in the sense of preventing suffering.

All death need not be undignified, or as undignified. And yes, it is true that legal and to some extent general societal constraints lead to more painful and prolonged death than otherwise. And yes, such a thing would be against their will, in general.

Insomuch as pain is inherently negative, anything which prolongs it is also, in effect.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Is it? It may not be for future 'humans.

It is and will remain a necessity. Humans of the future will still be mortal.

Sometimes they are killed to alleviate suffering though.

I never said otherwise.

I'm not sure what weird laws you are hearing of that kill humans than are inconviences.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was referring to some law.

You've never heard of people being given a pill that they take?

That would be suicide not assisted suicide and I have no objection to that. The power over a person's life should always remain in their own hands and never be given into the hands of another.

Why is it massively different from normal palliative care? If I were qualified and no one else would, I would happily do such a job. It is a more meaningful and loving job than most.

Many people are attracted to the power over the life and death of another. I am leery of giving that power to anyone as power tends to corrupt. In palliative care the only power is to soothe not to kill.

Firstly, science probably does have the ability to impose such deaths on people.
Secondly, the law does impose such a death on people. They can easily die a less painful death, and that is their choice, yet the law forces them to die a torturous death. It is evil and reflects just as poorly on our nations as slavery did.

Science is a field of inquiry not a sentient being that has a will of its own and can impose something on an actual living being. The law makes no such imposition it merely states that murder i.e. the killing of another human being is not lawful and does not make an exception for those that wish to be murdered or for those that think another would be better off dead.

I see nothing undignified in dying in ones sleep or by a pill (I’m not concerned about what happens after death to the body). Or, at least those are more dignified than losing your mind and control of your body, perhaps to the extent that you are almost an undead version of your formed self. Far more dignified than dying it great and unnecessary suffering against your will.

The only person that can control how dignified they die is the person that is dying. If they approach the matter in a dignified way they will die with dignity.I see nothing more or less dignified in any of the scenarios you paint because I do not believe that dignity is something extrinsic to a human being but it is an intrinsic quality that a person possesses regardless of their circumstances. The way of death that you claim to be more dignified is surely an easier death but I do not see anything in it that has anything to do with dignity until I see how the person conducts him/herself in that process. I also see nothing undignified about suffering or dying in any fashion that one finally dies.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Quite.

However, I too will have to disagree with a part of this; Power itself is an illusion, I would say. It's a trick, a shadow on the wall. (Those who know what I just referenced, I congratulate you!) And so if the people believe they have no power, then they actually have no power. There is the potential that the people could seize, as it were, significant power, but they don't currently have it.

Also, there is another barrier to the people having significant power. One is the capitalists, as you mentioned. But the other is that the politicians commonly elected to a wide variety of offices belong to their own special strata of society, like the capitalists, and they have their own illusions they perpetuate to the public, for their own purposes.

(More particularly politicians running for some federal or national office; And also state-level offices, to an extent)

But certainly if the people as a whole came together and had the will to effect change, things would, for so long as that will lasted.

People don't have power...but then again if they got together and worked toward something they do have power. Well, perhaps we agree but I'm not stating it clearly enough. I think individuals are relatively powerless to the masses. No amount of wealth or political influence will change that. For an example, see every revolution in history.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you've got everything exactly backwards. A nation that has more political liberty can expect to have fewer people living in poverty, less pollution, and more scientific and technological discoverities, as compared to a nation without political liberty. For example, here's a major American city:

Here's a major city in communist China:

Admittedly that's anecdotal evidence, but it suggests that in China, where everything is carefully portioned and maintained by the government, the air quality is worse than in the USA.

On the issue of new science and technology, consider what was invented by Americans seeking personal profit: the telephone, the light bulb, the microchip, the personal computer, the assembly line, the metal detector, the transformer, large-scale electricity, the airplane, the air conditioner, the vast majority of medicines currently in use, blood transfusions, artificial insulin, online auctions, the nuclear reactor, the tractor, ... Obviously this list could go on for quite a while. By contrast, totalitarian countries with command economies, such as China and Cuba, have not invented a whole lot.

In terms of wealth, just ask yourself one thing: how many Americans currently can't afford electricity or running water? How does that compare to the percentages in China or India or other heavily regulated economies?

I'll acknowledge that the USA is not now, and never has been, perfectly dedicated to personal liberty. But it has always been vastly better than most other nations, and both Americans and other peoples have benefited as a result.

It's difficult to use contemporary examples for what I'm talking about here, and I'm certainly the guilty party for bringing them up. You're absolutely correct that for a time, nations built upon personal liberty, or at least those that allow a great deal of it, can prosper far beyond a nation with comparatively less personal liberty. I sincerely doubt that personal liberty is the cause though.

Let's look at your example of China for a moment. Suppose they allowed their citizens the same personal liberties (or more) we have here in the US? Do you think that they would be better off for it? Or do you think issues of crime, poverty, overpopulation, disease, and mass starvation would send the nation spiraling into destruction?

The irony of this, I think, is that ultimately personal liberties will be reduced or outright taken away by necessity. Certain problems can only be faced by mass cooperation of everyone involved...whether that cooperation is forced or given. IMO when such cooperation involves the loss of personal liberty...it is never (or very rarely) given.

 

[pjnlsn]

People don't have power...but then again if they got together and worked toward something they do have power. Well, perhaps we agree but I'm not stating it clearly enough. I think individuals are relatively powerless to the masses. No amount of wealth or political influence will change that. For an example, see every revolution in history.

No, I do agree, completely. Once the people have come together to a willing, single purpose, all power lies with them.

I was just saying that it's perhaps not as accurate to say the people have the power, but rather that they have the potential of power. Bit of a nitpick, maybe.

And to say that it's not just the capitalists which will try and stop the revolution, as it were, via the perpetuation to the people of convenient illusions, but also those of a certain strata of society to which the politicians and bureaucrats belong. And there is some overlap between the two, certainly. Although, the former are far more to blame.

 

[AlexBP]

Let's look at your example of China for a moment. Suppose they allowed their citizens the same personal liberties (or more) we have here in the US? Do you think that they would be better off for it? Or do you think issues of crime, poverty, overpopulation, disease, and mass starvation would send the nation spiraling into destruction?

I absolutely think that the Chinese would be better of if they shifted away from their communist positions and towards a free society. I have already linked to the Index of Economic Freedom, which clearly shows that those countries with the most economic freedom are the most prosperous. Indeed China has made a considerable shift towards free markets since the time of Chairman Mao, and there's no doubt that the Chinese people have benefited. There was mass starvation in Mao's time, the worse mass starvation in human history. Nowadays the Chinese have more than enough to eat. In contrast we can look at North Korea, which has stuck with old-school Marxism and where there still is mass starvation. In terms of poverty, China has experienced economic growth around 10% a year for many years, ever since they began liberalizing their economy. North Korea has experienced no economic growth at all. All indications are that increased freedom has been excellent for the Chinese people, and that further increases in freedom would make life even better.

 

[RDKirk]

Let's look at your example of China for a moment. Suppose they allowed their citizens the same personal liberties (or more) we have here in the US? Do you think that they would be better off for it? Or do you think issues of crime, poverty, overpopulation, disease, and mass starvation would send the nation spiraling into destruction?

We can't presume the same effect would happen there as in the West and particularly the US.

I watched an interesting History Channel documentary a few months ago where a secular reporter studied the effect of the so-called "Protestant work ethic" on the course of US economic development.

Without regard to the biblical foundation of that concept, the author looked at what its particular value did for the US economy: 1. That that being useful to society is an inherently moral virtue--even apart from profit. 2) That individual frugality leading to a family legacy is also an inherently moral virtue.

The "Protestant work ethic" finds even modern expression when we hear a million-dollar lottery winner say that he intends to continue working, or when a billionaire retires from his business but continues to be just as busy with philanthropic pursuits. If one can assent to the proposition that "being wealthy means being able to choose choose one's work" rather than being indolent, that's the "Protestant work ethic" in effect.

This reporter theorizes that work ethic is the primary reason for the economic success of the US, and the significant breakdown of those two components--that social usefullness and individual frugality are inherently virtuous--is a contributor to the malaise of US economic success.

If that's the case, then it would be necessary for any society intending to emulate the economic success of the US to adapt a similar ethic (whether it's "Protestant" or not). It might very well be able for the Chinse government to fit those concepts into the Confuscius-influenced Communism of China.

 

[brightlights]

I've had this idea for some time now, wanted to make a thread on it but honestly I've been afraid I'd be unable to explain this idea correctly. In short, I think a nation founded upon the idea might be a bad thing.

I think that this is very astute. Western individualism has some good values but I think that, as a whole, it is deadly -- meaning that if it continues unchecked it will ultimately destroy humanity. Consider some selections from Isaiah 58:

"Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that did righteousness and did not forsake the judgment of their God...

...Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers...Fasting like yours this day will not make your voice to be heard on high...

...Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide from your own flesh."

The Bible understands humanity not as a aggregate of individuals who are competing for scarce resources, but as one whole -- as a family. What is bad for some is bad for all. What's good for you is good for me because we are the same flesh. That's why it's written "love your neighbor as yourself."

Western individualism values freedom and this is a good thing. It pursues freedom wrongly though and in the end it doesn't even really attain it. The ancient books say that if we pursue righteousness, justice, and mercy then we will have liberty. But if we pursue liberty without the other three things we will have none of them.

 

[pjnlsn]

I think that this is very astute. Western individualism has some good values but I think that, as a whole, it is deadly -- meaning that if it continues unchecked it will ultimately destroy humanity. Consider some selections from Isaiah 58:

"Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that did righteousness and did not forsake the judgment of their God...

...Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers...Fasting like yours this day will not make your voice to be heard on high...

...Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide from your own flesh."

The Bible understands humanity not as a aggregate of individuals who are competing for scarce resources, but as one whole -- as a family. What is bad for some is bad for all. What's good for you is good for me because we are the same flesh. That's why it's written "love your neighbor as yourself."

Western individualism values freedom and this is a good thing. It pursues freedom wrongly though and in the end it doesn't even really attain it. The ancient books say that if we pursue righteousness, justice, and mercy then we will have liberty. But if we pursue liberty without the other three things we will have none of them.

It is not necessarily true that to lack religious values and not be submissive to any other standard of behavior will "destroy humanity." Certainly because the bible suggests or says so doesn't make it true.

 

[brightlights]

It is not necessarily true that to lack religious values and not be submissive to any other standard of behavior will "destroy humanity." Certainly because the bible suggests or says so doesn't make it true.

I am not claiming here that the Bible is authoritative. I'm simply offering it's perspective for consideration. Who said anything about religious values? I'm talking about righteousness, justice, and mercy.

 

[pjnlsn]

I am not claiming here that the Bible is authoritative. I'm simply offering it's perspective for consideration. Who said anything about religious values? I'm talking about righteousness, justice, and mercy.

It's not necessarily true that too much freedom will "destroy humanity," is what I mean.

That being said, I think a little more care for the downtrodden, as it were, would be a good thing.

 

[Paradoxum]

It is and will remain a necessity. Humans of the future will still be mortal.

Sorry for the late reply.

Well you may no longer wish to call them humans, but post-humans, or whatever you want to call our future evolution, will likely be free from death by natural disease or ageing. They would still be vulnerable to things like physical damage for quite some time.

That would be suicide not assisted suicide and I have no objection to that. The power over a person's life should always remain in their own hands and never be given into the hands of another.

I'm pretty sure giving someone a pill to kill themselves is assisted suicide and illegal currently. If you are ok with that then I would suggest you make your support heard to help relieve the suffering of the sick, and respect their choice.

It would see that you are against euthanasia... helping people who can't kill themselves because they simply can't (ie: paralysis). You say it should be in their hands, but if their hands are dead to their minds control, then it simply seems like discrimination against those most disabled.

When a person's communication is respected their life is in their 'hands'. As long as others are restricted to only do what the patient has said, the other person does the same job in response to the patients mind as their hands would do if they worked.

Many people are attracted to the power over the life and death of another. I am leery of giving that power to anyone as power tends to corrupt. In palliative care the only power is to soothe not to kill.

The problem is that people DO currently have power over life and death. Self autonomy has been stolen from the sick and old and given to the government. It is the government (made up of people) who current use coercive power to strike against the will of those whose life it is.

The solution is to give the power back to the people whose life it is. Whether a people is helped to die should be the choice of the person whose life it is... anything else is tyranny and evil to almost the highest degrees of government evil (obviously being below genocide and mass torture). The government, in taking the power for itself, is in a much more coercive position than doctors regulated to make them act only on the informed choice of the patient.

I would also point out that there are fates worse than death. If you disagree that is your choice, but you shouldn't be forcing that value judgement on other people when it is their life, not yours.

I hope you don't take me to be saying that in an accusing tone.

Science is a field of inquiry not a sentient being that has a will of its own and can impose something on an actual living being.

Well yeah, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

The law makes no such imposition it merely states that murder i.e. the killing of another human being is not lawful and does not make an exception for those that wish to be murdered or for those that think another would be better off dead.

Which is an evil of our modern states.

The state does make exceptions: ie: self-defence (either individuals, or the army). It makes much for sense for killing to be illegal when it is against the will of the person being murdered. If someone wants to die (and is rationally informed when willing such) then there is no harm done by killing them. Just as theft is only theft when you take something against the will of the owner. When the owner allows you to take it, it isn't theft.

The only person that can control how dignified they die is the person that is dying. If they approach the matter in a dignified way they will die with dignity.I see nothing more or less dignified in any of the scenarios you paint because I do not believe that dignity is something extrinsic to a human being but it is an intrinsic quality that a person possesses regardless of their circumstances. The way of death that you claim to be more dignified is surely an easier death but I do not see anything in it that has anything to do with dignity until I see how the person conducts him/herself in that process. I also see nothing undignified about suffering or dying in any fashion that one finally dies.

Well we are getting into vague definitions of dignity now, so I doubt there is much good in trying to argue over it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sorry for the late reply.

Well you may no longer wish to call them humans, but post-humans, or whatever you want to call our future evolution, will likely be free from death by natural disease or ageing. They would still be vulnerable to things like physical damage for quite some time.

I'm afraid I do not share your vision of the future as nothing in the past or present would lead one to think that immortality is possible.

I'm pretty sure giving someone a pill to kill themselves is assisted suicide and illegal currently. If you are ok with that then I would suggest you make your support heard to help relieve the suffering of the sick, and respect their choice.

I thought I already did that.

It would see that you are against euthanasia... helping people who can't kill themselves because they simply can't (ie: paralysis). You say it should be in their hands, but if their hands are dead to their minds control, then it simply seems like discrimination against those most disabled.

I am saying that if one wishes to die one needs to be the one that causes it to happen we have come to a point in our technology where it is easily arranged that a person who has the ability to communicate has the ability to command a machine to do what that person wishes done. No sentient human is incapable of being the motive force behind their own death.

When a person's communication is respected their life is in their 'hands'. As long as others are restricted to only do what the patient has said, the other person does the same job in response to the patients mind as their hands would do if they worked.

Why prevail upon another person when one can surely be equipped with the means to do it oneself?

The problem is that people DO currently have power over life and death. Self autonomy has been stolen from the sick and old and given to the government. It is the government (made up of people) who current use coercive power to strike against the will of those whose life it is.

I do not find this to be the case.

The solution is to give the power back to the people whose life it is. Whether a people is helped to die should be the choice of the person whose life it is... anything else is tyranny and evil to almost the highest degrees of government evil (obviously being below genocide and mass torture). The government, in taking the power for itself, is in a much more coercive position than doctors regulated to make them act only on the informed choice of the patient.

The power is and always has been in the hands of the person whose life it is. Though suicide is a crime it is rather useless to prosecute a dead person.

I would also point out that there are fates worse than death. If you disagree that is your choice, but you shouldn't be forcing that value judgement on other people when it is their life, not yours.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are fates worse than death. Taking another's life is one of them. I am not forcing anyone to do anything I am only asking that those who wish to die be responsible for it themselves and not put that onerous burden upon another who will live with the consequences of that act.

I hope you don't take me to be saying that in an accusing tone.

I'm not oversensitive to criticism.

Well yeah, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

No I am not sure because there are many that actually seem to think that Science is sentient.

Which is an evil of our modern states.


The state does make exceptions: ie: self-defence (either individuals, or the army). It makes much for sense for killing to be illegal when it is against the will of the person being murdered. If someone wants to die (and is rationally informed when willing such) then there is no harm done by killing them. Just as theft is only theft when you take something against the will of the owner. When the owner allows you to take it, it isn't theft.

Self defense is the only reasonable exception as survival is instinctual to humans. Killing a person because they ask for it is not instinctual and will most likely cause a non psychotic personality much anguish. I firmly believe that the victim of suicide is not the one that dies but the ones that remain alive.

Well we are getting into vague definitions of dignity now, so I doubt there is much good in trying to argue over it.

You brought the subject of dignity up, I don't think it is relevant. We should simply decide that we will never agree on this subject and leave it at that so you can make any replies you want to what I said but I'm finished .