Re: Decent example

Rogel — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:29:17 -0000

Elad,
Our discussion proves that my grandfather argument that a debate in possible only between those who agree, was correct :) That being said I will like to highlight some points we disagree on.
Firstly I disagree with your assessment that we don't have a real disagreement about the term "Free". I think our different approach is much more than semantics. But this is a subject for different discussion.
I also disagree with the argument that the slippery slope is a fallacy. We have a mountain of historical evidences, together with the understanding of how the regulatory process works to argue that the slippery slope is inherent to the regulation process. In addition any regulation, by its nature, limits liberties. One might argue that some limitations are important or even vital for maintaining the social order. I agree with this assessment when regulations aimed at protecting human rights. However I argue that any regulation that is out of that scope is - adding unnecessary power to the government and is less efficient than non-regulation. I am more likely to compromise and accept regulation when they are in the lower levels of government (i.e. city, county) than the federal government because their scope is limited and are more closely affect the interested population.
I would agree that our major disagreement is about the definition of rights and freedom. You defined freedom:

I extend the concept of freedoms to consider things you do not consider as freedoms at all. For example, an important type of freedom in my system is "freedom to be educated", which society balances with "freedom of property" (the freedom to not pay too much taxes) in order to decide to what extence public schooling should be funded by the taxpayer. I think that the right to be educated should be extended even to those that have no money. Similarly, I believe in the "freedom to be healthy", "freedom for a roof over your head", "freedom for a dignified life", etc. .

But why to stop here - why not to define freedom also as the right to be healthy (and than have the government dictate exactly how to keep you "healthy" ), or free to have proper housing? and proper transportation means or many other things that can make one life better? The vital difference that all of these require enslavement of someone else freedom. While "my" definition of freedom doesn't. You are confusing needs, desires and wants with rights and they are not the same. Rights and Freedom are innate and can be restricted by force - nobody need to "give" you the freedom to speech, but someone might restrict it.
Once we settle this difference of what constitute rights and freedom it is easier to understand why I don't think that you need to balance different rights, and that society has no moral legitimacy to restrict one's freedom.

Re: Decent example

Elad-vee — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:46:46 -0000

Hi Rogel,

I still didn't get time to reply to your most recent comment in the other thread, but let me just make two points here:

1. I agree with you that over-regulation is bad, especially such that aims to take away liberties. Your argument indeed shows that over-regulation is a harmful thing and should be avoided. However, your argument by no means proves your ideal that any and all regulation is bad and should be ceased.

Your claim, as I understand it, is that allowing some regulation "opens the door" to over-regulation. This is a fallacious argument, since regulation is not an on-off switch. If 100% regulation is bad, it doesn't mean we should go for 0% regulation. The public, aided by policy-makers and professionals should decide on the right amount of regulation. Disallowing any regulation would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Indeed, today the public seems to be doing a pretty bad job (in my eyes as well as yours) at balancing regulation. However, this does not mean we should throw our hands up and disallow any kind of regulation. That would be much worse than the current situation.

2. I don't agree that our discussion in the other thread is about "what constitutes â€œFreeâ€". That's the direction you're trying to take it, but I think that we were quite in agreement on what constitutes free, only not about the terms used to define it. I accept your claim that when gyms are funded by taxpayer money, then gyms are not "absolutely free" for the citizens, since they are paying for it out of their taxes. In general, I agree and have always agreed with your claim that regulation takes away freedom.

I think that the discussion is more along the direction that you think that any and all loss of freedom is terrible and should be strictly avoided, while I believe that complete freedom is impossible anyway, and that it is a matter for society to decide how to balance various freedoms. Giving what you consider to be absolute freedom would put us in what I consider to be a jungle economy where the poor and weak are not free at all.

Furthermore, I extend the concept of freedoms to consider things you do not consider as freedoms at all. For example, an important type of freedom in my system is "freedom to be educated", which society balances with "freedom of property" (the freedom to not pay too much taxes) in order to decide to what extence public schooling should be funded by the taxpayer. I think that the right to be educated should be extended even to those that have no money. Similarly, I believe in the "freedom to be healthy", "freedom for a roof over your head", "freedom for a dignified life", etc. .

The above freedoms, which I view as integral in a concept of a free and healthy society, contrast with other freedoms (such as "freedom of property") and then society needs to balance them out. In fact, I think that, to some extent, "freedom of property" is in contrast with itself, and in any case needs to be balanced with itself (by regulation and governmental activism).

Do you agree that that is what the discussion is about, or am I misrepresenting some of the issues?

It looks Obvious - Latest Comments in Decent example

Re: Decent example

Re: Decent example