Is Ron Paul as dangerous as Bidinotto claims?

[Matus1976]

By what standard are you measuring "freedom"?

Freedom house (www.freedomhouse.org) ranks, politically, the US with it's highest scores along with some 30 other nations.

The Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/) ranks the US in the top 10 economically free nations on the planet. (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/topten.cfm) Hong Kong is #1

Where do you rank it? Why? What are your standards? Where is North Korea? Burma? Laos? Iran?

In no particular order: The war on drugs, the IRS taking about half of your income every year, social security and welfare, the federal reserve, antitrust laws, public education, zoning regulations prohibiting running all manner of businesses, taxes and prohibitions on alcohol and tobacco, ... I could go on and on.

This is not a free country, not even close. You have to be quite brainwashed to think otherwise. The best we can tout is free speech. Freedom of speech is a lot, but it is not freedom, and it means zilch if you're too brainwashed to exercise it except in defense of the status quo.

Shayne

Many countries are much more oppressive about drug laws than the US is, and ours are more objective than most (they don't change from day to day based on the opinions of corrupt politicians or law enforcement officials) The drug laws are easily identifiable and easily avoidable, never the less, I oppose them in principle.

Many other countries take a much larger percentage of taxes than the US does. From - http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/Facts_and_fi...The_tax_burden/

Sweden and Denmark are the two countries with the highest tax burden. At present Swedish taxes are slightly higher than Denmark’s. Belgium has the third highest tax burden, at just below 45 percent of GDP, which is around 5 percentage points below the Swedish level.

Tax ratio Percentage of GDP / Year

Sweden EU-15 USA

1975 41.6 32.1 25.6

1985 47.8 37.4 25.6

1990 52.7 38.0 27.3

1995 48.1 38.8 27.9

2000 52.6 40.4 29.9

2004 49.9 39.1 26.0

2005 50.7 39.7 27.3

2006 50.1 39.8 28.2

Antitrust laws, public education, zoning laws, etc, are all the norm in virtually every partially socialist nation. Many are much more draconian in these laws than in the US.

Perhaps you are right that by your definition of 'freedom' the US is not 'Free' BUT by NO definition of Freedom is the US the LEAST free nation, THAT is still absurd. The US is one of the MOST FREE nations on the planet, in the top single digits by virtually every individual measurement and certainly by and conglomerations of measurements.

You said

America is the biggest threat to the spread of freedom throughout the world

What nation is the best friend of freedom in the world?

What is the "most free" or "least oppressive" nation, surely you have a clear idea since you know so positively that it is NOT the US.

[Matus1976]

Tell me in what why Ron Paul will act to promulgate the freedom of other people in the world?

First and foremost, I believe that setting the example is the most important thing.

Of course, the favorite refuge of the isolationist. Of course you favor that, because it doesnt require you to do anything. Additionally, merely trading with oppressive regimes is seen by many people in those non-free nations as supporting those regimes. Conversely, NOT trading with them is seen as hurting the people inside those regimes. As an 'isolationist' which is it, do we trade with brutally oppressive shit holes or do we not? There mere existence of the US and it's products angers people enough in the world to committ violent terrorist acts. In Iran, the US is referred to as Satan, because classically, Satan was a TEMPTOR, and every tyrant with half a brain knows that given a choice people choose to adopt many aspects of western culture, throwing out most of their own culture in the process. Thus the Taliban banned dancing, singing, music, Leonardo DeCaprio Haircuts (Titanic is absurdly popular in Afghanastan) The mere presence of a pro free culture which celebrates (loosely) individuality and self determination is offensive to most fundamentalist idealogies. What do we do, enforce embargo with military blockades to make sure no copies of titanic make it into shitty middle easter nations? The "Example" you love setting is the example the murderous oppressive tyrants of the world despise and the fundie wannabe tyrants want to kill us for. There is NO SUCH THING as ISOLATIONISM in a completely globalized economy.

I have no doubt that if America was actually free and hadn't been violating its founding premises for 100 years that we'd have long ago spread freedom throughout the world.

Possibly, unless that principle was naive isolationism, in which most of the world which be controlled by crumbling and murderous Stalinist regimes.

Since you evidently believe in forcing people to be free I'm not sure how to answer your question,

You can not "force" people to be free, you can only prevent other people from oppressing those people or forcing them to do something against their will. Please give me an example of how I might force someone to be free.

but I will make another point. Communist China seems to be getting more free simply from trading with them. We didn't threaten them, we just gave them the chance to trade with us.

We threaten them daily with violent repercussions if they invade Taiwain. China is opening up economically, but is cracking down on political freedoms. By trading with them, we are helping to perpetuate their oppressive and murderous regime. How is trading with China consistent with your policy of 'isolationism' or 'no entangling alliances' lets suggest we cut off all Chinese imports and see how much of an entangling alliance trade is?

Perhaps what we should be talking about here is the mistaken premise that America should be forcibly be spreading freedom throughout the world. There is perhaps no worse foreign policy than that. It's a contradiction on its face and--at best--turns the government into some sort of charity rather than being a protector of its citizens.

You can not "forcibly" spread freedom. Freedom is used popularly to refer to material freedom, political freedom, metaphysical freedom, and physical freedom. Material Freedom is the desire to exist without any material sustenence, e.g. requiring food is an example of 'oppression' this is used popularly by marxists. Metaphysical Freedom refers to the ability to achieve anything with a mere thought, from flying through space to bringing about world peace, and though loved by hippies and parapsychologists, does not exist. Physical Freedom refers to the physical actions someone takes and the limitations that the physical laws place on their existence. Killing someone else is a manifestation of "physical freedom" as it refers only to the ability to move around and act on things. Many anarchists consider "physical freedom" to be the most important form of freedom. Political Freedom is what is useful and meaningful to the context of this discussion, and that is freedom from coercion. The word Liberty is more appropriate, or the Greek Word Eluethera, because this freedom (from oppression) is so easily confused with all other kinds of freedom. So, please tell me, how is it that I can force liberty, or the freedom from coercion on someone. HOW CAN I FORCE SOMEONE TO BE FREE FROM COERCION

The more free a nation is, the more it's people prosper, the less wars it starts, the less internal violence it perpetuates, the famines occur, the less pathogens spread and decimate the population, the less it breeds terrorists, the less it threatens the existence of the whole planet. Fostering the growth of POLITICAL FREEDOM which requires Rule of Law and Democratic Representational Governments is the absolute BEST thing any rational person can do for their OWN *LONG TERM* self interest.

Not giving a shit who comes to power, murders who, oppresses who, buys what guns or sells what bombs is the absolute WORST thing someone can do and certainly the WORST foreign policy any rational long term mind can come up with. Might as well just be an ostrich.

[sjw]

Many countries are much more oppressive about drug laws than the US is,

So?

and ours are more objective than most (they don't change from day to day based on the opinions of corrupt politicians or law enforcement officials) The drug laws are easily identifiable and easily avoidable,

So?

Many other countries take a much larger percentage of taxes than the US does. From - http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/Facts_and_fi...The_tax_burden/

So?

<snip of other such nonsense>

I'm surprised at you. Your whole argument is: "Look, somebody is worse?" Give em a break! I don't count myself as "free" by looking yonder at some fellow slaves that are treated worse.

What nation is the best friend of freedom in the world?

What is the "most free" or "least oppressive" nation, surely you have a clear idea since you know so positively that it is NOT the US.

I said "America is the biggest threat to freedom" which wasn't completely precise. What I mean is, the policies we have been following in America are the biggest threat.

Shayne

[sjw]

<snip of emotionalist rant>

You need to calm down and look at what I've actually said. I'm going to tire quickly of untangling your confusion between what I've actually said and what you in your emotionalism attribute to me. Irrationality is the root of all evil, stop indulging in it, and stop adopting this "holier than thou" attitude when you clearly can't control your own emotions.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

I'm surprised at you. Your whole argument is: "Look, somebody is worse?" Give em a break! I don't count myself as "free" by looking yonder at some fellow slaves that are treated worse.

The point is, to you, a 1% tax is no different than a 90% tax, such an attitude is absurd and undermines real pragmatic progress toward true freedom. I don't debate you that in the sense that I consider Freedom and you probably do as well, the US is not a "Free" nation, but to not acknowledge that it is less oppressive by orders of magnitude than most other nations is rediculous, and it sabatoges all real progress toward freedom that is ever made in the world. Unless you acknowledge, recognize, and encourage every step, even marginal, toward freedom, you'll never get anywhere. A nation which has Free Speech is much freer than a nation which has none but to you these nations are no different. Of course, you're just paying lip service to this, what nation do you live in now? Would you move to North Korea?

What nation is the best friend of freedom in the world?

What is the "most free" or "least oppressive" nation, surely you have a clear idea since you know so positively that it is NOT the US.

I said "America is the biggest threat to freedom" which wasn't completely precise. What I mean is, the policies we have been following in America are the biggest threat.

Shayne

My question still stands, I am asking your opinion, what nation has the best policies toward freedom in the world? What is the 'freest' nation? What nation is doing the most toward promulgating the growth of individual freedom in the long term?

[Matus1976]

<snip of sjw's emotionalist irrational rant>

Shayne,

You need to calm down and look at what I've actually said. I'm going to tire quickly of untangling your confusion between what I've actually said and what you in your emotionalism attribute to me. Irrationality is the root of all evil, stop indulging in it, and stop adopting this "holier than thou" attitude when you clearly can't control your own emotions.

Matus

[sjw]

<snip of sjw's emotionalist irrational rant>

Shayne,

You need to calm down and look at what I've actually said. I'm going to tire quickly of untangling your confusion between what I've actually said and what you in your emotionalism attribute to me. Irrationality is the root of all evil, stop indulging in it, and stop adopting this "holier than thou" attitude when you clearly can't control your own emotions.

Matus

<yawn>

[sjw]

I'm surprised at you. Your whole argument is: "Look, somebody is worse?" Give em a break! I don't count myself as "free" by looking yonder at some fellow slaves that are treated worse.

The point is, to you, a 1% tax is no different than a 90% tax, such an attitude is absurd and undermines real pragmatic progress toward true freedom. I don't debate you that in the sense that I consider Freedom and you probably do as well, the US is not a "Free" nation, but to not acknowledge that it is less oppressive by orders of magnitude than most other nations is rediculous, and it sabatoges all real progress toward freedom that is ever made in the world. Unless you acknowledge, recognize, and encourage every step, even marginal, toward freedom, you'll never get anywhere. A nation which has Free Speech is much freer than a nation which has none but to you these nations are no different. Of course, you're just paying lip service to this, what nation do you live in now? Would you move to North Korea?

Steps toward freedom?! You think America over the past 100 years as been making "steps toward freedom"? I think our points of view differ far too much on this issue to even have a discussion. (Probably because you've never actually tried to do anything of significance--but that's just a guess). I'm sorry, but you are just talking nonsense. 1% vs. 90%? We're talking about 50% in America, and you're talking about how free we are. And you seem completely oblivious to the restrictions on business here. You are certainly not free to earn a living unless you do it their way, and often that makes the business you'd do otherwise impossible. That's 0% freedom if you wanted to do something they didn't agree with. You have to totally change your life to adapt to their statism. I think you are either completely deluded or naive.

My question still stands, I am asking your opinion, what nation has the best policies toward freedom in the world? What is the 'freest' nation? What nation is doing the most toward promulgating the growth of individual freedom in the long term?

I actually think your questions don't matter. I'll point out one flaw: It's not "nations" that promulgate freedom. That's not their role even in the ideal, and they certainly don't do it at all nowadays. America qua "nation" does the reverse. America on average is fighting to eliminate freedom.

I'm not sure we can even communicate because what you say sounds like total nonsense to me.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

<snip of sjw's emotionalist irrational rant>

Shayne,

You need to calm down and look at what I've actually said. I'm going to tire quickly of untangling your confusion between what I've actually said and what you in your emotionalism attribute to me. Irrationality is the root of all evil, stop indulging in it, and stop adopting this "holier than thou" attitude when you clearly can't control your own emotions.

Matus

<yawn>

Bigger <yawn>

[sjw]

Bigger <yawn>

I guess I should congratulate you on improving the honesty of your arguments. I mean, given that you think like a 5-year-old, it's appropriate for you to act like one.

[Matus1976]

The point is, to you, a 1% tax is no different than a 90% tax, such an attitude is absurd and undermines real pragmatic progress toward true freedom. I don't debate you that in the sense that I consider Freedom and you probably do as well, the US is not a "Free" nation, but to not acknowledge that it is less oppressive by orders of magnitude than most other nations is rediculous, and it sabatoges all real progress toward freedom that is ever made in the world. Unless you acknowledge, recognize, and encourage every step, even marginal, toward freedom, you'll never get anywhere. A nation which has Free Speech is much freer than a nation which has none but to you these nations are no different. Of course, you're just paying lip service to this, what nation do you live in now? Would you move to North Korea?

Steps toward freedom?! You think America over the past 100 years as been making "steps toward freedom"?

I completely agree with you here, in many aspects "freedom" has certainly regressed in America, however, in many areas it has progressed. But lets move this discussion in a productive direction, how about some metrics? How about identifying different kinds of freedoms, then rating them in importance, which is most important? Is being taxed on income the same thing as being indefinately imprisoned until being tortured to death? Is having to register a business name with your town the same things as not being allowed, by law, to get a job?

America since 1900

individual freedom of expression - progressed

free speech - progressed

freedom of religion - progressed

freedom of association - progressed

right to self determination - progressed significantly (slavery, segregation abolished, draft abolished)

right to control one's government - progressed (women's suffrage, blacks able to vote, etc)

right to bear arms - regressed

right to own property - progressed in some areas (more people can own more land, all people are free to acquire the necessities of life) regressed in others (eminent domain)

Feel free to add or elaborate, I am interested in what tangible manifestations of freedom you are talking about.

To be free, in a proper political sense, means to be without coercive force. You still have yet to show me how I can FORCE someone to not be subjected to FORCE.

I would argue that the right to property, the ability to acquire the material goods, and keep them, to provide for your own existence is the first and most important freedom. That is, you can acquire food and property without someone restricting non pejoritive acquisitions with force. It is the first thing communist totalitarian states take away, one of the first things the Bolshevieks did was make the PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF FOOD *ILLEGAL* in such a 'state' your very existence comes at the whimsical approval of a tyrant. The Soviet Union killed some 20 million people by no longer respecting this freedom, China some 50 million people. Even in the worst of the totalitarian right wing dictatorships backed by the US (what, Pinochet's Chile?) people still had the ability to get food and eat freely as long as they didnt piss of said tyrant.

We were obviously not free from coercive force in the US in 1900, but we are more free now than we were 100 years ago, where we had to worry about the Draft and extremely corrupt political structures, unions, and companies which manipulated the law. Living in a society with Rule of Law, and Free Speech are extremely important and I would prefer to live in a nation which respected these, and property, than one which did not respect those yet had a lower income tax rate.

It's easy to rank these freedoms, just ask yourself, which would you rather have, freedom of speech or freedom to acquire food? I'd take the latter first, and the former 2nd, but would prefer both.

I think our points of view differ far too much on this issue to even have a discussion. (Probably because you've never actually tried to do anything of significance--but that's just a guess). I'm sorry, but you are just talking nonsense. 1% vs. 90%? We're talking about 50% in America, and you're talking about how free we are. And you seem completely oblivious to the restrictions on business here. You are certainly not free to earn a living unless you do it their way, and often that makes the business you'd do otherwise impossible. That's 0% freedom if you wanted to do something they didn't agree with. You have to totally change your life to adapt to their statism. I think you are either completely deluded or naive.

This is exactly my point, you equate, say, the need to register your business with your town in the US, with filing 50 petitions and getting 30 licenses and filling out 250 forms that one need do in say India to start a business. And actually in the US you can start a business without even doing that, since everyone based on the social security number provided at birth can operate as a sole proprietorship / schedule C. These restrictions to starting a business are not the same thing, to think they are is utterly absurd and that is nonsensical. Obviously YOU have never tried to start a business or done anything of significance (that's just a guess) and you certainly have never tried doing so in any other country nor talked to people who have. America is one of the EASIST and FREEST nations to start a business (Hong Kong is better) Even so, starting a business is a pain in the ass (indeed I have started a business in the US, have you?) You are focusing only on the existence of a impedence to freedom, and not at all on the degree of that impedence. Like I said, to do so will undermine any solid progress toward more freedom. To NOT recognize it is easier to start a business in the US than it is to start one in Brazil is to undermine any real progressive steps toward that freedom. I can in fact start a business without doing it 'their way' in this country, unless 'my way' includes assaulting or robbing people, in which case in fact I can not do it any way other than thier way. So you are making no sense here.

My question still stands, I am asking your opinion, what nation has the best policies toward freedom in the world?

I actually think your questions don't matter. I'll point out one flaw: It's not "nations" that promulgate freedom. That's not their role even in the ideal, and they certainly don't do it at all nowadays. America qua "nation" does the reverse. America on average is fighting to eliminate freedom.

Fine, drop the question of promulgating. Shayne, WHAT IS THE FREEST NATION on the PLANET. Or, what is the LEAST OPPRESSIVE nation on this planet? Are they ALL equally unfree? Is that what you are saying? Where do you live? Why do you live there? Would you live in North Korea? Why not?

The problem, I think, is that you still hold freedom as a floating abstraction, you havenet made any concretizations of WHAT a freedom is (evidenced by your rediculous "forcing someone to be free" comment) You whine about the difficulties in starting a business in the US, while in many countries doing so is punishable by death.

Since you are so damn sure you are completely unfree, and that one can 'force' someone to be free, perhaps you can now provide us with a clear definition of what *you* mean when you say "freedom"

[Matus1976]

I guess I should congratulate you on improving the honesty of your arguments.

Thanks Shayne, but I must say, given that you think like a 5-year-old, it's certainly appropriate for you to act like one.

[sjw]

Matus, I do not understand why you are arguing about what is the freest country. Suppose I grant your entire argument. I don't--but for the sake of argument suppose I do. Then what? What does that have to do with the issue? Is it your argument that since we're freest, then we're in our rights to tax our citizens to start wars abroad? What is your point?

Shayne

[sjw]

I guess I should congratulate you on improving the honesty of your arguments.

Thanks Shayne, but I must say, given that you think like a 5-year-old, it's certainly appropriate for you to act like one.

"Reality is my God, Rationality is my Altar, Reason is my Religion, Passion is my Method, Life is my Purpose"

You worship reason as if it were an idol but use emotion as your method? Yeah, sounds about right. Reminds me of Feynmann's cargo cult science...

[Matus1976]

Matus, I do not understand why you are arguing about what is the freest country. Suppose I grant your entire argument. I don't--but for the sake of argument suppose I do. Then what? What does that have to do with the issue? Is it your argument that since we're freest, then we're in our rights to tax our citizens to start wars abroad? What is your point?

Shayne

No, it is to recognize the relative difference of freedom that different nations respect, and base whether a nation is legitimate or not on that, and to use that recognition to help promulgate even more freedom. If you ignore the fact that one nation is significantly freer than another, even while acknowledging both are still oppressive in many ways, you lose any ability yourself to recognize tangible improvements in liberty.

What is your definition of Freedom? How do I 'force' someone to be free? What is the least oppresive nation on the planet? why?

[Matus1976]

I guess I should congratulate you on improving the honesty of your arguments.

Thanks Shayne, but I must say, given that you think like a 5-year-old, it's certainly appropriate for you to act like one.

"Reality is my God, Rationality is my Altar, Reason is my Religion, Passion is my Method, Life is my Purpose"

You worship reason as if it were an idol but use emotion as your method? Yeah, sounds about right. Reminds me of Feynmann's cargo cult science...

If you don't understand how passion can be guided, and indeed amplified, by reason, I don't think you have come to a decent understanding of objectivism. Feynman's cargo cult islanders were guided only by passion, passion without a rational guiding principle is like courage in the name of tyranny, it's just brutish violence or obsessive mysticism. Reason with out passion is nihilistic determinism.

What is your definition of Freedom? How do I force someone to be free? What is the freest nation on the planet? Why?

Have you started a business?

[sjw]

No, it is to recognize the relative difference of freedom that different nations respect, and base whether a nation is legitimate or not on that, and to use that recognition to help promulgate even more freedom. If you ignore the fact that one nation is significantly freer than another, even while acknowledging both are still oppressive in many ways, you lose any ability yourself to recognize tangible improvements in liberty.

So you use a relative scale rather than an absolute one. You'll deny that I suppose but that's what you're doing. Not that it matters. I still don't see your point. I don't see the connection between the fact that you're a relativist and the arguments I was making. What does all this have to do with Ron Paul's position that we shouldn't be in the middle east?

What is your definition of Freedom? How do I 'force' someone to be free? What is the least oppresive nation on the planet? why?

"Freedom" as I use it is a shorthand for individual rights. I accept the Objectivist definition. Since you're the one who proposes to force people to be free I don't know why you are asking me. I do not know who the least oppressive nation is, it probably depends on what you as an individual want to do with your life. I'm sure the USA qualifies for many, including me (but I don't rule out, say, New Zealand being better for some Objectivists). I don't think the question is important. You only consider it important because you are a relativist.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

No, it is to recognize the relative difference of freedom that different nations respect, and base whether a nation is legitimate or not on that, and to use that recognition to help promulgate even more freedom. If you ignore the fact that one nation is significantly freer than another, even while acknowledging both are still oppressive in many ways, you lose any ability yourself to recognize tangible improvements in liberty.

So you use a relative scale rather than an absolute one. You'll deny that I suppose but that's what you're doing. Not that it matters. I still don't see your point. I don't see the connection between the fact that you're a relativist and the arguments I was making. What does all this have to do with Ron Paul's position that we shouldn't be in the middle east?

Is America freer than North Korea? Yes or no?

Again, the problem is you lack concretizations of freedom. You offer no definition of freedom, and no recognition of tangible manifestations of it (except, perhaps, the restrictions in starting a new business) Your assessement of my position is a false dichotomy, for every single individual measurement and tangible manifestation of freedom, the 'scale' is only absolute. You are either free to speak your mind or not, you are either free from being forced into military service or not, you are either free to sell your body for use to someone or you are not. Yet the amalgamation of all these is a relative scale, where no tangible manifestations of freedom are respected and protected by a government, the people in a nation are "not free" where some tangible manifestations of freedom are respected, the people in a nation are "partly free", where all tangible manifestations of freedom are respected, the people within a nation are free, and that nation is a 'free nation' The US respects more tangible manifestations of freedom than North Korea does, and as such is "more free" (or less oppressive) than the DPRK. Recognizing that one nation or one system respects more tangible manifestations of freedom is rational and proper, ignoring all nations as equally oppressive unless they respect all manifestations of freedom is rediculous.

What is your definition of Freedom? How do I 'force' someone to be free? What is the least oppresive nation on the planet? why?

"Freedom" as I use it is a shorthand for individual rights. I accept the Objectivist definition.

So how do I 'force' someone to have individual rights?

Since you're the one who proposes to force people to be free I don't know why you are asking me.

Stop obfuscating. What is freedom? How do I force someone to be free? What is a right then? I'll be more than happy to offer my definitions, but you are the one that keeps asserting I can force someone to be free. Concretize that. Tell us exactly how I might do that. Tell me, in your own words, what it means to be free.

I do not know who the least oppressive nation is, it probably depends on what you as an individual want to do with your life.

Oh, so I guess you are a relativist when it comes to freedom.

I'm sure the USA qualifies for many, including me (but I don't rule out, say, New Zealand being better for some Objectivists). I don't think the question is important. You only consider it important because you are a relativist.

Shayne

So you acknowledge that the US is the freest nation on the planet, but you are not a relativist. All manifestations of freedom are important, you act like none are until ALL are respected, which is rediculous. My right to free speech is still valuable to me even if I dont have a right to engage in prostitution. Perhaps you can understand now why this relativist vs absolutist dichotomy is false when we are talking about tangible manifestations of freedom, and how many of those tangible manifestations are achieved is worthy of recognition and respect.

If you don't think it's an important question, would you move to North Korea or Iran?

Edited January 8, 2008 by Matus1976

[sjw]

Is America freer than North Korea? Yes or no?

Are you insane? The answer is obvious.

Again, the problem is you lack concretizations of freedom. You offer no definition of freedom, <snip>

This is an Objectivist forum, Ayn Rand already defined individual rights, I told you that's what I meant by freedom, so this comment of yours is simple dishonesty or incompetence, just like most of what you've written.

So how do I 'force' someone to have individual rights?

What are you asking me? How does one force someone to have individual rights (a contradiction) or why I think *your* position is tantamount to forcing someone to accept the idea?

Stop obfuscating. What is freedom? How do I force someone to be free? What is a right then? I'll be more than happy to offer my definitions, but you are the one that keeps asserting I can force someone to be free. Concretize that. Tell us exactly how I might do that. Tell me, in your own words, what it means to be free.

Since YOU are the one who proposes to force people to be free and not me you should be telling me how, but I didn't ask how since it's obviously a contradiction. All I can say at this point is that you are completely misreading me. It's time for you to start quoting what I said because you are completely off the tracks.

So you acknowledge that the US is the freest nation on the planet, but you are not a relativist.

It's amazing how brazenly you misread. I never said it was the freest. It's among the freest. But that is patently obvious. If you thought I didn't think that the US was among the freest then you shouldn't have been talking me anyway because obviously I'd have been nuts. But really, you can't read worth a damn. No wonder everything you say seems like you're foaming at the mouth. You misread half of what I say to make it look loony, and then you actually respond to the looniness. All I can say is: Learn to read.

All manifestations of freedom are important, you act like none are until ALL are respected, which is rediculous. My right to free speech is still valuable to me even if I dont have a right to engage in prostitution. Perhaps you can understand now why this relativist vs absolutist dichotomy is false when we are talking about tangible manifestations of freedom, and how many of those tangible manifestations are achieved is worthy of recognition and respect.

If you don't think it's an important question, would you move to North Korea or Iran?

Well obviously it's important to know what the best countries are if you intend to move there, and obviously no one would want to move to North Korea. You are seriously off the tracks in reading what I've written, and you should have known that.

You're ignoring the context here and you've evaded my attempt to put you back on track. The relevant question you refused to answer is what this has to do with whether we should be in the middle east. And on that question, it doesn't matter what is the freest country. We don't need to know where we should live to know whether Imperialism is a good role for government.

This is the last time I'll try to set you back on course, if you don't get back on track I'm just going to ignore you.

[Matus1976]

Is America freer than North Korea? Yes or no?

Are you insane? The answer is obvious.

Then answer the question, you certainly love obfuscation. You are a relativist and are ashamed to admit it!?

Again, the problem is you lack concretizations of freedom. You offer no definition of freedom, <snip>

This is an Objectivist forum, Ayn Rand already defined individual rights, I told you that's what I meant by freedom, so this comment of yours is simple dishonesty or incompetence, just like most of what you've written.

Ayn Rand despised doing the thinking for other people. In your own words tell us what you mean by freedom or individual rights. Or keep obfuscating to hide the fact that you can't answer the question in your own words.

So how do I 'force' someone to have individual rights?

What are you asking me? How does one force someone to have individual rights (a contradiction) or why I think *your* position is tantamount to forcing someone to accept the idea?

That is exactly my point Shayne, you CAN NOT *force* someone to have individual rights. Everyone has rights, always. You can act to prevent people from taking those away from those people, but you can not force them to be free. What is your position exactly, I am forcing people to respect individual rights? (damn right I am, that is the proper role of a government, stopping violations of rights) Or am I forcing an individual to recognize that he himself has individual rights? Am I holding a gun to their head and saying "Damnit, you've got a right to life!!! Listen to me or I'll Shoot!!!!!" Your position is rediculous. It makes no sense. It's contradictory. You are the one which charged ME with "FORCING SOMEONE TO BE FREE" you did NOT charge me with "Forcing someone to recognize they have individual rights" You change your mind alot and mix words often. Am I forcing someone to be free? Am I forcing someone to have rights? Am I forcing someone to Respect Rights? What is it?

Stop obfuscating. What is freedom? How do I force someone to be free? What is a right then? I'll be more than happy to offer my definitions, but you are the one that keeps asserting I can force someone to be free. Concretize that. Tell us exactly how I might do that. Tell me, in your own words, what it means to be free.

Since YOU are the one who proposes to force people to be free and not me you should be telling me how

You accused me of this, without ever once even identifying what you mean by freedom. Now you act like I am the one who is claiming to be forcing people to be free? Your are either being extremely disingenous or just outright lying.

, but I didn't ask how since it's obviously a contradiction. All I can say at this point is that you are completely misreading me. It's time for you to start quoting what I said because you are completely off the tracks.

Lets do that, You said on freedom in America -

post 40 - "America is the biggest threat to the spread of freedom throughout the world"

post 48 - "This (America) is not a free country, not even close. You have to be quite brainwashed to think otherwise. The best we can tout is free speech. Freedom of speech is a lot, but it is not freedom"

post 67 - "I do not know who the least oppressive nation is, it probably depends on what you as an individual want to do with your life. I'm sure the USA qualifies for many, including me"

You acknowledge America is the freest nation on the planet, you deride the 'relativist' assessment which leads you to that conclusion, you implicitly acknowledge that America is freer than North Korea, yet you feel America is the single biggest threat to freedom in the world. Yet you live in America. You love it and hate it. Must be difficult being you with such a powerful case of schizophrenia.

On 'forcing people to be free'

post 42 - ""I extend that courtesy" is a euphemism for forcing others to value what you value"

Post 49 - "Since you evidently believe in forcing people to be free "

post 67 - "Since you're the one who proposes to force people to be free I don't know why you are asking me."

To which I respodnded:

Post 52 - "You can not "force" people to be free, you can only prevent other people from oppressing those people or forcing them to do something against their will. Please give me an example of how I might force someone to be free."

post 52 - "So, please tell me, how is it that I can force liberty, or the freedom from coercion on someone. HOW CAN I FORCE SOMEONE TO BE FREE FROM COERCION"

post 61 - "To be free, in a proper political sense, means to be without coercive force. You still have yet to show me how I can FORCE someone to not be subjected to FORCE"

Post 65 - "How do I 'force' someone to be free?"

Not one single time have you even offered a remote concretization of how I might 'force' someone to be free. Nor even explained why my position necessarily leads you to draw that conclusion. You keep repeating it, it means nothing, you know it means nothing. It makes no sense. It's just a pandering comment used by alleged supporters of 'freedom' to defend their lack of support of other people who yearn for freedom. TELL ME how I can force someone to be FREE, or drop the rediculous argument. Merely repeating it over and over again, and then trying to pretend like you don't know why you charged me with that in the first place is no excuse.

WHEN did I say I want to force people to be free? Show me.

So you acknowledge that the US is the freest nation on the planet, but you are not a relativist.

It's amazing how brazenly you misread. I never said it was the freest. It's among the freest. But that is patently obvious. If you thought I didn't think that the US was among the freest then you shouldn't have been talking me anyway because obviously I'd have been nuts.

You say least oppressive, I say freest, you say tomahtoe, I say toemayto. 'Among' the freest, whatever, the point is the same. You have simaltaneously suggested that you can not rank countries based on their freedoms (because then you are a relativst) AND acknowledge that America is "among the freest" Are you a relativist then? Or can you rank countries by their freedoms yet not be a relativist? Of course you can, Let me repeat this important point you appear to be confused by.

- For every single individual measurement and tangible manifestation of freedom, the 'scale' is only absolute. You are either free to speak your mind or not, you are either free from being forced into military service or not, you are either free to sell your body for use to someone or you are not. Yet the amalgamation of all these is a relative scale, where no tangible manifestations of freedom are respected and protected by a government, the people in a nation are "not free" where some tangible manifestations of freedom are respected, the people in a nation are "partly free", where all tangible manifestations of freedom are respected, the people within a nation are free, and that nation is a 'free nation' The US respects more tangible manifestations of freedom than North Korea does, and as such is "more free" (or less oppressive) than the DPRK. Recognizing that one nation or one system respects more tangible manifestations of freedom is rational and proper, ignoring all nations as equally oppressive unless they respect all manifestations of freedom is rediculous.

All manifestations of freedom are important, you act like none are until ALL are respected, which is rediculous. My right to free speech is still valuable to me even if I dont have a right to engage in prostitution. Perhaps you can understand now why this relativist vs absolutist dichotomy is false when we are talking about tangible manifestations of freedom, and how many of those tangible manifestations are achieved is worthy of recognition and respect.

If you don't think it's an important question, would you move to North Korea or Iran?

Well obviously it's important to know what the best countries are if you intend to move there, and obviously no one would want to move to North Korea. You are seriously off the tracks in reading what I've written, and you should have known that.

Over and over again you have derided the very concept of ranking nations by their relative levels of respect for freedom. You have insisted essentially that unless every single freedom is respected, every single nation is just as bad as every other. Regardless of free speech, rule of law, representational governments, etc. After pressing, you finally acknowledge that the US is 'among the freest' and is certainly better than North Korea. Are all nations just as bad as every other (after all, you don't judge your freedom by watching other slaves, which is explicitly what you said) If this is not your position, state it? Can you look at others and judge how well you are treated compared to them? Can you prefer one level of treatment over another? What does that level of treatment relate to except to the extent of tangible freedoms a nation respects?

You're ignoring the context here and you've evaded my attempt to put you back on track. The relevant question you refused to answer is what this has to do with whether we should be in the middle east. And on that question, it doesn't matter what is the freest country. We don't need to know where we should live to know whether Imperialism is a good role for government.

Defining freedom and recognizing the role and the degree which various nations respect freedom is vitally important in guiding all US foreign policy, including of course the middle east. We can not talk about self defense without talking about rights and freedoms.

This is the last time I'll try to set you back on course, if you don't get back on track I'm just going to ignore you.

Frankly I don't care Shayne, I've learned nothing from you except a vague twisted idea of freedom lacking any concretizations. Your charge of me 'forcing freedom' on others is evidence of this, as the clear context of the first time you said this was that by your understanding of freedom I am advocating 'forcing' it on other people, and apparently upon reflection and discussion it seems you have come to agree that no meaningful definition of freedom can include 'forcing' it on someone and yet be logically, so instead you have replied with only vague evading remarks saying that "I" am the one advocating it, even though clearly you thought I was based on your understanding of freedom. Your false dichotomy of relative vs absolutist recognition of freedom is more evidence of this. Your refusal to define freedom is further evidence of this.

You have repeatedly charged me with 'forcing' freedom on others, I have repeatedly attempted to explain why this makes no sense. The onus is on you to explain why anything I said is rationally interpreted as 'forcing others to be free'.

Ultimately I think our largest source of disagreement is just that you would not call a nation free until it respected all tangible manifestations of freedom, while I might call one free when the majority of freedoms, or the most important tangible manifestations of freedom, are respected (free speech, representational government, free markets) Even so, you seem to loosely acknowledge now that it is important to recognize the degree and extent to which a nation recognizes manifestations of freedoms, since you don't want to live in North Korea.

[sjw]

Is America freer than North Korea? Yes or no?

Are you insane? The answer is obvious.

Then answer the question, you certainly love obfuscation. You are a relativist and are ashamed to admit it!?

1. I DID answer the question, you are simply too dishonest/incompetent to recognize it.

2. You keep using the word "obfuscation" for something it doesn't mean. Learn the English language.

3. I'm done dealing with your incoherent, context-dropping, off-topic rambling. And I'm done with your dishonest representations of what I've said (e.g., here, I EXPLICITLY answered that of course the US was better than North Korea later in my post, on top of that, you are being obtuse here because to call the question "insane" is to implicitly answer it).

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I skimmed over today's postings on this thread. I can't think of a reason to actually read them. I don't have the time, really, anyway. I'm in awe of the fact that you two had the time to actually write them.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Right on, Shayne. Trading with China was beneficial to China. However, it came at a steep price.

See America's inflated asset prices must fall

It is absolutely imperative to get US government out of the fiat money business, kill the Fed, precisely as Ron Paul rightly argues. Possibility of doing that is zero. I'm not sure that half-measures will avail. We're screwed -- and China is five times stronger as a result.

W.

Wolf, this is just great! For years the Greenspan Fed fought the business cycle, then Greenspan had the brains to get out before the chickens came home to roost!

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

For years the Greenspan Fed fought the business cycle, then Greenspan had the brains to get out before the chickens came home to roost!

--Brant

I've often wondered if Greenspan did it deliberately to make good Atlas, drive it over a cliff?

W.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

From what I have read from Bernstein and Greenspan, in addition to his Objectivist convictions, he took his oath of office seriously. Part of that oath entails maintaining a stable money supply as the purpose of the Fed.

Michael