No, because people are driven by their liberty to serve society, not murder people.

7/5/2010 11:08:30 AM

How do you ensure one person's liberty without infringing on the liberty of another?

7/5/2010 11:31:59 AM

^if both appeal to something that transcends both of them

7/5/2010 9:37:40 PM

Quote :

"No, because people are driven by their liberty to serve society, not murder people."

History tells us a much different story. Thoughts?

7/5/2010 9:39:15 PM

If I had "god-like" powers, I'd direct behavior through fear. Behavior I find unsatisfactory would be eliminated. People who dare to continue these behaviors would suffer serious consequences and go through enough suffering that people would act differently to avoid the same fate.

7/5/2010 9:57:09 PM

^If you had God-like powers and you had to use fear to control people, would that be satisfying?

7/5/2010 9:58:35 PM

I'd be satisfied as long as my methods produced the intended result. There might be more civil ways to get the same results, but I think the fear method inspires a quicker change than others.

7/5/2010 10:10:55 PM

Quote :

"if both appeal to something that transcends both of them"

That's a presupposition, not a prescription.

7/6/2010 9:09:23 AM

Quote :

"How do you ensure one person's liberty without infringing on the liberty of another?"

Trick question. (At least, in my opinion.)
By what I consider the proper definition of liberty, it can't infringe on other liberty.
That is, the point at which one person is infringing on the liberty of another, is no longer that one person's liberty.
(This may not address the context of your question, though.)

Quote :

"people are driven by their liberty to serve society, not murder people."

Quote :

"History tells us a much different story"

Again, I'm not sure of the context here, but can't one think they're serving society by murdering people? Doesn't history tell us that story, too?

7/6/2010 9:19:37 AM

Quote :

"the point at which one person is infringing on the liberty of another, is no longer that one person's liberty"

Well, I'm going to operate on the assumption that words mean what they mean, and cannot just be arbitrarily redefined according to each person's tastes.

[Edited on July 6, 2010 at 9:50 AM. Reason : 'm]

7/6/2010 9:46:58 AM

Quote :

"By what I consider the proper definition of liberty, it can't infringe on other liberty."

What's your definition of liberty, then?

7/6/2010 9:47:42 AM

^
^^
Well, that's the point. I'll use a particular definition, then you'll use a different one, and BOOM...
...we're no longer talking about the same thing.

Liberty, to me, should not be confused with freedom or privilege.
I wasn't surprised, for instance, when I learned that the military uses "liberty" to mean "privilege". As in, you are granted "liberties", or can be denied them, or you have to earn them. That definition is bullshit.

If, as you suggested, you define "liberty" as something that could overlap... that could infringe on other liberties, then, to me at least, doesn't make any sense. That's unqualified freedom, not liberty. Freedom is not as restricted as liberty... that's the difference, and an important one. I am free to steal and murder as long as it's possible for me to do so. If I'm bound and gagged, then I'm not free to do that, or much else. At no point, though, do I have the liberty to steal or murder, because the actual liberty is with one's right to property and life.

Again, we can define words however we want, but it makes sense to define them in practical ways, as in, distinguishing between liberty, freedom, and privilege. That's why we have those words and not just one -- they don't mean the same thing.

This "arbitrarily redefin[ing] according to each person's tastes" is when these various distinctions among definitions are conflated, ignored, or swapped. No one person's taste should have anything to do with it -- there should be logical standards.

[Edited on July 6, 2010 at 10:06 AM. Reason : ]

7/6/2010 10:05:43 AM

^ I personally accept and use Locke's definition. What's your definition?

Fill in the quotes: liberty =def " "

7/6/2010 4:38:08 PM

Quote :

"I want to pose a weird question to the soap box, just to get the range of peoples' opinions. Suppose you are in charge of America. Your job is to affect peoples' behaviors on a broad scale (getting enough people to fight in the military, getting enough people to be janitors, getting people to stop using heroin, etc.). How do you do it?"

Propaganda son. The country music industry has this shit down pat. Now we just need to evoke the hip hop and pop circles to take action.

Quote :

"Have you forgotten how it felt that day? To see your homeland under fire And her people blown away Have you forgotten when those towers fell? We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden Have you forgotten?"

7/8/2010 11:26:18 AM

^ There's plenty of politically charged hip hop. People aren't listening to it at large because it's not a message they want to hear, or, more likely, it's not a message that the oligarchy wants to popularize.

7/8/2010 12:15:53 PM

^ Hip-hop is actually being used in an attempt to affect behavior, just as jazz and other art forms have been:

U.S. Diplomacy: Hitting the Right Notes
The State Department's Rhythm Road Program Sends Musical Ambassadors to the World, Conveying American Values With a Beat
July 4, 2010

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/04/sunday/main6645542.shtml

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 12:22 PM. Reason : So, you're wrong again, McDanger. ]

7/8/2010 12:21:04 PM

Sorry I was thinking about hip hop in relation to the people that created it.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM. Reason : I obviously wasn't thinking about the US government using rap jingles to peddle its shit worldwide.]

7/8/2010 12:27:56 PM

^ Let's not candy coat it. It's not just the "US government"--it's the Obama administration.

And this is outreach that I support. The Obama administration deserves credit for this program.

7/8/2010 12:31:55 PM

Obama's certainly not going to send Immortal Technique. Haha.

7/8/2010 12:32:37 PM

^ Unfortunately, I must plead ignorance concerning the band you posted. But I'm sure that the State Department is somewhat selective in which groups it decides to export as ambassadors, of a sort, to the rest of the world.

7/8/2010 12:36:11 PM

Your head would explode

7/8/2010 12:57:48 PM