The true defintion of the word liberty

[aCultureWarrior]

Before the "If I ran for President" thread was closed, I was having a discussion with some secular humanists on what the true definition of the word "liberty" means.

In this post secular humanists Rusha (aka Sandy) and Granite state that liberty is where others don't make choices for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusha
Oh. You mean liberty is not about people agreeing to allow someone else to make their choices for them?

I don't believe he understands the word "liberty".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite
At least you're blunt about it. Leave a Christian who claims to love "liberty" to spend time describing his hatred for it.

You and the rest of the would be-ayatollahs are getting more brazen as time goes on. I consider that a good thing.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
In Jr.'s hardcore Libertarian days he defined "liberty" as the supposed right to destroy one's life (alcohol/drug abuse, homosexuality, pornography, out of wedlock sex, etc.); it's amazing how much the 3 of you have (or once had) in common.

People of faith believe that "liberty" is being free from sinful behaviors.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4428774&postcount=64

Yet a page later Rusha (aka Sandy) wants restrictions on people's actions, changing her definition of liberty to where others are making choices for them through legislation:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
But but but Sandy, you wouldn't want to take those people's "liberty" away from them would you? (I love it when Sandy goes from one stance to another, i.e. the supposed freedom to do with one's body as he/she or it pleases, but then shows that irresponsible behavior is harmful to others).

Quote: Originally posted by Rusha
Being that I would take away the "liberty" that allows women to abort their unborn babies, I would have no problem with taking away the liberty that allows women to drink, do drugs OR smoke during pregnancy ... OR after if it meant the child would come into contact and be harmed by any of the above.
Children should not be subjected to the second hand smoke, period.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4429009&postcount=82

So what is the true definition of liberty?

1) Being free (through Christ) of sinful behavior.
2) Having other people not make choices with what you do with your body.
3) Doing with your body as you please as long as others aren't harmed.

 

[TrakeM]

3

You know, islamic extremists agree with 1, only replacing christian with islam. At the end of the day, the two aren't much different.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

3 (Doing with your body as you please as long as others aren't armed).

So there are stipulations to your definition of liberty. Does there have to be direct harm where it's immediately visible to the naked eye, or can that harm take place over time?

 

[TrakeM]

So there are stipulations to your definition of liberty. Does there have to be direct harm where it's immediately visible to the naked eye, or can that harm take place over time?

You'd have to be able to make a rational argument that harm is being caused to others. Whether that harm is caused over time or not is irrelevant. If I poison someone slowly over time, it's no different from suddenly poisoning someone. You do have to be able to show through objective reality that harm is being caused. Magic based reasoning isn't enough. It would have to be apparent from objective reality.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So there are stipulations to your definition of liberty. Does there have to be direct harm where it's immediately visible to the naked eye, or can that harm take place over time?

You'd have to be able to make a rational argument that harm is being caused to others. Whether that harm is caused over time or not is irrelevant. If I poison someone slowly over time, it's no different from suddenly poisoning someone. You do have to be able to show through objective reality that harm is being caused. Magic based reasoning isn't enough. It would have to be apparent from objective reality.

You chose #3. Doing with your body as you please as long as others aren't harmed.

Expound and tell us how it is still liberty if others are making decisions for you.

 

[TrakeM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So there are stipulations to your definition of liberty. Does there have to be direct harm where it's immediately visible to the naked eye, or can that harm take place over time?




You chose #3. Doing with your body as you please as long as others aren't harmed.

Expound and tell us how it is still liberty if others are making decisions for you.

Absolute liberty leads to absolute chaos and destruction. If we make no decisions as a nation, we will have no military and no schools. Absolute liberty would mean you can do anything you want, whether it means hurting others or not, but that doesn't mean absolute liberty is a good idea. We put limits in place to achieve prosperity for the majority of people.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Absolute liberty leads to absolute chaos and destruction. If we make no decisions as a nation, we will have no military and no schools. Absolute liberty would mean you can do anything you want, whether it means hurting others or not, but that doesn't mean absolute liberty is a good idea. We put limits in place to achieve prosperity for the majority of people.

Did you mean "isn't a good idea"?

 

[Rusha]

Yes, I admit it. There shouldn't be liberty to kill unborn babies or physically harm or violate another human being ... especially children.

Your liberty ends when it invades the liberty and well being of others. Difficult concept, eh?

You don't seem to actually understand the meaning of the word. Here you go:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberty

1. The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

2. a. The condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power.
b. A right to engage in certain actions without control or interference by a government or other power: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

[patrick jane]

Yes, I admit it. There shouldn't be liberty to kill unborn babies or physically harm or violate another human being ... especially children.

Your liberty ends when it invades the liberty and well being of others. Difficult concept, eh?

absolutely. a new conception/life has the right to live. that's liberty as well

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Yes, I admit it. There shouldn't be liberty to kill unborn babies or physically harm or violate another human being ... especially children.

So your initial definition of liberty has changed from this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusha
Oh. You mean liberty is not about people agreeing to allow someone else to make their choices for them?

to liberty with an * :

*If harm comes to another human being because of your actions then someone else (i.e. government through legislation) is allowed to restrict your choices?

Your liberty ends when it invades the liberty and well being of others. Difficult concept, eh?

You don't seem to actually understand the meaning of the word. Here you go:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberty

1. The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

2. a. The condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power.
b. A right to engage in certain actions without control or interference by a government or other power: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Oh I understand the definition of liberty (i.e. freedom) well, that's why I said that Christians (through Christ) are free from sinful behavior (or at least are trying to be).

So now that we've established that the freedom to do as one pleases can harm others and that restrictions need to be enforced for the protection of others, let's talk about if someone is truly "free" if they're addicted to drugs, riddled with AIDS, or addicted to pornography.

 

[patrick jane]

1,048,000 posts -

 

[Rusha]

Yes, I admit it. There shouldn't be liberty to kill unborn babies or physically harm or violate another human being ... especially children.

Your liberty ends when it invades the liberty and well being of others. Difficult concept, eh?

You don't seem to actually understand the meaning of the word. Here you go:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberty

1. The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

2. a. The condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power.
b. A right to engage in certain actions without control or interference by a government or other power: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Oh I understand the definition of liberty (i.e. freedom) well, that's why I said that Christians (through Christ) are free from sinful behavior (or at least are trying to be).

So now that we've established that the freedom to do as one pleases can harm others and that restrictions need to be enforced for the protection of others, let's talk about if someone is truly "free" if they're addicted to drugs, riddled with AIDS, or addicted to pornography.

Apparently you STILL do not understand the word liberty. Since you are unable to legislate your definition, your opinion is of no consequence.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Apparently you STILL do not understand the word liberty. Since you are unable to legislate your definition, your opinion is of no consequence.

Is being enslaved to an unhealthy lifestyle truly being "free"?

How about the loved ones of those that are addicted to drugs, porn or are dying from AIDS, are they not "harmed" as a result of their loved one's actions?

 

[quip]

"....but that doesn't mean absolute liberty is a good idea."

Did you mean "isn't a good idea"?

I will go out on a limb and say no, that's precisely not what he meant.

You're alluding to absolute liberty....as such don't you think one's absolute liberty would inevitably infringe/conflict upon another's?

Your argument, per the usual, is mere folly.

 

[Rusha]

Is being enslaved to an unhealthy lifestyle truly being "free"?

For personal liberty, of course.

How about the loved ones of the those that are addicted to drugs, porn or are dying from AIDS, are they not "harmed" as a result of their loved one's actions?

Emotionally, of course. Physically/Literally, no.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Is being enslaved to an unhealthy lifestyle truly being "free"?

For personal liberty, of course.

You should ask one of TOL's many recovering alcoholics/drug addicts if they felt like they were "free" when they were addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
How about the loved ones of those that are addicted to drugs, porn or are dying from AIDS, are they not "harmed" as a result of their loved one's actions?

Emotionally, of course.

Psychological damage can lead to other harmful things.

Physically/Literally, no.

A drug addict doesn't physically abuse his wife and/or children?

The loss of employment because of addiction problems doesn't physically affect the addict's family who end up on the streets or in a homeless shelter?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by TrakeM
"....but that doesn't mean absolute liberty is a good idea."

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Did you mean "isn't a good idea"?

I will go out on a limb and say no, that's precisely not what he meant.

I think that TrakeM meant to say "....but that doesn't mean that absolute liberty isn't a good idea" (why would Trake use the word "but"?).

You're alluding to absolute liberty....as such don't you think one's absolute liberty would inevitably infringe/conflict upon another's?

It does and inevitably would. If you disagree, show me differently.

 

[Rusha]

You should ask one of TOL's many recovering alcoholics/drug addicts if they felt like they were "free" when they were addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.

And still yet, you support the sale and use of alcohol ... and nicotine. Hypocrite much?

 

[quip]

I think that TrakeM meant to say "....but that doesn't mean that absolute liberty isn't a good idea" (why would Trake use the word "but"?).

Well, TrakeM did make this statement:

Absolute liberty leads to absolute chaos and destruction.

Thus, I don't believe he's favoring absolute liberty...maybe that's just me.

It does and inevitably would. If you disagree, show me differently.

Good, then we're in agreement that this argument is a waste of time.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You should ask one of TOL's many recovering alcoholics/drug addicts if they felt like they were "free" when they were addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.

And still yet, you support the sale and use of alcohol ... and nicotine. Hypocrite much?

So now we're moving the topic from "Is it really liberty if you're enslaved to harmful and immoral behaviors?" to "What should be done with things that can be harmful, but aren't inherently immoral?" (food and alcohol consumption, tobacco use).

Education.