The Glade 4.0

As long as the ref doesn't come in with a hacksaw and a tourniquet to make the game "fair", then it's up to the individual to make the best of their situation.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Humans cannot fly or breathe underwater. We can get in an airplane which flies. We can take artificial sources of oxygen underwater with us. Nor can we teleport. That analysis was more glazed than a box of Dunkin Doghnuts.

I prefaced that sentenced with "might as well" for a reason: there is no definition "playing" basketball (except for Kobe Bryant). There's no definition for "ability to do things". What does that even mean? The answer is it's meaningless.

Notice also that I put "impossible" in quotes. The reason is I was using it specifically within the context of the attitude of the typical ultra-utilitarian.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

People can be enslaved to the things they possess; wealth does not equate to freedom.

Technology is an extension of humanity. It's part of our evolution. We can breathe underwater because we take our oxygen with us, we can fly because we strap on wings and take the controls and do it. Anyway, I counter that utilitarianism is the only thing that solves the "impossible" (quotes yours, then.) Ideologies avoid the impossible because it doesn't fit their outlook.

The pure Libertarian ideology hates any social programs because it's impossible for them to work. And yet the evidence shows otherwise, they've made the "impossible" for a libertarian possible because they tried it and found a way. An example, Canada has top tier healthcare in the entire world, competitive with any country, and often better. Despite alarmists with false statements from so-called canadians who were paid off to advertise the problems here, there really aren't many. The system works and works wonderfully, at very little cost to the taxpayer. I've seen it, i live in it, it's great, and despite my general libertarian approach to economics, I would not trade it away, because it has made us healthier and more prosperous than we would otherwise.

Utilitarianism allows for any tactic or strategy, so long as it works. Ideologues are forced to pidgeonhole themselves into a philosophy which will never work, as by their nature ideologies are absolute and all of them will have holes in them.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Then conversely, taxes would not represent a limitation of freedom.

You can't have it both ways.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's irrelevant. Consider your original proposition. You said freedom is both a combination of legal and "actual" ability with regards to economic mobility and wealth. What is keeping a person from $10,000 a year from being "free" in this sense? There isn't anything unless you conced to the idea that not having something means you lack freedom. Am I less free than person who can buy an Aston Martin DB9? Is that person less free than someone who can afford a private jet? Are humans not free at all because we haven't been to another planet?



Only idealogies in the realm of physical science or mathematics.



It's not impossible for them to work. Libertarnianism often coincides with Laissez-Faire economics, Austrian school economics, but that's not why it "hates" them. Libertarianism is based in personal responsibility, freedom implemented through Rule of Law (though that part isn't exclusive). Through the lens of Western Society, this perspective is often interwined with those schools of Economic thought, but they need not the association.



Libertarianism is not a school of economic thought. And even so, Hayek nor Mises nor Hazlitt would say monetarist system will not work. They only said that they fail to optimize the allocation of resources to their most effecient uses. Even the Consitution doesn't forbid States from doing things centrally within the state.



Can you substantiate this?



And that's its main problem. Mathematics is based on fundamental axioms and then laws and defintions and finally models for a reason. Utilitarnism never questions the basis, only the results. Its what makes revolutionary changes impossible, and it encourages stagnation.



They aren't "forced" to do anything. Nor are they absolute.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Incorrect, because I said people "can" be enslaved, not that they "would" be so. Taxes are worse, because they are more in the "would" category than the "can" category.

My point is that there are dirt-poor people who live free and happy lives, just as there are wealthy people who are enslaved. Whether to gov't over-reach or allowing their possessions to possess them, it's still enslavement.

Then you don't believe in personal property rights? Having more wealth does not make your more free. That doesn't invalidate having your property taken is a restriction of freedom. No one is coercing a person with little personal wealth to be that way. A person being taxed is not the same.

This is the written analog of an equivocation.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Having the freedom to spend your own money how you like is an absolute freedom. The more money you have to spend how you like, the more freedom in that regard one has. Therefore, some mythical policy that taxes you an extra 20% but raises your income 100% provides a net increase in available freedom.

I just don't believe such policies exist very often. Certain infrastructure spending increases your freedom, despite costing you tax money, by allowing for the society that gives such prosperity, but these types of spending are few and far between. So on a practical level I agree with you...I just don't get it from a philosophical level.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I think you're missing the point here. If a particular tax was spent in a way that raised your (and everyone else's) income astronomically, so that you end up wealthier with the tax than you were before it, it provides a net increase in freedom.

Again, as I said above, such valuable government spending is few and far between. But the ideologue would not have the tax because he'd believe himself better off living dirt poor without taxes than living in luxury with them.

Socialism is only "wrong" because it doesn't work. If Lenin had managed to create this perfect utopia of freedom, creativity, and egalitarianism that set humanity on a golden age of advancement and prosperity, I'd be a happy communist. But it doesn't work, and will never work. It's not the principles that matter, but the reality. And in that vein, communism was a terrible failure.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No it doesn't. Freedom has nothing to do with your wealth.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I don't think I've ever argued for zero taxation. There are some things I do not mind paying taxes for, like actual infrastructure and defense. Philosophically, I do not mind being taxed to help those who truly cannot help themselves and those who are victims of natural disasters; help to get them back on their feet, so to speak. I don't mind that, nor do I mind contributing money and time to helping people who are incapable of helping themselves. It's part of living in a society and enjoying the benefits.

What I do not like is gov't deciding that I have to pay for people who should be taking care of themselves. This is where I think the Obama gov't is, and I oppose that kind of policy and want it to fail; fail to become law and increase the decline of freedom.

If I believed such policies would improve my life and everyone else's, I'd fully support them. Unfortunately, they're rather proven to NOT work. Therefore, I don't.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.

And this is where all ideology fails. Think about what you're saying. You believe that being stuck living in abject squalor and yet having no taxes to pay makes you more better off and more free than living in a golden age of prosperity but having to pay taxes.

Practicality wins, every time.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

But nothin' ain't worth nothin' if it ain't free.

This makes sad, Good Sir. This makes me sad.

_________________

Except your constructing an anecdote that's false and built to prove your point. Why must someone be "stuck". What is "stuck"?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

"Freedom's worth a buck .05."

[youtube]poUDyKvj_lQ[/youtube]

Nsfw language.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Squalor is subjective. Squalor in the United States is living high on the hog in many places. Your second example is also subjective. If I'm cleaning up elephant dung every day, it doesn't change if I'm in a golden age of anything. I'm still cleaning up dung, and I'm just being paid and taxed more. If I do it in NYC I may make $70 an hour. If I do it in Thailand I may make $2 an hour. I still have the same buying power in each area and the same net gains and losses. And I'm still cleaning up dung.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Not my philosophy, just a great lyric.

/bow, Mr. Kristofferson

Love Joplins version. Awesome voice for the song.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

This is actually my point. You aren't far off from what I'm saying. Different systems have different results --for EVERYONE--in ways that their own personal choices do not significantly impact. Someone living in comparative poverty in the USA has traditionally been better off than the average person in most third world countries (I expect that to change, soon.) It's the type of government and economy that has led to that difference. If a "socialist" type of policy results in greater prosperity for everyone, it's a good policy. Trouble is, that generally doesn't happen...almost universally, socialism typically results in everyone being less prosperous. The rich get brought down, but so do the poor. Innovation stops, stagnation sets in, and everyone suffers. There are always exceptions, certain types of infrastructure spending actually improve life for everyone and stimulate innovation, but those things are few and far between. And other than a few whackjobs, I don't see people complaining about governments building roads or having had mail delivery, etc, despite these being socialist spices on top of a capitalist system.

In the end, it's not the ideology that matters, but the results.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Absolutly. We need to find our own solutions instead of importing a template and trying to modify it.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Freedom has nothing to do with the economic ability to do something. That is your largest mistake Taly.

Freedom is about being unrestricted by law.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville