tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624810511475973090.post7072314164064010855..comments2023-03-31T15:29:16.240-07:00Comments on We'll get it right next time: Choices, choicesAndrew Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09787148563535850352noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624810511475973090.post-34823781935836131932007-11-29T12:30:00.000-08:002007-11-29T12:30:00.000-08:00AndrewI will adopt your numbering system, although...Andrew<BR/>I will adopt your numbering system, although I'm not sure what it refers to.<BR/><BR/>1. So when you said ""The philosophy of liberty"", you actually meant "the philosophy of liberty". I thought we were discussing a flash animation called "The Philosophy of Liberty". So the quotation marks can only be ironic, so we must be discussing something I can only call "The Non-Philosophy of Liberty" or possibly "The Philosophy of Non-Liberty." Odd.<BR/><BR/>So what can be meant by "the philosophy of liberty". I can only guess. If it is the contents of the flash animation, then we have a problem as we know someone owns that.<BR/><BR/>2.Let me make one thing clear, I was not trying to convince you of anything. The quote and the two following sentences were simply in support of my (admittedly minor) argument that your view is a minority one. In fact, I then tried to move the discussion on to what I believe to be the real dispute. I note that you have not responded.<BR/><BR/>3. ""This isn't an argument, it's a contradiction." " I really don't know what this means. Is it a quote?, or are these fright quotes again? Odder yet.<BR/>"I am unlikely to be persuaded because you make me read the words a tenth time." Again, I really don't know what this means. See above. Why you would accuse me of making you read the same words ten times, when I clearly have not done so is odder still.<BR/><BR/>4. " In the outlandish scenario where you are cornered by this mythical slaveowner, do really the think the bold assertion "I own my life, sirrah!" would see him recoil, cover his head and flee the scene, muttering?" This is perhaps the most baffling of all your remarks. I have never said this. In fact I explicitly stated that your belief would be preferable in this situation. You are either mistaken or are deliberately misreading what was said. You will forgive me for saying so but the slave-owner was your idea.<BR/><BR/>5. I find your views at this point to be outrageous. To say to people, in effect, "If you don't like it, leave the country", is an outrage. What about people who can't leave but would like to? Does that mean that they also have consented?<BR/><BR/>"Therefore, they can pay their taxes like everyone else. Why is this difficult?". It is difficult for the reasons I have previously given and which you have ignored. To claim a concern for poor people and then to refuse to engage with the concerns of ordinary people about the things that matter to them betokens a lack of moral seriousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624810511475973090.post-19373072832837853542007-11-27T15:13:00.000-08:002007-11-27T15:13:00.000-08:00Peter,1) "The philosophy of liberty" is not the fl...Peter,<BR/><BR/>1) "The philosophy of liberty" is not the flash animation. It is, and I really don't know any other way to put this, the philosophy of liberty. And that is not for sale, nor can it be owned.<BR/>2)Argumentum ad numerum. If I disagree with DK about whether "I own my life" makes sense, I'm hardly likely to change my mind because you've found someone else who's said it.<BR/>3)"This isn't an argument, it's a contradiction." You can repeat the mantra "you own your life, you own your thoughts, you own your leg" as much as you like. I disagree with the fundamental premise (that these things fall into the class of "things which can be owned"), and I am unlikely to be persuaded because you make me read the words a tenth time. And a moment's thought should show that there a number of reasons not to criminalize attempted suicide (such as "not throwing suicidal people into jail") that have nothing to do with the absurd concept of owning one's life.<BR/>4)In the outlandish scenario where you are cornered by this mythical slaveowner, do really the think the bold assertion "I own my life, sirrah!" would see him recoil, cover his head and flee the scene, muttering? There must, surely, be a better test for statements on the nature of liberty than their imagined effect on nefarious but hypothetical slave-owners.<BR/>5)As you say, people who want to can leave. They have a free choice in the matter. Therefore, those who stay have voluntarily chosen to. Therefore, they can pay their taxes like everyone else. Why is this difficult?Andrew Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09787148563535850352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3624810511475973090.post-45079705310819087212007-11-27T13:46:00.000-08:002007-11-27T13:46:00.000-08:00"I do not own "the philosophy of liberty"."You're ..."I do not own "the philosophy of liberty"."<BR/>You're right, you don't own it, and no-one has suggested you do. If you did it would be a damn cheek of ISL to refer to it as "our flash animation" and to charge people $12.95 plus postage for a copy on DVD.<BR/>If you really believe that people don't own their own lives, you might be in a bit of a minority. I wonder what Sue Rodriguez would have made of your view. She who began her testimony to a parliamentary committee in Ottawa with the very words "Who owns my life?" She thought she did.<BR/>You own your own life in the same way that you own your left leg or your thoughts and ideas, which is why we have laws against assault or theft of intellectual property.Attempted murder is a crime. Attempted suicide is not. Why is that? Could that be because the law recognises that I am entitled to dispose of my own property?<BR/>Regarding your reply to my previous comment, I suppose your view does have some merit. If you did ever meet a slave-owner and objected to his profession on the grounds that<BR/><BR/>"What I am rejecting, in fact, is the underlying assumption that the concept of "ownership" can meaningfully be applied to the concept of "life"."<BR/><BR/>he would probably laugh loud enough and long enough for you to make good your escape.<BR/><BR/>However, what we really seem to be discussing here is a definition of liberty. DK is close to Mill's definition although he would agree to state funding of defence, the police and the criminal justice system. I think he would describe himself as a minarchist, though I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong.I am closer to Stephen's position in that liberty must be restrained by law, morality and where necessary, religion if it is to be any kind of liberty at all. DK believes liberty is of absolute value, I believe it is of instrumental value only. In practice the difference is probably quite small.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your final paragraph, there is, of course, no contract. A contract must be voluntarily entered into. To claim otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the law of contract. There is no offer, there is no acceptance, consideration or intention to create legal relations.There is good evidence that the state itself does not regard its obligations as legally binding. It fails constantly to provide decent health care, education or law and order. This is not a contract. This is a protection racket.<BR/>You are right, though, we do have a choice. We can leave the country, as hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people do, every year and for exactly this reason - they don't like extortion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com